Talk:Donald Crowhurst

Archives (Index)

2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Best word to describe Donald...

Presently (Aug 2023) we have the word "businessman" in the opening sentence of the lede to describe Donald at the time of his entry into the Golden Globe Race. I note that a previous effort to change this to "inventor" was reverted some years back, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Crowhurst/Archives/2017#Reverting_of_new_lede_29/10/15 . Clearly "businessman" is not incorrect (he did run a business after all, not too successful by all accounts) but I am not convinced this is necessarily the best word to describe him - after all, many people run businesses (could be import-export, anything that turns a profit) but few do what Donald did - in effect he *was* an inventor, of devices that he thought would make his fortune, and apparently spent many hours tinkering in his workshop devising new ones or whatever - not really the role of a conventional businessman. In reality his business venture was set up as a means to market and profit from his inventions, of which the Navicator was merely the first cab off the rank. (Others might include the self-righting system for trimarans, plus his onboard "computer").

I note that in the list of contestants for the race he was described as an electronics engineer (per Tomalin & Hall, "Prologue" p. xiv); another word that might suit could be "entrepeneur", defined here as "someone who starts their own business, especially when this involves seeing a new opportunity" which does more or less foot the bill, perhaps.

Thoughts, anyone? Tony 1212 (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, 2 years on and with little other contributions, I have settled (in my mind) on an improved form of wording RE the above considerations: sentence now modified to read: "Donald Charles Alfred Crowhurst (1932 – July 1969) was a British inventor/entrepreneur, businessman and amateur sailor ..." Hope folk are satisfied with this "summary" of his general life situation and activities. Tony 1212 (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I just watched another documentary in which the opening line is to call him an electronics engineer, which upon reflection would fit well in the lead (and is one of its more notable omissions), so I have inserted it there in place of "inventor/entrepreneur". Hope this does not offend anyone. Tony Rees, Australia Tony 1212 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed external link

I first heard about his story through https://wondery.com/shows/british-scandal/episode/8860-the-race-to-ruin-round-the-world/ would it be appropriate to add a link to this podcast series as an External Link?

Also, how about a link to the 1969 60 Minutes episode about Crowhurst? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes_season_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.162.229 (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The problem with the first is that it is just a light dramatisation of what is already known, does not add anything new from its own researches (it seems to me); and with the second (1969), we have no record of what was actually broadcast. So my inclination would be no, unless they provide information not available elsewhere... Tony 1212 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Suitability of an image of Crowhurst presently in article (painting on pub external wall)

I note that this image Tribute to Donald Crowhurst, New Quay Inn, back beach,Teignmouth - geograph.org.uk - 5983260.jpg is presently (March 2026) used in the article. I have a couple of issues with this as the only image of Crowhurst other than that in the infobox. First, it is not very respectful - the portrait is almost outshone by the inclusion of various rubbish bins, although those could be cropped out; which however leads to the second: it (at least the portion relevant to the article) is a reproduction of a 2-D work which is potentially the copyright of the artist who drew it (and almost certainly originally from a photograph, again most likely copyrighted), therefore cannot fairly be categorised as a public domain image, or the copyright of the photographer Robin Stott, despite the image being labelled "The copyright on this image is owned by Robin Stott and is licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license." Thoughts, anyone? Tony 1212 (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)