Talk:Ellen MacArthur

message: Surely this is more a triumph of technology, rather than feats of one person? We should therefore be celebrating the technolgical and navigational advances which were the prime means of attaining this record? Controversial I know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.32.84 (talk • contribs) 
:Feel free to go and write some articles on the technology, then.  Joyous | Talk 15:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The technology certainly helps (until it starts to go wrong), but the novelty of it wears off after 71 days at sea :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.84.253.241 (talk • contribs) 
I'm getting really sick of hearing all this "triumph of technology" stuff.  It's total garbage.  The next person who tells me that "it's all easy now because it's all GPS" is going to be made to scrub out my holding tank.  I'm sure a lot of people — and I'm thinking of people who've never sailed on the ocean — imagine that trimming sail in a gale is as simple as pressing a button on the GPS, but let me tell you that button ain't there.  It's true that there are some boats with electric winches where sailing is done by button-pushing — I've sailed on an Amel Super Maramu which was like that — but those are illegal in racing and record setting, for the same reason that using the engine is illegal.  These are sailing events, and for competitive purposes the boat has to be propelled and controlled by wind and muscle power only.  (Exceptions are made for electronic auto-pilots — simply more accurate and safer than the traditional wind-powered equivalent.)
In any case, how do you imagine that "technology" helps with wrestling a huge, wet genoa weighing hundreds of pounds up through a tiny hatch onto a wet, heaving and wave-swept foredeck?  I can tell you from experience that handling a 32-foot heavy-displacement yacht with 650 ft² of sail (main and genoa) in a gale is a serious physical challenge, even with crew.  Doing the same single-handed on a 75-foot trimaran weighing a couple of tons less but with 2,900 ft² of sail is something I can't imagine and never want to experience!
What I think few people appreciate is just how incredibly hard racers have to work.  To win, you have to keep the boat moving at top speed, and that means trimming sail for every change in the wind.  Adjusting the sheets, putting in or shaking out a reef, or changing headsails goes on continually.  (I wait hours after a wind change, on the off-chance that it won't hold, because (a) my heavy boat can take it, (b) I don't give a damn about speed, and (c) I can't be bothered!).
The reason that Ellen is the fastest sailor in the world is that she is prepared to push herself harder than any other person sailing on the ocean, in the world, bar none.  At the slightest shift she's up there doing whatever it takes to keep the boat going at top speed, cranking a mainsail weighing as much as a small car up and down the mast God knows how many times a day.  She wins because she commits more physical effort to the job than anyone else, beyond the point where most people would break down and give up.  And that is a "feat of one person", pure and simple.
Technology obviously helps, but not with sailing the boat.  Technology designed a fast boat in the first place, but that only made Ellen's job much, much harder — when Robin Knox-Johnston did his trip, he was on a small, heavy boat with a tiny sail plan (coincidentally almost identical to my own boat), a fraction of the effort to sail compared to Kingfisher or B&Q.  Technology made B&Q into a huge boat that 10 people would have trouble managing.  Technology helps with navigation, and with communication — both important — but not with sailing the boat, except for the cool 2-hand winches which allow Ellen to translate sweat into sailing speed faster than anyone else has ever done. — Johan the Ghost seance 13:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Exactly.  I'm certainly not denying the huge amount of technology that makes a modern Open 60, say, an incredibly fast boat.  The point is that all the sailors in these races and record attempts have boats are like that.  Technology will only get you to the starting line, and on a level footing with all the other sailors.  Winning is down to the skipper. — Johan the Ghost seance 21:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology 

message: In terms of words the Criticism section is by far the dominant part of this article.  Questions for discussion:-
*  Is she such a controversial character that so much text is needed?
*  In the media praise far outweighed criticism.  What was the ratio? 2:1, 5:1, 10:1?? A proper balance needs to be established in the article.   
*  The round the world speed record does not have any restrictions placed on yacht design (except for engine use not allowed).  Why does this negate the achievements of any previous record holder who used the best technology of the time to race around the world non-stop?.
*  The technology, speeds achieved etc introduce a whole new set of skills and challenges.  eg Sleep deprivation, mental concentration, increased physical stamina etc etc.  This does not negate the achievements of previous record holders who were all 'pushing the boundaries'.  Some experts say that is does because it was achieved by a woman.
*  The motivation of record breakers can always be represented in a negative way to us mere mortals.  eg Self centred, selfish, competitive, money motivated, crushes the competition, etc etc but if they did not have some of these attributes they would not be world record breakers. If you follow her story, media interviews, documentaries etc etc have we seen any inference of money motivation?  Typically world record holders earn good money, the higher the profile typically the more they earn.  Every expert has an opinion so to balance the article, for every negative comment there needs to be one or two or three etc times as many supporting quotes from respected sources.
In summary valid negative criticim is not a problem but is she such a controversial character that requires such a large content in the article?.  Do you agree that negative criticism in the article must be balanced with respect to the dominant praise from media, experts, fellow competitors etc on her achievements??   Boatman 07:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see User:Labcoat has been reinserting the excessively critical passages which were removed earlier in accordance with what I read above in this discussion as the general consensus that they were overblown and not fair. Maybe be I am mistaken but that is how I read the discussion. User:Labcoat is also accusing people of vandalism which strikes me as contrary to Wikipedia:AGF. Do we want the current excessive (IMO) criticism section or do we want it reverted back to the more restrained version? Dabbler 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that this behaviour is destructive and unacceptable. I do not understand what this guy's (girl's?) problem is, it might help if he contributed on the talk page rather than flinging accusations of vandalism. Zargulon 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's me again, the one who "lopped" it. I don't see how the reverted version is anything vastly different to what's on there now, albeit in a much more concise form, removing unnecessary citable quotes and removing a lot of POV conjecture. I will once again remove the POV non-encyclopaedic language. It is not vandalism, it is streamlining. 80.4.187.123  —Preceding comment was added at 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You are the only rule-breaker, Labcoat. I do not think you had any basis for using the word "vandalism", particularly when the deletions were given *prior* support by the most recent opinions on the talk page. Sourced that material may be, but my above questions remain unanswered.. the 'criticism' about relating to her voyage being easier than previous is not actually criticism of either her or the voyage, is it? Merely a criticism of the interpretation they have received (allegedly.. do I detect a straw man?) in some quarters. As for her temperament even if it should be included it obviously doesn't deserve a "criticism" section, which looks kinda foolish. Just stick all this somewhere more stylish in one of the already existing sections and I wouldnt have any objection to it being reinstated. Zargulon 08:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: With respect, it isn't a separate matter. And you are also missing the point that even if a small amount of criticism should be in the article, it does not make sense here to have a separate section devoted to it. Zargulon 14:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, just saw your intermediate comment. I really favour integrating the material into existing sections rather than having a separate section devoted to it. A discussion of how great (or not) her achievement and a discussion of her temperament don't sit well in the same paragraph (whether it's called criticisms or perspectives). Rather the discussion of whether her achievement was exaggerated by the press should join the section on the round-the-world yacht race, and the discussion of her temperament, well it's quite difficult to find anywhere stylistically reasonable to put that.. it's pretty disconnected from anything else on the page. By the way I still don't understand what is meant by 'self-promotion'.. seeking sponsorship isn't self-promotion, it's self-finance via the promotion of others. Zargulon 14:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I live in the UK  and until I read this article I only knew of MacArthur as a prominent sailor.. I didn't give her personality a second thought. To be honest, I still don't. I also think the fact that she is a woman adds to her achievement.. just as for a lot of commentators and satirists it is apparently an excuse to look for kinds of low-level faults that I imagine they would not if she were a male sailor. Zargulon 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok. I think this needs to be expressed more precisely. Zargulon 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please give it a try. If it reads sensibly I will support you. Zargulon 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: certainly. Zargulon (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "MacArthur's detractors and those that satirise her do enjoy popular support from a broad spectrum of the British public." - Er...just who exactly? I was at her homecoming at Falmouth - which is the most southwesterly one can go. The place was packed with people from all over the place. Is there an "Anti-Ellen" group that we're not aware of?
The only way to settle this would be to put a separate "Admiration" section in to counter the criticism section. We would then be getting into all manner of character references and opinionated conjecture; stuff I believe does not lie in a Wiki article. LOPPER 212.32.86.43 (talk)
** 100% agree with LOPPER above.  Ref Labcoat's question re compromise - The article currently says: "Critics of MacArthur's voyage emphasise the vast, near incomparable differences in the technological capabilities of present-day sailing vessels against those used by previous record holders.  In addition to this some commentators have found her personality challenging and overly negative. Her temperament is something that forms the central basis for her caricature on the BBC satirical comedy show Dead Ringers."  All true, very clearly stated with references provided for further external references.   This is not a half way compromise from anyone it is a very unambiguous statement of fact.  As soon as we get into the realms of assumptions around motivation, assumptrions regarding the state of her bank balance, assumptions about what % of UK dislike versus % who like her then this is outside the realms of an encyclopdia.  (Incidentally I live and work in France and I am amazed how many non-sailing people people have heard of 'ellen macarteur'.  So I think that I will add that observation to the article and I will also add that that France have adopted her as one of their own due to her sailing achievements in Castorama and due to her charitable work in France - Oops, best not as I have just remembered that Wikepedia is an Encyclopedia!!) The critism as currently stated is as concise and factual as can be and no compromise needed.  Boatman (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the amount of text in 'Criticism' paragraph valid/balanced?

message: As a non-sailor, perhaps I am not welcome to offer observations, in which case delete me.  However, in looking over this colloquy I find myself wondering about several questions: 1) Are the correspondents underemployed, making available time to engage in this seemingly endless discussion? and 2) What is it about this woman (about which I know almost nothing, which is why I came to Wikipedia in the first place), which engenders such irrepressible emotion?  OK, so now I know she has an abrasive manner (which apparently serves to disqualify her to some degree for recognition), and has performed remarkable feats (to which, to a disputed and unresolvable degree technology has contributed).Does anyone think this obsessive chat will resolve any of this?  Give it a rest, please.Mallow1 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a general Wikipedia policy and methodology. Someone tries to extend an article in a direction that others don't want to go. Rather than each party obsessively rewriting and reverting the article ad nauseam, which would make it change every few minutes, they try and resolve the issue by coming to a consensus here in the Talk pages on what should be in the article and what shouldn't. If after a time a general agreement is reached, the article is rewritten and then any subsequent changes to that aspect can be regarded as closer to vandalism than an attempt to improve. Dabbler (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We are at very least relating to each other constructively - our aim may be futile, but roads are for journeys as well as destinations. At any rate, you seem have the time on your hands to mock us for it.. doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Zargulon (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Bye! Good luck. Zargulon (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Observations 

message: MacArthur is a Dame, was the title bestowed or inheritated? The article doesn't clarify this enough. Zidel333 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noble Title 

message: The article contains this sentence.
"She acquired her early interest in sailing, firstly by her desire to emulate her idol at the time, Sophie Burke and, secondly by reading Arthur Ransome's Swallows and Amazons books and is the Patron of the Nancy Blackett Trust[2] which owns and operates Ransome's yacht, Nancy Blackett."
Does anyone agree that the part about her being patron of the Nancy Blackett Trust should be removed from "Early Life"? It hardly seems the right place for it, though I do think it's worth including in the article. I thought about moving it to the "Charitable activity" section but since the Nancy Blackett Trust is a limited company (I've confirmed that with Companies House) and I'm not sure of it's charitable status I'm not sure if that's the right place.
I believe it makes sense to put it in Charitable activity, but thought I'd get other input first. Jack of Many (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life and Nancy Blackett trust 

message: Is there any need for this section. Why does it matter that other people think she's negative. Perhaps we should move the point about the technological advances to the actual section on here Round the World voyage.
The stuff about the parodies and satirisation could remain and the section renamed "Satire".
What do people think? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ellen MacArthur english sailor.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ellen Mac Arthur english sailor 2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ellen MacArthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006073002/http://www.ipa.nw.ru/PAGE/DEPFUND/LSBSS/ALF/21.htm to http://www.ipa.nw.ru/PAGE/DEPFUND/LSBSS/ALF/21.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think Ellen MacArthur Foundation should be merged with this page. There isn't enough RS about the EMF to justify a standalone article and this page isn't too lenghthy or unweildy to accomodate it.Daily Spider Glee (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Watkyn Jones You haven't indicated any relevant policies. This merger propsal has existed long enough for a non-SPA to make a reasonable counter argument. I'm going ahead with the merger WP:BEBOLD style.ديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal