Talk:Donald Crowhurst/Archives/2017

Teignmouth Electron photo

I uploaded a photograph of the Teignmouth Electron (300 px) as she was found abandoned in the Atlantic; however I had placed a licence tag on it indicating copyright by the London Daily Globe, and as such it is subject to speedy deletion. I selected this tag because 1) I did not know the current copyright status of the photo; and 2) there is no tag line in Wikipedia for anything from a news reporting service. The photo itself was originally taken/copyrighted by the Daily Globe in 1969, the sponsor of the race the Electron was in. So, what could be done? Is it a "fair use" image? Carajou 18:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You can always try to make a case for fairuse (in which case, use the {{Non-free fair use in}} template), but I really don't see a strong one here. There really isn't any need for the article to depict the boat, and it's easy enough for us to provide an external link to a site with a picture. - Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My case was for a specific tag recognizing a photo from a news organization; I won't post it without a tag. I also think the site would be better with the pic than without, but that's just my opinion. Carajou 05:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely the paper sponsoring the race was the Sunday Times, not the Daily Globe as asserted above? Perhaps there is some confusion because the title of the race was the "Golden Globe"? Orbitalforam 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's any help, I just came to this article having spotted a replica of the boat apparently being used for filming in Bristol. I snapped a photo which might be useful for the article, though I have no idea whose replica it is, or what filming was happening. gothick (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not much of a help, because the boat in your photo is not a replica of Teignmouth Electron (despite the name on the hull). It's the trimaran used for a film about the voyage (not "The Mercy" with Colin Firth) and it is not even a Victress (Crowhurst's boat was a significantly modified Victress built to his own specifications, except that due to shortage of time the boat-builders skipped a fibreglass stage and the boat leaked from early in the voyage). "The Mercy" uses an accurate replica Orbitalforam (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverting of new lede 29/10/15

Dmol has seen fit to revert my new lede without giving a single example of what is deemed to be wrong with it.

He mentions ‘substantial change’, but the only change is the length, which is more in proportion. Every point is drawn correctly from the main article. Also I have apparently made the edit ‘without consensus’. Forgive me, I didn’t know that editorial changes had to be voted on in advance.

Finally he says ‘Best to discuss on talk page’. I couldn’t agree more. He could simply have itemised his objections on this page, and the issue could have been settled in a spirit of civilised debate.

As I prefer not to get into childish edit-wars, I will not re-revert at this time. But unless either he or someone else can demonstrate my errors, I may see fit to do so after a suitable interval. Valetude (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the lede has been almost identical for over 10 years, it is safe to assume that there is a concensus for keeping that way. If you wish to change it substantially, then it is up to you to suggest changes and allow discussion on this page. The onus is on the person changing or disputing information.

But as you insist on some itimised points, I'll be glad to point them out.

You changed him from being a businessman to inventor. While it is true that he did design some electircal equipment, he was primarily a business man. His widow said when interviewed for the doco "Deep Water" that his business kept them going ok. (I can't remember the exact words).

Ironically you then say that he joined to save his ailing business. As mentioned earlier, the word businessman has been there 10 years with no move to change it.

You have changed a very succinct lede to one that tries to tell the whole story. Chichester's opinion is not lede-worthy, nor is Nigel Tetley's reaction to the reported positions. These both should remain in the main text where they have been for a long time.

If you want to change a long-standing lede, please discuss here.--Dmol (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave this - but would just comment that Crowhurst's only notability was as a fraudulent competitor in one yachting race in which the public were extremely interested in the reactions of Tetley and Chichester, and that his career as a businessman and inventor would not have rated a wiki page. Valetude (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No-one ever said it did, so even this comment seems a bit pointless!Orbitalforam (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)