Talk:Circumnavigation

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sailing Start‑class Low‑importance Circumnavigation is within the scope of the WikiProject Sailing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sailing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.SailingWikipedia:WikiProject SailingTemplate:WikiProject SailingSailing articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Transport: Maritime This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Low-importance). Geography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

No Fideas Fogg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.122.145 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sandhurst's deletion of Jason Lewis information. The October issue of Outside magazine outlines the fact that Jason Lewis' expedition does not conform to the Guinness guidelines on two counts; legs completed out of order, and that he did not exclusively use his own power crossing the Atlantic Ocean. These facts can be further verified by looking in the history of Jason Lewis' own site - www.expedition360.com. His site details a leg of the journey near Australia where he then received a tow and then returned years later to complete this section. Lewis also pedalled across the ocean with a partner and they took turns propelling the boat. The Guinness Guidelines clearly indicate this is not allowed. Outside Magazine is the world's leading outdoor magazine in terms of readership. They have no reason for bias, and this is what they have reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.58 (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and I personally dont see what Sandhurst finds so defamitory, the section is properly referenced and correct. However, that said, I am not convinced the paragraph belongs in the article anyways, he has not even finished his trip and once finished it does not even qualify as a human powered circumnavigation anyways. Once he has actually completed the trip I may be able to be convinced otherwise though.Russeasby 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Russeaby that Lewis' expedition doesn't really merit mention since it isn't a proper circumnavigation. The only thing, however, is I've noticed all the British media are stating that it is the first human powered circumnavigation and some are even saying it complies with Guinness. I think a lot of the media come here to get information, so it probably is worthwhile including this information so they get the relevant information on Lewis. What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.66.49 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Human Powered Circumnavigation: “circumnavigation of the northern hemisphere” needs to be changed. By definition to circumnavigate means to go around the perimeter of an object. Webster’s ninth edition defines “circumnavigate” as to go around instead of through. For example, if you walk a big circle around the middle of an island you have not circumnavigated the island. It is necessary to travel beyond the outer perimeter of the shoreline.The northern hemisphere is composed of everything north of the equator. This means a circumnavigation of the northern hemisphere would have to be a route that takes place outside of this region.

Colin’s journey could be correctly termed as a circumnavigation of the southern hemisphere, a circumnavigation of the North Pole, or a circumnavigation within the northern hemisphere. The first two are confusing and don’t adequately convey what the journey is composed of. “A circumnavigation within the northern hemisphere” or “A circumnavigation of the world within the northern hemisphere” would be the most accurate description.

According to what dictionary does circumnavigate by itself mean circumnavigate the globe. Mine doesn't give that definition. Is this accepted or just bad practice? Rmhermen 12:17 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

My dictionaries tend to give "to go round something" but "esp. the world, and esp. by sea." I've changed it to try and make this clear. --Camembert

The change is close, but not quite right; "circumnavigate" does not "literally" mean "navigation of a circumference", it means "navigation around" (something - often the earth), strictly (etymologically) by ship (Latin "circum", around + "navigare", to sail a ship, from "navis", a ship), but by modern usage in almost anything (I could circumnavigate London by driving my car round the M25). "Circumference", from "circum" + "ferre" (to carry), i.e. (the path that) carries one round something, is based on the same preposition, "circum"; "circumnavigate" is not derived from "circumference", but directly from "circum". Since this article relates specifically to circumnavigation of the Earth, the head should make this restriction of scope clearer. I will have a go at a suitable change. FredV (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Pidgeon, 1869 - 1954. That can't be right! The others are dates when they did the circumnavigation. This looks like someone's birth. I understand Pidgeons circumnavigations were 1921-1925 1932-1937. See eg [[1]]. Billlion 09:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He can not have circumnavigated since he died on the way. Del Cano or Enrique should be considerred the First Circumnavigator.--Jondel 04:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The entry Henry the Black makes a good historic point and should be spiffed up with wikilinkage and cleaned up styling. Wetman 04:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do some linkages and clean ups.--Jondel 04:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why didn't Magellan circumnavigate? He bought Henry in the Moluccas and died west of there. Is it a requisite to return to the same port? --84.42.146.44 13:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. I reworded the text to make this clear. Gdr 17:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magellan´s intention was not to circumnavigate the globe but to find the western rute to Molucas beyond America. Elcano decided to get back to Spain navigating on to the West —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.76.62 (talk)

It is not sure that Magellan ever was on the Moluccas or at any point east of Malacca before. See article Henry_the_Black. If Magellan´s most eastern point was Malacca (before he then travelled west) there is 22 degrees missing for a whole trip round. Same with Enrique when he (maybe) not accompanied the Spanish (the Magellan Journey was a spanish adventure!) back to Europe. If these two points kill - maybe there was any experienced sailor woh first visited India and then was with the Magellan journey - and rounded the earth when sailing back through the indish ocean? For a really detailled analysis of the question "who was it first !?!" a record on every man´s sailing experience participating would be needed - otherwise there stay the 18 men crossing their own way anywhere in the atlantic ocean. -- 217.187.185.12 22:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Tania Aebi, 1985–1987, youngest (at age 18-20) and first American woman to complete a solo circumnavigation aboard 26' sailboat Varuna."

I think that the inclusion of this entry is slighly suspect to say the least!

It is made quite clear in the book "Maiden Voyage" (ISBN: 0345410122) by Tania Aebi and Bernadette Brennan that there was one leg of the "circumnavigation" that was completed with more than one person on board - somewhere in the Pacific and of around 500 miles.

When told of this fact by an anonymous note left on the boat Aebi ponders whether to retrace her steps and complete the leg again or just carry on. As far as I recall (it's been a few years since I read the book) she carried on. M100 21:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think leave her entry in but amend it. How about something like "would have been the youngest ...had it not been for..."? Billlion 20:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been done about this since it was brought up, I am changing it now to read "American woman who completed a solo circumnavigation by the age of 20, one 80 nautical mile stretch with crew disqualified her from an official record" (her book was referenced for the correct information) Russeasby 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It can be seen that the route roughly approximates a great circle, and passes through two pairs of antipodal points.", "It can be seen that the route does not pass through any pairs of antipodal points." I don't understand what does these lines on antipodes implies/means. Anyone care to explain? --218.103.172.147 08:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were there ever references for this article? There are inline citations that have no accompanying footnotes. Isopropyl 05:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a glitch in one of the ref tags (wasn't closed), so it masked the whole end matter. Fixed now. Akradecki 05:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Ken Barnes or even an "attempted" section warents inclusion on this page. I hardly think his own article should be on WP. Russeasby 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unregistered wikipedian keeps vandalising Circumnavigation so I am request it be semi-protected. Russeasby 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the editor at 70.66.193.53 no one is objecting to your inclusion of the human powered circumnavigation, but this is an encyclopedia, your human powered circumnavigation addition does not fit the definition of a circumnavigation per Guiness, which is certainly an authority on such matters. So the edit myself and others have continuely tried to add to your addition simply clarifies that. It is in no way ment to belittle the increadable feat these people pulled off and I for one think their feat deserves inclusion here, but it needs to be clear that it is not a commonly accepted technical circumnavigation.

As to the External Link you keep readding, since you link to the same exact Press Release from National Geographic as your reference and thus it is already linked to from this Article, I do not see what warrents its inclusion twice in another form.

Per the 3 reverts rule I personally am not going to edit this part of the article again today, but I do hope to resolve the matter. Russeasby 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Russeasby: The basis of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia is that all facts need to be cited. There is no statement on the internet from an official source which outlines the requirements (if there are any) from Guinness for a human-powered circumnavigation. With regards to antipodal requirements, this is not required of many types of circumnavigations including yacht racing, powered aircraft circumnavigations, and balloon circumnavigations. What official source on the internet states that a human powered circumnavigation is required to reach antipodal points? National Geographic is considered a leading source of Geographical information and there are numerous sources on the internet indicating National Geographic has accepted this expedition as valid. The only sources stating otherwise are individual websites where various definitions have been created to suit personal needs.

Anonymous editor: Please check the reference I added earlier today to the World Circumnavigation section, that page does cite the following:

A true circumnavigation of the world must pass through two points antipodean to each other.' Norris McWhirter, founding editor of Guinness, 1971.

In a separate statement by Guinness they confirm that "for a 'true' circumnavigation reaching antipodal points (within a degree of tolerance) be required". [Stewart Newport, Guinness Record Management Team]

If you are confused by this the page, while it belongs to an attempt team, does make a very good explaination of what this all means.

Again, I, and other editors who have several times readded some wording to your addition, are not suggesting removal of your addition, it certainly warrents inclusion. But I think it needs to be clear that your entry is not considered by all authorities as a circumnavigation, I think the version I and others have tried to keep in does that while not taking away

from the feat itsself, which still includes the NG reference.

If you think the version I am trying to keep is too POV, feel free to rewrite it in a way that expresses both POV neutrally. But to completely remove neautrality in favor of your personal view on the matter is very much against wikipedia standards. I do think the other version is neutral, as it cites both Guiness and NG and explains the conflicting opinions. Russeasby 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem unpleased with the reference I cited reguarding guiness definition of a circumnavigation and insist there are no web refereces to it, here is two more web references citing the definition by guiness:

http://www.sevenoceans.com/SoloCircumnavigation/CircumnavigationUnderSails/WhatIsCircumnavigation.htm

http://www.wimausa.org/WMA_Benka.html

If guiness has made a special provision for a human powered circumnavigation, you have to cite that for us. As it stands now, my origonal citation I think is satisfactory as a reference to guiness view on it. Russeasby 23:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russ: I don't disagree that reaching antipodal points is required for some definitions. The requirements are different depending on what kind of circumnavigation you are doing:

An official nautical circumnavigation, according to the International Sailing Federation/World Sailing Speed Record Council, requires, for example, that the vessel start from and finish at the same port, cross all meridians of longitude, cross the Equator, and travel at least 21,600 nautical miles (40,000 kilometres). There are no antipodal requirements

The FAI states that for a powered aircraft to officially circumnavigate the planet it must cross all meridians in one direction, travel a distance of at least 36,787.559 kilometres (the length of the Tropic of Cancer), and complete the journey at the point of departure. There is no requirement that it cross the Equator or touch on two antipodal points (points that are directly opposite one another on the globe). Most existing continuous circumnavigation records that are not solely nautical have followed these rules. Guinness World Records endorses the FAI requirements by recognizing feats that have adhered their guidelines: the Guinness record for the fastest circumnavigation of the planet (excluding orbiting space craft) is held by Air France for a Concorde flight that lasted just over 31 hours, and was completed entirely within the northern hemisphere.

The 250,000 horsepower thrust of the Concorde's engines allow it to make progress against the strongest of winds, and to stay within a few hundred metres of a perfect great circle route. In other words, there is no form of transportation more capable of tracing a perfect circumnavigation of the Earth. If Guinness accepts this, it would be ludicrous to make tougher rules for people on their own two feet.

You will be able to find references many references on the internet stating that antipodal requirements are required for certain types of circumnavigations,but never for human powered circumnavigations (apart from on the self-serving website of Jason Lewis).

I cannot provide any references to what guidelines Guinness proffers for a human-powered circumnavigation because I have been unable to find any information available either on the net or elsewhere. I'm assuming they have never created a definition for a human powered circumnavigation.

To make things more readable for others here, I suggest signing your post, just type four "~" at the end of your last sentance. It just sticks your username (or IP address in your case) and a date/time. Makes disercning between who is saying what easier.

Ok, now I dont disagree with any of what you said. Indeed for certain cases exceptions are made to the antipodal rule. But please note that those exceptions are defined within this article and I have no argument with them. As well, you are right that there is no web reference that specifically addresses human powered circumnavigations. The reference I cited origonally does have a quote reguarding "true" circumnavigations, quoting and naming a specific person at Guiness. This and other references which point out the basic Guiness definition are the only ones usable here, since Guiness has apparently not made an exception for Human Powered at this time. If they were going to, wouldnt they have though prior to this particular competion? Does not seem they did, but that is speculation only, so I cant suggest it as proof of anything.

What if we changed the wording, is there somehting specific in it you object to? Every other section makes mention of how it relates to the antipodal definition, it makes perfect sense that this one should as well. I am looking over the current change which John Reese just put back in, and I quote it "Guinness Book of World Records state the need to cross the equator at least once in their category for human powered circumnavigation attempts", well, I can agree we do not have a reference to cite to say this exactly. What if it read more like (paraphrased) "Guiness ... has not made a known exception to the antipodal definition of a circumnvagation reguarding human powered circumnavigations". Or something along those lines? I am willing to hear suggestions.

I do hope you understand where i am coming from in that the fact that this specific circumnavigation was not antipodal really should be mentioned here, it conforms with the rest of the article and is up to good encylopedic standards I think. Russeasby 00:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank. Okay, I am trying to come up with a suggested revision and hear your comments on it. Note this is just a quick suggestion, not something I am submitting as perfect, but more to open discussion more to comprimise. I would like your comments.

"In 2006 Colin Angus completed the first circumnavigation of the planet entirely by human power by rowing across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and trekking, cycling and skiing through 17 countries. Though this was not an antipodal circumnavigation, as it remained in the northern hemisphere, the National Geographic recognized it as as the first human powered circumnavigation. Though Guiness has not made a known exception for for human powered circumnavigations, as it has for others (see aviation and maritime sections)."

This obviously isnt ready to just drop in, I welcome your comments. Russeasby 01:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russ: You make some valid points, as do the other fellows below. I was the one that actually first wrote the human powered entry after reading about it in National Geographic Adventure Magazine. I felt it would be a suitable entry for circumnavigations.

Your above entry looks reasonable. Or, perhaps now is too premature to even include an entry on human powered circumnavigations. This page seems to include various rules for different circumnavigations tied to reliable sources, along with the feats that have adhered to these rules.

At this point our entry would basically be "maybe this guy did it, and we haven't found any valid rules yet" which isn't really in line with the definitive stuff in the rest of the article.

What do you think about just removing the entry and waiting until Guinness or National Geographic officially writes something about the required rules, etc? Frank

Frank: Oh no, dont make me argue now for the inclusion of it! I really do want to see this included. I realize you were the origonal editor who added it. Personally I would not have known about it otherwise, its an amazing feat. Then another user modified what you said and added the additional things which I saw as well. I personally found the newer one better since it conformed better with the other sections. Though in the process of our debate I realize it has issues as well. I want to see a comprimise that is encyclopedic and factual. My personal opinion is these guys went around the world, I want the entry here and will fight to keep it if I need to, I dont think anyone wishes it to not be listed. I just think, in the nature of wikipedia it needs to remain neautral and if conflicting evidence exists, it needs to be listed, wether one agrees with it or not.

Why it should definately be listed: Even if a its an attempt and fails, its the first successful attemp, even if not meeting certain guidelines. For instance I wouldnt recommend inclusion of the dozens of yachts that circumnavigate every year, thats no longer notable, but the first? Of course it needs to be here, if its not technically by some definitions the first, it should still be included, its the most notable attempt so far. Plus a world wide recognized organization, Nation Geographic, recognizes it, though they are not of the same authority as Guiness in records, it is still a very valid reference. I just wish to see both sides included.

Some formatting needs addressing too, Human Powered needs a proper section up with aviation and maritime, rather then tacked on the end. But I wanted to figure this dispute out first before reorganizing things. To be honest, I found a lot of great info on other circumnavigations that warrent inclusion due to my web searching for this argument and hopefully can improve the article overall even more.

I would still like to hear some wording suggestions for the inclusion of the Human Powered section that remains NPOV yet still recognizes the amazing feat the couple accompished. Russeasby 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another suggestion, slightly different:

"In 2006 Colin Angus completed a circumnavigation of the northern hemisphere entirely by human power by rowing across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and trekking, cycling and skiing through 17 countries. Even though not antipodal, the National Geographic credits this as the first human powered circumnavigation, though Guiness has made no known exception for human powered circumavigations in this case (see World Circumnavigation)."

Russeasby 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russ: That looks great. It includes the attempt and remains completely neutral. I don't think anyone would argue that it is biased one way or another.

Wow, so this section (HPC) seems to be controlled by some sort of Nazi mob of mafioso armchair experts who, despite being barely to spell and string intelligible sentences together, decide who and what content can be contributed. I recently updated some (non point of view) information regarding independent recognition by Explorers Web for a 13 year effort (on my part) to circumnavigate the world by human power (in the absence of Guinness having a 'first' HPC category). It was deleted immediately by one of you on grounds that, as web-based information, it was not valid. Who the hell do you think you guys are - God? Thanks for being NPOV (not). Jason Lewis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonlewis6123 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Jason, I want to refer you to WP:NPA, personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia and I do not take kindly to being compared to a Nazi (I was the one who removed the sentance you added). Also, you should read over WP:COI reguarding editing an article which you have a clear conflict of interest with, especially when making edits directly about yourself.

As for Guinness, they do have a Human Powered Circumnavigation ruleset, you can read it here: [2] but I am sure you are familiar with it. No, they dont recognize a 'first', because no one has yet accomplished it according to their rules. We went over this before when Colin Angus finished his attempt which Nation Geographic recognized but Guinness did not. I doubt anyone would or could question that Guinness is the recognized authority for world records of all sorts. Now if a notable organization does recognize your effort even if Guinness does not, its certainly worth mentioning, as is the comprimise we came to when a similar conflict arose with Colin Angus. However the explorerweb you wanted to put in is a non-notable organization. If a notable organization does come forward and recognize it as an offical circumnavigation and first, then I myself would be happy to see its mention included. But trivial details like a non notable organizations view are best put into the Jason Lewis article.

And before you or anyone acuses me of bias against you, please look back at the history of this article, you will see I have fought to keep references to the Lewis attempt in while others have tried removing them, I was even once accused of being you due to these attempts.

This section of the article has been an area of considerable conflict, with supporters from both Lewis and Angus camps attempting to enter biased and POV info for awhile now. The reason I keep an eye on this article is I am neatral and I try to maintain balance and NPOV when biased parties do jump in. You would be amazed at how many single purpose accounts edit this article (like yourself). If you disagree with my stance we can certainly discuss it, as you can see I am always open to that and prefer it, we can also request a third party opinion. But never should one resort to personal attacks, in WP and in life, its never a good way to acheive anything. Russeasby 20:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PullToOpen (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (Russeasby 23

04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)): In the Human Powered Circumnavigation section it needs to be noted that the it was not an antipodal circumnavigation thus Guiness does not consider it a true circumnavigation, while also still accepting that National Geographic does accept it. Note that Aviation and Maritime sections both make references to how they compare to antipodal circumnavigations.

Viewpoint by (Frank Hearnden)

There is no reference on the internet that states Guinness requires antipodal requirements for a human powered circumnavigation. The reference Russeasby refers to is taken from the website of Jason Lewis who states he wishes to be the first to circumnavigate the planet by human power, therefore it is in his interest to create a definition that validates his own route. The statement that Guinness says ""for a 'true' circumnavigation reaching antipodal points (within a degree of tolerance) be required" is out of context and has no reference to a human powered circumnavigation.

Third opinion by PullToOpen

My initial opinion is to agree with Russeasby's point of view. If the Human Circumnavigation in question doesn't meed the circumnavigation requirements laid out by Guiness, then I don't think it should be included. If Guiness doesn't have any requirements reguarding antipodal circumnavigations, which seems to be the case, then two questions should be asked before the information is added. First, can this be verified by reliable sources? If it can, then the attempt should be kept in the article. If not, then it should not be there. PTO 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the third opinion PullToOpen. Not sure how to properly reply to this format on a talk page, so assuming this is okay here....

I do not think there is any dispute on the inclusion of this particular circumnavigation. Even if its not technically by some standards considered a circumnavigation, it should be included as it would at least be the closest attempt thus far, thus notable for inclusion. I think all parties want it included. The problem arises in how this particular entry is worded, Frank (70.66.193.53) reverts it to basicly a strait fact entry of a circumnavigation, while I and others who have reverted Franks entries wish to see it included that this was not antipodal and thus not Guiness definition of a circumnavigation. I am happy to work with rewording things to make Frank happy, but really feel the antipodal issue needs to be mentioned (as it is in all the other articles) and the Guiness definition, which is readily available, should be mentioned. Though it should be added (which has not yet) that Guiness has not specificly made a definition for human powered, thus the only reference we have is their basic definition. Russeasby 00:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it seems I misunderstood the statement...:D. Sorry. Anyway, I agree that any controversy reguarding the validity of the circumnavigation should be included along with documentation of the attempt. In case I screwed up my wording again, I'll try to make this simple for myself: I agree with Russeasby on all points of this conflict. PTO 01:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the world circumavigation section "sailing" is how its labeled for sea based circumnavigations. Yet in the notible section the term Maritime is used. I think Msritime is the better definition, as obviously (even if not listed here yet) power vessels have circumnavigated. I intend to change "sailing" to "maritime", though am open to perhaps a subsection being included within maritimje if warrented. Ideas anyone? Lets make this a good article. Russeasby 02:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of notable circumnavigators is longer then the article itsself. I dont suggest trimming it as it is a worthwhile list for sure, but perhaps moving it to a seperate article is a good idea at this point? My thought is to move the list to its own article and within this article expand a bit upon specific highly notable circumnavigators. Russeasby 05:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's too lengthy and should be in it's own article. Jon 13:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to moving this out into a seperate list. I left a few in the main article, but I am not particularly attached to those I chose so if anyone wants to take a stab at sifting through the list and picking out the most notable of the bunch for inclusion in the main article, have at it. Russeasby 02:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone circumnavigated both under sails and by air? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.94.228.13 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

hi, abhilash here. has anyone ever done a solo circumnavigation under sail and by air? awaiting answers. 203.94.228.13 15:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a lot of edits lately related to Jason Lewis and the section on Human Powered Circumnavigations. This is understandable since he has just completed his expedition and thus there is interest in the story. But lets all try to be reasonable here and try to remaine NPOV. The same thing happend when Colin Angus completeled his expidtion. There is always going to be people (some COI, some fans and some just disagreeing) who want to promote their POV when a major and publicied feat like this has been accomplished. I wont argue that Jason Lewis feat is unworthy of mention here, but NPOV needs to be maintained. Among world records, wether it be speed, firsts, whatever, Guiness is well recognized as the authority on such record keeping and authorizing. Acording to their guidelines, no one to date has yet completely a true human powered circumnavigation, and that includes Jason Lewis (who took, what, 10 years? lots of non human powered trips back home then returning to the last stop to restart?). Now, since no one has actually completed one, the most notable efforts are certainly worth inclusion here, but pushing POV and trying to change the article to suggest someone has actually done it, when they havnt, is not encyclopedic (look back at the arguments of Colin Angus who didnt hit antipodal points). This article is not the place to go into a lot of details about who and what thinks this and that, keep it breif and to the point, its already silly that anyone mentioned in the Human Powered section has more detail then any other specific person has in any other section, this article is an overview of circumnavigations, keep the details and arguments to the articles specific to the person and/or feat. Wikipedia is not the place for anyone to do their marketing and/or propiganda, an amazing feat will stand on its own without COI suggestions otherwise (and anyone editing suggesting orgs they are appealing to before this is public information is probably a COI editor). Russeasby 07:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right there. The same thing happened with Colin Angus when they finished their expedition - they are all trying to say it's a circumnavigation when it isn't so with Guinness. I think we can all agree Guinness is the ultimate authority on things like this, and they've definitely got a set of guidelines. There's a guy right now - Erden Eruc - who's doing a circumnavigation right following the Guinness Guidelines to a T. Gimpyleg

I just rewrote the entire section. I dont claim to be a good writer though so my apologies ahead of time! The goal in my rewrite is to make the section conform to the style of the rest of the article. Such details about where one rollerbladded or rowed and such is excessive detail for this article, people can find such detail in the articles devoted to that subject. Likewise entire paragraphs for each attempt under human power are not warrented, a sole paragraph dicussing the attempts made so far is enough. Note that other sections follow this generally (and they have people who actually have fufilled this goal). Keep the COI/POV/etc edit wars to the pages specific to these people (where hopefully they will ultimately be resolved). Russeasby 05:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just because you lke boats doesn't mean that cicumnavigation is all about boats. You have far out-weighed this section with ocean-circumnavigations. no one is vandalisin anything, just adding info on land circumnavigations! - Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.175.218 (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing the Jason Lewis and Colin Angus information from the article? I notice you want to add a couple people and/or attempts, which is fine, but please do so without removing other major sections and avoid using POV words like "Amazing!". Russeasby 15:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because in this section headed 'human-powered' you are telling us about these who didn't achieve that. why? If the word 'amazing' bothers you then take it out. No big deal. Too much on boats!

We talk about Colin Angus and Jason Lewis because their attempts are notable and signifigant, even if they did not fully succeed under Guinness guidelines. Since no one to date has actually completely a human powered circumnavigation under these guidelines, the most notable attempts are worth including. I am not against you adding information about runners/walkers, please do, just please dont remove the Lewis/Angus entries while doing so. As for "boats", look at the Nautical section, it hardly mentions people or attempts at all. Russeasby 15:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have probably been thousands of 'notable failures', which serves us little to know about. You almost entirely missed foot circumnavigations, out-weighed this section with boat attempts, which number the thousands and you missed 2 of the most famous circumnavigators as listed on Wikipedia (Arthur Blesit and Heinz Stucke). - Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.175.218 (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, please stop removing the Angus/Lewis information. I have no problem with you adding the others, but why must you insist these others be removed? THey both received a fair amoung of media coverage and their attempts are certainly notable. I will try to work on a version which retains this but adds the people you wish added since you cannot seem to simply ad them without deleting other areas as well. Russeasby 15:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well OK Jason, I just think that there should be a balance...

I suspect this is directed at me for some reason. Note my name is Russell, not Jason. I am not sure where you see a problem with balance, I am not trying to add "boat" attempts here, this is the human powered section we are in conflict on and I am trying to retain more information on human powered, not remove any or add more "boats". Russeasby 15:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to want to 'OWN' this section...I suggest that instead of writing 'this man was an American' and 'this man was another American' BUT forget to write what other non-American nationalities are, you do it it like this in all cases, after the persons name (USA) (UK) (CN) etc... then you would avoid people thinking that you are trying to re/write history in favour of other Americans... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.175.218 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont "own" anything, I do have an interest in the article and improving it however, as you can see on this talk page. You will also see that I have worked with others when there have been disagreements. As for the US/UK, etc... I did not put those there, personally I dont think nationality is of importance or nessisary to be noted, but I dont care enough about that to remove or add it anywhere nor get into a disagreement about it, so do it however you like. Russeasby 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa... check the history of this page, guys. I was the one who added the walkers last night. I simply wanted to expand this section with some other notable human powered feats like Thomas Stevens's bicycle ride. I'm sure there are others that can go here... Rick Hansen comes to mind. And for the record, I'm not American, and am not part of a conspiracy to 're/write history', I just thought the nationality of these people are relevant. If you don't agree, I won't be offended if you change it. On another topic, now that we have a few people mentioned here, this section should probably be changed to list form to match the other sections. Rawr 17:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree to changing it to list format to better reflect the format of the rest of the article. A section near the top describing Human Powered, such as the rest of them, then below a list of notable efforts and moving most of the content there. However I wasnt going to dive in and do that right away since there is so much editing going on, I was going to wait a few days and let things settle down and the redo the whole thing in a format better fitting with the rest of the article. Ultimately (as you can see several months back my comment on this talk page) I think the "notable" lists need serious trimming, they have gotten way out of hand, they should probably be broken out to a seperate article List of Circumnavigations and keep only the major ones within the artcle with a link to the full list, this is a common method on WP. But since no one commented months ago on this idea when I had it, I just left it alone for now. Perhaps I will tackle this as well while redoing the Human Powered section (after things settle down). Russeasby 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction needs to be expanded to reflect the content of the article. Another thing that is necessary is an explanation of the word "circumnavigate". Amandajm (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small start made to that ~ R.T.G 22:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, The Graf Zeppelin did not make a true circumnavigation, but a world tour (A Weltfahrt) as the total distance covered was too short. The circumnavigation record for an airship is still open. Regards JB (www.hybridairship.net) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.224.30.86 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should know about this and comment. One of our editors has systematically depopulated it (from this article among many others), and thinks that is a good reason to delete it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Flanagan did it via poles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.186.107 (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why this is so wrong here and at List of circumnavigations but he survived. The Villalobos Expedition wasn't previously listed here—possibly because it was only intended to go from Mexico to the Philippines and stay put—but its actual men went from Spain to Mexico to the Philippines to the Spice Islands to a Portuguese brig to Lisbon, whence they were released back to Spain... i.e., they completed a third circumnavigation just as much as anyone in Loaisa's group did. Maester Anes ("Hans von Aachen") was with them setting out, as well; if he made it, he did all three before Drake. — LlywelynII 11:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]