Talk:Boston Whaler/Archives/2012

Updates

There are many changes to make to this article, Missing historic data, I agree that some models should be listed here, explaining the history behind each one. There are many network sites not listed (and continue to be removed) I will continue to add information as time allows, I have a few models for example that are not even listed on the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhtn (talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Stub?

Should this article continue to be considered a "stub?" --Kyhiking 14:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it could use a tad more, something about the different models (but not a list of all!), range of sizes. Ancedotes? I suppose you could remove it, but if it will draw more contributors I'd leave it.--J Clear 16:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Advert tag discussion

Could you be more specific about why you think it reads like an advertisement? It is a bit hard to describe something with as good a reputation as the whaler has w/o it sounding positive.--J Clear 02:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is not balanced and is praising features of any modern boat required by law as if they were unique to Boston Whalers. Also, because of words like "tremendous" in the second paragraph. Unquantified, it is an advertising term. Tremendous compared to what?. The first sentence of the third paragraph is biased opinionI have read reports that Boston whalers rider very rough because of their flat bottom shape and are not that stable. The Coast Guard has gotten rid of all their Boston Whaler boats (Warning original research: I have spoken to coasties at the local Coast Guard unit when they used to have the Boston Whaler and they all uniformly hated it and went out on it only as a last resort). In addition the whole "Unsinkable" section is pure advertisment gimmick and does not deserve to be on wikipedia as all modern boats under 25 feet are required by law in the United States to have positive buoyancy. I personally have never ridden in a Boston Whaler, currently do not own a boat and have no association with any boating business. I will try to clean up the article just a little bit but there are sections that need major work. --- Skapur 02:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "Unsinkable" section needs to be changed. For a very minimum I think the heading of the section should be changed. Maybe it can be replaced by "technical aspects" or something similar and more information on the engineering of the boat can be added. Is there a standard used in Wikipedia for boats like there is for car models? Maybe we can create one? Ozzykhan 19:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the conversation regarding the "Unsinkable" section. The section relates an interesting anecdote regarding the advertising gimmick itself, a definite part of Boston Whaler history. In comparison, look at the Coca-Cola article, which discusses various ad campaigns the company has undertaken to promote that product over the years. Advertising campaigns are part of the mystique of any consumer product. There's really nothing in the section that is blatantly false or misleading. Kyhiking 23:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

On Oct 20 1978 The US Coast Guard ship Cuyahoga collided with a commercial ship Santa Cruz II near the mouth of the Potomac River in the Chesapeake Bay USA .The Cuyahoga sank with the loss of 11 lives. Attached to the deck of the Cuyahoga was a Boston Whaler. As the Cuyahoga settled upon the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay the Boston Whaler broke the hold down straps holding it to the deck as the buoyancy of the Boston Whaler exceeded the hold down straps strain limit. The Boston Whaler rose to the surface and was used in the rescue of the Cuyahogas crew. Yes unsinkable is a term that applies to Boston Whaler boats. Boston Whaler boats can be shot full of holes by machine guns (.50 caliber 500 rounds) and not sink. It is the reason they were used by US Navy S.E.A.L units during the Vietnam war.