Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

THIS ARTICLE IS A JOKE

Wow, I count no less than 6 times the Sea Shepherd Society is referred to as terrorists. Someone SURE wants to get that across. No hint of objectivity. Reading the article through it sounds like it came straiight from the Japan's Society for Cetacean "Research". Almost all of the postive points in past versions have been methodically deleted. I strongly suspect that the "Cptnono"/68.41.80.161 duo are in connected to whalers in some way. Ever attempting to appear objective with calm discussion (well at least in Mr NoNo's case, the other can barely hide his hatred) on these pages while systematically slanting this article toward one particular side. As such it's not worth the kilobytes it takes up. 24.180.11.170 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's completely false. The word terrorist appears exactly 3 times in the article, and once in the citations. In the lead, it's sourced; in the body, both times it's used within a quote--one time from a government official of Canada, and one time from Greenpeace. There are additional times where their actions are referred to as "terrorism" or "eco-terrorism," although I believe each of those is sourced. If there are specific places that you believe it should be removed, or even specific places that you can point to where the article is unacceptably POV, please let us know and we can discuss if changes to be made. I will agree that the article is weighted towards calling their actions unacceptable and/or terrorism, but that's just because the opinion of major international governments and organization tend to view them that way, thus making the weight match how they're reported in the real world. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny you say it's completely false then you proceed to basically acknowledge the number of times I stated. Oh Well. And thanks for being honest enough to admit that the article is weighted, though I'd use the word slanted, toward the negative. The way they are "viewed in the real world", on the other hand, is mostly positive. That's especially true in Australia as it is they which have to put up with Japan's immoral and illegal behavior and this article does not accurately reflect that. Their opinions should certainly count for something. You people here who have an obvious agenda to slander. 68.189.116.166 (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.theage.com.au/national/battle-for-whales-too-weak-poll-finds-20100115-mcku.html

Even in Japan almost half of all respondants to a poll take Sea Shepherd's side in the issue.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/poll/view/do-you-support-sea-shepherds-tactics-against-japanese-whalers

This so-called "article" is therefore nothing more than anti-Sea Shepherd propaganda.

68.189.116.166 (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Specifics are needed not just general complaints like that. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has tight restrictions for use of the term and many people drop by randomly to complain. To present the information it has to be done in a manner that is painfully clear. Since it is done correctly, the best option if youdisagree with it is to add other information. Many editors have failed to present their own content (derived from sources of course) or used sources that are restricted per WP:SELFPUB.

Many people also do not understand that SSCS is not just what you see on Whale Wars. Limpet mines to sink a vessel, filling their hull with concete to ram another vessel, and so on are considered terrorist in nature according the sources.Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not fooled. it's obvious from the history that you've been sitting on this article day and night. Unfortunately for you, this is a public encylopedia, not you personal propaganda page. 68.189.116.166 (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Continued actions may result in more headaches.

Do you care to discuss anything I have said or do you just want to comment on me? Your comment is enough to assume you got nothing but I would be happy to discuss the concern. I thought that was pretty clear from my comment.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Japan Today poll: First, it's self-selecting (i.e., not scientific); second, it's open to anyone, Japanese or not (I'm not Japanese, and I just voted). I can certainly tell you that even a cursory viewing of Japanese TV will show that SSCS is not even slightly supported. Some people do believe whaling should be stopped; a much larger portion think that if whaling is stopped, it should be a decision made by Japanese, not by other countries, and certainly not through violence. In any event, neither of those two polls is relevant--they're not reliable sources. On the other hand, things like the FBI report to the US Congress are, and they use unambiguous words like "eco-terrorist."

Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth--because truth is always subjective. Verifiability, on the other hand, is relatively easier. If you have reliable sources that assert that this page should be changed, then you're more than welcome to add them. If you're not certain if the sources are reliable, then you can certainly post them here first, and we can easily comment on them. Also, apologies on the "completely false." When I first wrote that, I only counted 3 instances of "terrorist;" later I saw that "terrorism" shows up as well; I should have removed the "completely false," but forgot to before posting. I was definitely in error. Finally, I want to echo Cptnono's request that you stop making personal attacks. For one, it isn't allowed (as it makes sincere discussion impossible), and, second, it makes it hard to listen to your perspective, because it gets hidden behind all of the anger. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion. I agree with the original poster. I tried to balance it out but gave up a year ago when I was continually run-over by the anti-SSCS side. I suppose that if I'd registered a wiki user name I'd have been given more say but I chose not to do that. Anyway I believe that a look at the page shows just how far the article has degenerated in a year's time and shows that I was right when I said that certain people had an agenda to slant. Qwyrxian said above I will agree that the article is weighted towards calling their actions unacceptable and/or terrorism I'm going to remind people of some wiki policies I quoted back then (which were ignored):

From the Information Supression and the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial pages. I quote: "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant ... Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: ... Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors ... Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability." Note also the adviso from the tags above Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions. The article as it stands is a long way from neutrality.

Since you have already acknowledged that the article is "weighted" toward the negative it is only appropriate to balance that with other RS information that is more positive. I did that at one time (BTW [1] is RS). We had a "Response to Accusations of Terrorism section. Yet it was continually deleted for all manner of reasons. Every wiki acronym they could think up was used while sources which were negative yet had with no better reliability were inserted.

Cptnono stated above "the best option if youdisagree with it is to add other information". OK, I propose the re-addition of that section (In addition to the removal of most of the six times noted above that the SSCS is referred to as "terrorists"). Further, the article should be gone through line by line to de-sensationalize the negativity of the language and provide balance. I believe it only appropriate. The accusation of "terrorism" is an extreme one and thus those so accused should absolutely have a right to answer that in their own words, especially where it is debatable. That right has been carefully denied them here. Yes people are divided on the definition of the word "terrorism". You cite the FBI while I would cite Horst Kleinschmidt, former deputy chairperson of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), "But I have done my checking on the organisation and I think they have got a bad name which is not deserved. They are not a violent organisation. I don't support violence". As an aside, I might add that the actions of the founding fathers of the United States against the British empire would today be considered terrorist. They even encouraged the use of force to overthrow the government should it become corrupted. 4.246.202.26 (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing specifics. We do not have a "terrorism" section so we don't need a "Response to terrorism" section. You do did provide some refs and some rebuttal is fine. Unfortunately, if their words are in violation of WP:SELFPUB then we shouldn't use those sources. Kleinschmidt[2], the quote from NY Times (I think it needs to be trimmed or paraphrased just because it is so long)[3], and some other info might be fine. You provided a source that would be good for the anti-SSCS[4] but that is cool too. It should also be noted that sources pointing to the Institute of Cetacean Research have been scoured from this article which I agree with.Cptnono (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You say, "We do not have a "terrorism" section so we don't need a "Response to terrorism" section". I disagree. The references and intimations to terrorism coupled with the negative, almost hostile tone in the current article are so thick, so pervasive throughout that I believe a specific reply is absolutely called for. Just one example, the picturing of the black flag twice is simply overdoing it for effect. There is no doubt that some people believe that the SSCS are terrorists. Other informed persons disagree. On the other hand I don't think anyone would disagree that OBL is a terrorist. Not even his own supporters. There is an obvious difference. Yet from a reading of the article one would come away with the idea that they are in the very same class. Again the charge of terrorism is of such a serious nature that it is only fair that the SSCS be allowed to defend themselves adequately.

The NY times quote (not self-published) I think is called for seeing as the rest of the article is SO negative. In fact that quote is ideal because in it SSCS directly responds to the various charges. Many other Wiki articles contain a back and forth aspect in an attempt to cover both sides fairly (example: [5]). But I'd like to quote from that link you provide WP:SELFPUB :

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These rules are of course subjective and generalized. I do not believe that quotations from the SSCS about themselves in any way violates them at all. But holding that an accused group should not be allowed to speak for themselves goes against all standards of decency and democracy, including Wikipedia policy (as above). One other thing, generally in main articles like this one where there is disagreement - but not consensus - about the ethicality of the subject negative opinions tend to be consigned to other, non-main article pages.

But you know, I have to wonder why these sources are acceptable now when these very same references were repeatedly deleted a year ago? I finally gave up in frustration. 4.246.207.99 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the quotations were but the SSCS page's write ups are.

And did I reject some of those sources a year ago or was it someone else? I don't recall doing so but rejecting the section header and instances of too much weight sounds like something I would do. Maybe I am getting better at editing if I did reject a couple of those sources. I recommend just being happy that we are finding a resolution instead of bitching about it.Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well speaking of too much weight I'd have thought that anyone could see that the article as it is is hugely unbalanced. Anyway, I would re-add the section I mentioned if I didn't have to go through the same song and dance I did last time but based on past experience maybe it would be better if someone else add the balance. Again, I believe that a reply section would be appropriate since most of the rest of the article is negative, along with a go through to bring the article back into compliance with NPOV. 4.246.200.28 (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify the idea behind weighting: a description of an article subject should, on average, reflect what reliable sources are saying about that subject. This is to me just a different way of saying what part of WP:NPOV says: "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Additionally, it states "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views." If, for instance, the majority of reliable sources have said (and have not retracted) that organization X is a terrorist (or eco-terrorist) organization, the article should reflect that. If other reliable sources say they are not terrorists, then the article should include that viewpoint, too. The balance between these two should reflect the balance of opinion in the real world (and I don't mean like the IP did in terms of a balance of polling, but a balance in what reliable, credible sources are saying), as much as is possible. If the organization themselves says they are not terrorists, well, a fleeting mention is okay, but things that an organization says about itself tend to fall under the very criteria you quoted above about self-published sources. It sounds quite odd to me to argue that SSCS calling themselves "pirates of compassion" is not self-serving.

However, I think that by citing the Danforth Report section of the Waco tragedy. Note that the Danforth report itself was conducted by the government; further, the critiques of the Danforth report were made by relevant authorities (included in the GAO, in the Texas Ranger records, published in news reports, etc.). We should, in fact (I think), provide rebuttal to the claim that SSCS are terrorists, so long as we can put those rebuttals into the mouth of credible sources.

I would prefer not to have a separate section like the link you provided to the previous version of the article--I know that there's policy or guidelines somewhere that states that it's better to incorporate multiple POV within the text, rather than separating the two (or more) POV into separate sections; but I can't find that guideline--anyone else know what I mean?

Looking at the sources in the earlier version, and in what you wrote here, I can definitely see sense in including info from the NYT, IOL, and New Scientist articles. Do you see places where we can incorporate those texts (and any others you might have) into the existing article? If you don't mind, let me offer one suggestion. In the "Controversy" section, at the end of the first paragraph, it says "He considers the actions to be against "criminal operations" and has called the group an "anti-poaching organization".(plus a reference)" Why not, change this line and take the idea of out Watson's mouth, and use the New Scientist article--that is, clarify that in fact not just SSCS but the government of Australia (or, it's judiciary branch, anyway) considers Japan's activities to be illegal. This kind of addition, rather than a separate section, avoids the non-encyclopedic "Pro/Con" format. So, my question is, what would you think of this addition, and also, do you have more, similar additions we could do in other places to incorporate this balancing information? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"The balance between these two should reflect the balance of opinion in the real world". The problem with that is what are you going to do, look up every single reference to SSCS in the media and then divide them into pro and con sides only then deciding where to place the weight? Does the truth depend upon how many more media pieces one side can muster? If you are going to do that you might as well use the Australian poll someone provided earlier that shows that the great majority of Australians, those most directly affected by Japan's actions oppose their whaling operations and most support SSCS.

"clarify that in fact not just SSCS but the government of Australia (or, it's judiciary branch, anyway) considers Japan's activities to be illegal". I did try to do something like that a year ago of providing reason SSCS says they are doing what they are doing, something I believe is crucial to helping people understand better rather than just a page of reasonless attack statistics, which is more misleading than enlightening, but it was continually removed as not central to the the issue of SSCS. That argument is bunk.

Japan is defiantly slaughtering whales, and in the case if fin whales endangered species, and they're doing it within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, a place meant as a safe haven for whales for crissakes. That would be like hunting elephants within the Elephant Sanctuary. Further, they do it within Australian Territorial Waters. What's more their "research" hunts are a transparent sham, just a way to circumvent the law. Most people in Japan don't even eat whale meat [6]. It's an industry that is being propped up by heartless industrialists trying to make a buck off the slaughter. It's an outrage and SSCS has been the only game in town trying to stop it. 4.246.200.28 (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I also tried to add some context re: the SSCS and their attempts to stop the slaughter of up to 350,000 baby harp seals a year [7][8]. But that too was disallowed. 4.246.200.28 (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you just took any opportunity to work collaborative and pissed on it so make some edits, provide some sources and drafts, or knock it off. This isn't a forum and your opinion means shit just like mine does.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow, is this the same Cptnono that I was calmly discussing the issue with just before? I don't remember pissing on anything. Anyway thnks for the discussion. 4.246.204.78 (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Since none of the regulars seem inclined to I will try to add some balance as suggested. Your Response to Accusations of Terrorism section including the Kleinschmidt quote. Compared to everything else I agree that it is only fair. Well see how long it lasts. 24.180.11.170 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not long. WP:SELFPUB says that sources cannot be unduly self-serving; involve claims about third parties; have no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and that the article cannot not be based primarily on such sources.

Qwyrxian had an idea. What do you think about it.

There is content you are trying to include that could be added but should be worked into the existing section. Of the stuff that is secondarily sourced, how do you want to include it? It is worth trying out and noone wants an article that is biased.Cptnono (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, sure, Japan is bad, Canada is bad, SSCS is great, whatever. Even if I agreed with your position, the point is that your position is irrelevant. The position of reliable sources is relevant. No, I don't need to divide up the media reports into pro/con--I look to the sources themselves and the people they are discussing. The FBI's opinion on SSCS is highly relevant, as is the Australian government's. The ex-IWC chairman's opinion is somewhat relevant, but relevant enough to include. My opinion, Cptnono's, and yours? Not so much. Please note, finally, that talk pages are not a forum to discuss issues--they are a place to discuss changes and improvements to the article. If you would like to propose such changes, please do so.

Cptnono (or any other editor): what do you think about my proposal above to change the end of the first paragraph of the controversy section to include reference the Australian judiciary's ruling on Japan's whaling? I mean, no, we don't want to make this article about Japan's whaling (there's another article for that), so we have to avoid SYNTH...I'll have to recheck the article, because somehow I thought it was appropriate before....Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Apparently my last paragraph touched some nerves here! My apologies. No personal offense stated or meant. Problem is what I've said re:Japan, whaling and the SSCS is the reality as many, if not most, people see it. That side deserves at least the same consideration and objectivity as the anti-SSCS side has been getting. As it stands it is a very one-sided article. I think anyone can see that. But believe it or not there are two sides to this story. I've offered some criticism of the current article and some suggestions. But I've no intention of getting into a personal or an edit war, and I've other things to do. Hopefully fair minded people here will give it some thought and be able to affect some balance. Thank you. 4.246.204.78 (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What a buncha trolling! :) I think we're doing a fine job of presenting all sides of the relevant sources on the matter, current editor opinions not withstanding. @Qwyrx, careful not to give in to the counter-punch knee-jerk reactions. A bit about the governments response to SSCS would be appropriate in the governmental response section but for their full opinion on Japanese whaling consider putting that in the article on Japanese whaling. Peace and Happy editing. 76.226.137.202 (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That might also be a fine addition.Cptnono (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Balance" section

User:24.180.11.170 added a section basically supported SSCS views, purportedly for "balance." User:Cptnono reverted that section, per the discussion above (too much SPS, too POV). I re-added the section, but then went back in aggressively edited it. I stripped the whole section down to only 3 sentences, one reference per sentence (the New Scientist article, the Guardian article, and one SSCS website link). After having done so, the section title no longer made sense, so I changed it. Furthermore, after looking at what I left, I now definitely think this info could be integrated with the rest of the document (i.e., balance is better achieved through an integrated whole, rather than a "he said, she said" format). I added the appropriate tag; if I have time today I will try to start working on that.

Some details on various articles: On the SSCS link, WP:SELFPUB gives some wiggle room, in that we can allow this one claim to be SSCS speaking for itself about itself. An alternative way of saying this is that what we are following WP:ASF in asserting facts, "including facts about opinions." So we're stating here Paul Watson's opinions about his actions.

I took out the IOL link. When I first looked at it yesterday, it seemed to be useful, because it is an independent, reliable source. However, reading in more detail, the person being discussed, Horst Kleinschmidt, was, at that time, participating directly in SSCS activities, and thus is not providing an independent view.

I took out the article that is ostensibly from the New York Times, but is subtitled as "Blogging the News with Robert Mackey." WP:NEWSBLOG says these sources may be acceptable, but may not be, depending on how much editorial control the newspaper has over the blog. I can't tell in this case if that source is reliable or not; erring on the side of caution I removed it. However, the "blog" contains a number of links to what do appear to be reliable sources; I'll keep the link here,Nizza, Mike (16 April 2008). "Green Pirates Claim Victory on Whaling" (HTML). The New York Times. Retrieved 8 June 2009.</ref> and see what I can pull from that. In particular, Mackey links to a 2007 New Yorker piece that has good info, but it's long so I need to see what I can pull out of it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe in such section should be combined with one already existing.

We need to focus on limiting SSCS sources for various WP:SELFPUB reasons and the fact that Watson has admitted to not telling the truth. However, all of their responses should have mentions in secondary sources and I believe there response to allegations of violence, terrorism, and piracy deserve mention as long as we are not linking to a site that is unduly self serving. Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I also realized that you duplicated info almost. There are now twp paragraphs on intl law and their take on it. Should be easy to merge. See "Critics claim that Sea Shepherd's actions constitute violations of international law.[53] Sea Shepherd has responded by stating that its actions constitute enforcement of international maritime law under the United Nations World Charter for Nature.[54]" (previous) and "In a 2006 interview, Paul Watson stated that Sea Shepherd believes that their actions constitute an attempt to "enforce international conservation law."[68]"(recent addition) Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Disclaimer: I did remove the SSCS link.

One thing that might help is changing the layout. Most to the stuff under the "Activism section can be merged into "Government response", "History", and "Public reception". Eliminating the Controversy header alone will improve the neutrality while improving the readability.Cptnono (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

SUPPORT, totally. Anything we can do to remove "controversy" and "response to supposed controversy" sections in exchange for a cohesive, neutral narrative is a great idea. 76.226.112.57 (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Category Discussion

Because there is much discussion in the media noting that notable people refer to the SSCS as eco-terrorist, including governmental officials, I am reinstating this article as one that pertains to eco-terrorism. Pleas do not get all SSCS-defensive crying about how they are not terrorists, that's not the issue. More notable people than us consider them to be as such and even if opthers disagree, it should be reflected here. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There have been several previous discussions about this that I'm just starting to read through to see why this category has been removed in the past. Should give some idea of the pro/con arguements used. Ravensfire (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I know, it went all the way up the arbitration ladder at one point and still stood. Which is why I'm confused about it's removal once again. The main pont is, notable people have included them on the discussion of eco-terrorism, which is noted in the article. Categorization only follows article content. If we find that those cites are inapropriate, we'll remove them from the article at which point categorization should not stand. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - got a link to how that finally turned out? And I just found that the Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has Eco-terrorism since it was created in December 2009. Should update both to match, regardless of the result. Ravensfire (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Allright, I appologize if my links or whatever don't work right.. I'm not the consummate wikipedian some of yous are. :) Yeah, here is the category nomination for deletion.. here is the discussion on SSCS on the NPOV notice board. The concensus as summarized by Cptnono is as follows, "Here is a quick recap for Terrillja

They have been called eco-terrorists by multiple officials in separate governments, scholars have discussed the issue in depth, books have been written about it, newspapers and other media mention it often. The category now has a giant disclaimer that you should read laying out that the category is not a label assigned by Wikipedia but a tool for correlating subjects in the topic for the reader. The group has done more than what is seen on Whale Wars (bombing vessels, destruction of property, etc)Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC) " And that was the final word because it addressed the issue perfectly. I don't see Terilla bringing anything new to the table this time round. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing new I'm bringing here. Simply maintaining the status quo in the absence of new information.--Terrillja _talk 17:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

One other thing I'd like to add is that Watson himself adds alot to this conversation; what is and what isn't a terrorist. He has written numerous articles on the subject and made comments to the media about the subject. No where in this article is it saying that Watsons and SSCS are deemed eco-terrorists by Wiki. But we are saying that they are a notable part of that conversation, as noted by the material in the articles and reflected in the categorization. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Then mention it in the article on eco-terrorism with a source. Adding the category is in effect "categorizing" them as eco-terrorists.--Terrillja _talk 17:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned there as well. Eco-terrorism is a large part of the discussion on SSCS though, which is why it's noted throughout this article, and with good sources. Also, I am not advocation the category "Eco-terrorists" I'm recognising that SSCS are a large part of the eco-terrorism discussion as demonstrated in our article's sources. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic - there's now question that they take direct action at times, but they also work with governments as, well, almost privateers. Their actions are more direct than what I'd typically call "terrorism" - they are public and overt about what they do and their identities. At least recently, they seem to be more circumspect in what they do - throwing stink bombs rather than more harmful substances; or trying to foul props rather than sink the ship. 68.41.80.161 noted in one of the earlier discussions that we can probably find WP:RS on both sides of this. Calling them Pirates (the Piracy category) seems easily defensible - essentially self-described as such. Eco-terrorism is harder for me. The category has a fairly low threshold of inclusion criteria from reading it though. Ravensfire (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "terrorism" was out but "eco-terrorism" was in. Cats are navigational and multiple sources from multiple countries relate them to eco-terrorism. This really shouldn't be an issue. "Piracy" certainly seems more rhetorical and cute and I don't believe anyone is really calling them pirates because they are but because it is a fun headline grabbing term. That could just be my interpretation though.Cptnono (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Piracy is not really an issue in this article as far as I can tell. They claim the "pirate" lifestyle but haven't noteably stolen anything. The Eco-terrorism charges stem way back with the FBI definition of intentional harm to property referencing blowing up ships with mines, burning storehouses, etc.. in current times the label sticks and just seems to be applied to the wreckless way they engage other ships and operators. The most important thing for us as editors is to note that according to the sources there is a considerable ammount of people calling them terrorists, specifically eco-terrorists and that Paul and the SSCS have engaged the conversation to address what is or isn't a(n eco-)terrorist. Us linking the category implies no endorsement from wiki but a simple acknowledgement that the quality of sources connects the two topics. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Support the eco-terrorism category for this article, the SSCS category and other related articles. The "Eco-terrorism" category is defined in extremely broad terms and really seems to have followed that - the Justice Division is listed! While there is not universal support in sources to label SSCS with this, it is well supported. Ravensfire (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So basically your argument is one of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Just because the category is ridiculously open doesn't mean that it's valid. If we are going to add it to all tangentially related articles, then shouldn't it be added to Vail Resorts, which was the target of an actual eco-terrorism attack, or Logging, which has also been a target of the same thing? See how adding it to every related article doesn't make sense? It can also go the other way, the logging companies have been accused by environmentalists of ecological terrorism by cutting down trees, especially old growth ones. Just because a category is broadly defined doesn't mean that editors should follow that example and apply it to every organization that has ever mentioned eco-terrorism.--Terrillja _talk 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So basically your argument is about the category, not about this article. If you don't like how the category is defined, push against that. Put the category up for CFD. But for here - sources call the group an eco-terrorism group. The category is for articles related to eco-terrorism. That seems pretty straight-forward. Ravensfire (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Eco-terrorism is a pretty specific topic. I mean only articles that pertain to the discussion on blowing up peoples stuff for an environmental reason link to that page, including the FBI counter terrorsism article and the SSCS articles. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the explanation on the Category page itself, it seems to me as practically self-evident that SSCS should be categorized this way. Personally, I think that the way the category exists is highly questionable, but, as others have said, that's a discussion to be had at the Category page (or at some higher level about what Categorization means. But as the category stands now, it's clear that this article falls into that field, and should be labeled as such. I can't see how this won't lead the typical reader to think WP is classifying SSCS as a terrorist organization, but it seems like we don't have a choice (here). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Please, please voive your opinion with what is wrong at the category page. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to: "Then mention it in the article on eco-terrorism with a source. Adding the category is in effect "categorizing" them as eco-terrorists." Common misconception. Cats are navigational. There is a mention in the guideline contradicting that but that might be better over at MoS. One thing I wanted to point out: Anything here cannot set a precedent for the Paul Watson article. Make sure that is a separate conversation. SSCS clearly has the charge from multiple sources in multiple countries. Watson might be different even though he is the founder. I haven't looked into it enough to know if there are as many sources clearly laying it out like they do with the organization. And BLP and stuff.Cptnono (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, BLP really changes the rules for the Paul Watson article. In this article it's more black and white. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

revisiting

I'd like to add my 2c here since the discussion has some fine lines. Extreme activists are not all terrorists. Just because some critics call them terrorists doesn't mean the label sticks -- the term is too loosely used &accepted in media/politics for dramatic effect. And though I understand Cptnono's point about the Category being a navigational tool, it serves as a de facto label on WP. Perhaps the point about SSCS' activities before Whale Wars is a central one -- is there any way to separate past from present in this regard? -PrBeacon (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should never apply labels. Is there anywhere currently in the article that make sit look like we are? The word "terrorism" should be attributed but if one slipped through please say so.

And I think we lucked out with some wikilawyering (no offense meant but it is the close enough term) on the category. The SSCS cat should be sufficient with all of the parent cats. Nevermind. It looks like the cats got screwd with again. I thought this was settled? Cptnono (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

::It's the opinion of the notable experts that matter. Not ours. They label, we cite. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Missed the point. My bad. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Cats

Per "Eco-Terrorism is parent of this cat, adding eco-terrorism is redudant and violates WP:CAT", I have removed them all since they are all parent cats of SSCS (I screwed up my edit summary and wanted to fix it here)Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The topic of Sea Shepherd shout not all fall under the umbrella of the topic of eco-terrorism. They are related but it doesn't fall under that umbrella. 70.55.234.108 (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the sources it is related.Cptnono (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Both are correct. SS are related to terrorism however the SS article should not be a sub category of eco-terrorism. Everything under SSCS does not belong within the scope of eco-terrorism. Eco-terrorism is a small portion of the press associated with SSCS. I've edited the categories to reflet as much. Agreed? 69.246.27.226 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Allright, someone had monkeyed around with category subcategories. The editor had added multiple "related categories" to the Sea Shep category not realising that they were violating the category naming conventions and placing multiple inappropriate parent categories over SSCS. I have removed those from the SSCS category in exchange for one appropriate one, check it out if you care. And now we are free to add appropriate "related categories" here at the page where they belong. :) Peace and happy editing. 0nonanon0 (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, just noticed that someone else removed all categories. Assuming that it was not foul play and that they were acting in good faith, I just reinstated them. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed one of the 1977 categories because it seemed like the second one was redundant and not at all helpful. Any thoughts? Do we need two categories saying the same thing? Am I missing something? 69.246.27.226 (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As per the first statement in this discussion, the re-added cats are all parent categories of Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society so they are not required and violate WP:CAT. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

::Those parent cats are inapropriate. Sea Shepherds is NOT a sub category of Eco-terrorism. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly multiple users disagree. Your blanking of the category page has been reverted by one editor,[9] and you've been warned on your talk page by another. Please do not edit-war. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of things here. It comes off as if you are trying to flame. I'm trying to understand the reasoning why you want to include SSCS under the eco-terrorism sub category. Please explain. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your addition and removal of categories, and blanking of pages, has been reverted by multiple editors and you've been warned on your talk page. That isn't flaming. However, continually doing what you are doing is edit-warring and is likely to get you blocked if you continue. You need to discuss the matter as I tried to suggest oin your talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You love ME! :) Lets talk about SSCS. Are you making the case that SSCS is a sub category of Eco-Terrorism? I say no it is not a sub category, but simply a related topic. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

== Sub-Category of eco-terrorism ? Poll == Recent discussion brings us to this question I would like everyone to wiegh in on. Should the article SSCS be considered a sub category of eco-terrorsim? 69.246.27.226 (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC) OK, I withdraw the issue entirely. Thanks to C.Fred for explaining the issue to me, I clearly missed the point. A lesser editor who flamed and accused me of all sorts of junk would do well to take notes. C.Fred however, you rule. So main articles belong only to their own category if they exist and related categories appear only on that categories page and not the main article... I think. :) 69.246.27.226 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Scuttled vs. sunk

I don't suppose we could bring the discussion here--I see a variety of different people alternating between the two words today. Can either side point to the reliable source that verifies either word? Or is this a case of reliable sources disagreeing, so we need to include both with cites? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in having a direct quote from Bethune concerning the "scuttling" from one of the many now available reliable sources. [10] The IP editor who made the edit you referred to above was making edits which seem to be attempts to change the tone/meaning of existing material and references [11] (which happens to be a common problem with this subset of articles with various "sides" wanting to push a particular POV). As far as I can tell from the article history, there has only been one revert, so there hasn't been much "alternating" between the two words. Material similar to this should probably also be added to the "arrows" incident coverage in articles such as Pete Bethune and MY Ady Gil. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm for just going with the neutral sunk. Doesn't get into who says what, and there isn't going to be a truly reliable source as no one else was there. It sank, who exactly is responsible for it is debatable, but the fact is that it sank, and that's that. We don't need o get into the scandalmongering and mudslinging. --Terrillja _talk 15:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

How is it scandal-mongering if the person on the boat now says that it was intentionally scuttled? As much as I don't particularly trust either Watson or Bethune's accounts of pretty much anything, and given that they certainly don't seem to have the best relationship that would lead to honesty...it seems to me that at this point we need to include both words--possibly make "scuttled" part of a quote from Bethune, and either give "sunk" as a quote to Watson or put it as Watson's opinion. When reliable sources disagree, I believe we're supposed to include both. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there have been several versions of the story from Sea Shepherd too. The initial reaction to Bethune seems to have been to deny that the Ady Gil was "scuttled" and that it just took on water while being towed. Later, Watson began claiming that Bethune was ultimately the one in charge of the Ady Gil and that Bethune had supported scuttling the craft. Given all these different stories, I think direct quotes are going to be the only way we can cover this properly.

My concern with 138's changes were that the edits seemed to be an attempt to change the tone of existing material to vilify or take a potshot at the involved parties. For example, this edit [12] followed a few minutes later by sunk/scuttled change. [13] There was also this edit [14] which didn't update the existing material at all nor did it provide any sort of reference. The best one of the bunch was the first [15] which while it gave a reference, the quality of that particular reference when it was first published (since updated) seemed pretty biased against Bethune's side of the story. (As a side note, I find it quite fascinating how several of these news agencies have "updated" their original stories where the initial version seemed to downplay or even sneer at Bethune's claims.)

While there is certainly some "mudslinging" going on between Bethune and Watson at this point, we really are going to have to cover the Bethune vs Sea Shepherd and Watson vs Bethune aspects as the media coverage is continuing to grow. Another claim I continue to see is that Watson has previously been on Interpol's Blue List, so him being on the list now is nothing new (the implications here being that Watson is just using this as an excuse as to why Bethune was "expelled" from Sea Shepherd). I'm also curious why the "arrows" incident and some of the other controversial events aren't given any coverage here? Most articles of this type have a Controversy section where such things are covered. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually reverted then self reverted when I saw the story. I am cool with using "sunk" for the most part, though. Scuttling is sinking in a way. Nothing wrong with giving Bethune's but secondary sources should be used.

Great pains were also taken to not add a controversy section since they are frowned upon. Criticism is currently distributed throughout instead. These guys have been around for many years and only focusing on current events can be WP:RECENTISM. A good place for disputes is also Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations. It covers stuff from the beginning to now while this article is more of a summary style.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a touch of irony in the fact that if the boat wasn't able to be towed back to a safe harbour then the appropriate action would have been to scuttle it, rather than leave it in a position where it might be a navigation hazard. SSCS should have sent the chopped off bow section to the bottom, or recovered it for the same reason. That they clearly didn't (both SSCS and the whalers admit to the Japs having recovered arrows from the bow after SSCS left the area) makes me question the various claims. Understanding why Bethune is trying to use an appropriate action and why SSCS is denying taking the appropriate action is beyond me. Regardless, sunk is apparently what happened to the boat. Whether it happened by natural causes or whether it happened by scuttling, the aim of which is to sink a vessel, is really irrelevant. Either way, "sunk" is a definite*, scuttled is not. (* Of course, nobody actually saw it sink - there are no photos of it going down - it may well be floating around still) ----AussieLegend (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The bow section wouldn't have sunk though. Being made of carbon fibre and such, it was made of materials with more buoyancy than water. The weight of the engines is what would have sunk the vessel itself. I'm not sure what sort of navigation hazard any of the Ady Gil would have posed as it certainly wasn't anywhere near a high traffic shipping lane. This really does begin to make sense when you look at the original videos as well. The rate in which it took on water seemed to make no sense as those compartments would have been sealed. Supposedly the arrows were recovered floating in the water. The truth is, Watson himself freely admits to media manipulation [16] so why should anyone assume different in this case? It certainly wouldn't have been the first time he was involved in the sinking of another vessel and in the Telegraph link I just gave, Watson is quoted as previously threatening to sink his own vessel to block the harbour. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

These are all interesting theories at all, but let's stay with what the reliable sources say. Since this is the SSCS mainpage, we don't want to get into too much detail. For me, that means the two options are either to leave it as sunk, which is vague enough to include either "sunk due to damage" or "sunk due to intentional scuttling" or something much more complex and awkward, like "the Ady Gil, (which collided the Japanese whaling vessel Shōnan Maru 2 in 2010 and either sunk due to the damage[reference 1] or was scuttled intentionally[reference 2]), and a number of earlier vessels." Personally, I think "sunk" is fine, and let the Bethune and Ady Gil pages tell the full story. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Whalers, Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace are not the only vessels that use those waters. There are plenty of actual scientific research, supply and even tourist vessels that ply those waters. In any case, you just don't abandon a vessel to its own fate. You either tow it, or sink it. As you say, the bow section wouldn't sink, so Sea Shepherd should have recovered it. The Japanese claimed they found the arrows near the bow, there are even photos of it. Why they didn't recover the bow is another question. The Ady Gil was filled with diesel, which increases buoyancy. Removing it, as Sea Shepherd claimed they did, would have made the boat ride lower, as would the water inside the hull. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Above, I was trying to say, indirectly, WP:NOTFORUM. This isn't the place to discuss theories about what really happened...just to discuss how the article should read. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we're aware of that. The point of mentioning those was to demonstrate the inconsistencies in the sources, as a way of reinforcing that we need to be especially careful here to use neutral terms, like "sunk", rather than questionable terms, like "scuttled". --AussieLegend (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

List of skinkings attributed to Sea Shepherd

Would it be appropriate to create an article listing the ships that have been sunk by Sea Shepherd? Or would it be better as a section? 173.167.1.129 (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That information is pretty much already in Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations, which expands upon the content here. To the best of my knowledge all of the sinkings are there, in prose.--Terrillja _talk 16:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotation from Cetacean Institute

Do others think that the quote added by User:Objective Content is appropriate? My concern is that it's too long, especially given that it's from such an obviously partisan source which doesn't necessarily have enough real-world importance to get such a quote (I'm thinking of WP:DUE here). Do others think it's good to have the whole quote? Or should we shorten it? Or paraphrase all/part of it into our own words? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall it is a little worry. However, directly attributed "hostile eco-terrorists" and some criticism of the dazzlers and chemical are important. Some weight could also be given since it comes from a primary advisory as long as it is made clear that that is who they are. I also applaud the use of a secondary source. Some general word smithing could reduce the size of the paragraph, though.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Centralized discussion

@ Talk:Ocean 7 Adventurer#Sea shepherd's new interceptor vessal Cptnono (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm going to revert it--that's a clear POV addition. Furthermore, making decisions about what actually happened based on our watching of the event on an edited reality show is pure original research. If you the person(s) adding have a [WP:RS|reliable source]] that uses that language, then we may be able to add the wording (assuming we can substantiate that the opinion meets WP:DUE). 06:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I misread the current version as being equivalent to the old one (with the "sliced in half" version). I think the current is mildly okay, although it needs to be a reference rather than a direct link per WP:EL. I won't revert the video (I'm not sure it belongs, but I don't care enough to remove it); I'll just move it inside a reference. I would be willing to entertain the idea that Whale Wars itself is too partisan to be used as a reference. Or are is the point that we're arguing again about "sunk" vs. "scuttled"? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not discuss here. The link is to the discussion.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a dispute over the new ship. Looks like you are discussing the video. That is a different conversation.Cptnono (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I thought this was about the person you were reverting earlier this morning. Shall I refactor my comments into a new section for clarity? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

White Washing

This article needs to be reviewed for bias. Using phrases/terms like "Protecting Wildlife" and "Conservation" are accurate only given the POV of a person who agrees with them. It's honestly no better than saying "Terrorism", "Acts of Violence" or calling them a "Paramilitary Group".

I'm far too biased for any edits but hope someone will go through and make sure we are not white washing their activism.WalterFletcherIV (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow this. Terrorism is certainly a loaded POV word, but an "act of violence" is pretty objective, no? As long as the article uses "protecting wildlife" and "conservation" as descriptions of their objectives, then I don't see it as POV. They are a "conservation group" because that's what they say they are, not because anyone is saying their efforts are effective. I don't see any judgment or endorsement of their methods. Jaydub99 (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fact check.

Hi, I was browsing through the article and came upon this part in the section 'Activism': 'In his 2009 book, Whaling in Japan, Jun Morikawa states that Sea Shepherd's confrontational tactics have actually strengthened Japan's resolve to continue with its whaling program. According to Morikawa, Sea Shepherd's activities against Japan's whaling ships have allowed the Japanese government to rally domestic support for the program from Japanese who were otherwise ambivalent about the practice of hunting and eating whales.[33]'

If you go to the actual reference, the only mention of Sea Shepherd is this: 'Ironically, Morikawa argues, the Sea Shepherd's confrontational tactics have enabled the Japanese government to rally domestic support for a program that has otherwise aroused little enthusiasm among Japanese.'

The Wikipedia sentence is 62 words while the mention in The Japan Times is 28 words long. It seems a little odd that a 28-word reference is written up three (or so) times as long as the original!

To me, the first clause, '...Jun Morikawa states that Sea Shepherd's confrontational tactics have actually strengthened Japan's resolve to continue with its whaling program', is opinion or editorialising. Nothing in the reference indicates that Japan's resolve has been strengthened - only that the groups actions have been used to 'rally domestic support for a program that has otherwise aroused little enthusiasm among Japanese.'

Is this text that should be edited to reflect what the source says? Is it an example of agenda-pushing or original interpretation or editorialising?

I would be interested to learn what more experienced editors think. Please note that I am new and am refraining from doing actual edits until I understand how things work and am confidant enough to make an actual change. Any advice appreciated, but at the moment I am confining myself to making hopefully helpful comments on any article that I read and see a positive change that could be made. In this regard I am relying on more experienced editors and people more expert in the topic to do the edit (this way I can also learn!). So what I am doing at this stage is seeing anomalies, possible errors, grammar, structure, etc., and suggesting improvements. Thanks Mondegreen de plume (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. It was either editorializing or an editor combining two refs (their efforts have spurred some nationalism) but that is all stuff that should be sourced easily if it isn't. Trim the line or add a source if you think it is a good idea.Cptnono (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Japanese whaling stops early

Victory in the Southern Ocean Day for the Whales

It’s official – the Japanese whaling fleet has called it quits in the Southern Ocean, at least for this season. And if they return next season, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society will be ready to resume their efforts to obstruct and disable illegal Japanese whaling operations.
"The Nisshin Maru made a significant course change immediately after the Japanese government made it official that the whaling fleet has been recalled," said Captain Alex Cornelissen from the Bob Barker. 'She looks like she’s going home!"

^From SSCS website. I first heard about this last week on The Colbert Report (Wag of the Finger), something about the Japanese whalers/gov't blaming Sea Shepherd. I'll keep an eye out for reliable third-party sources. Time will tell if this is worthy to add to other articles like 'Whale Wars' and Whaling in Japan. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I’m seeing a good handful of other sources saying the same thing, although most if not all of them demonstrate a pretty serious bias in favour of Sea Shepherd… but they do seem to have at least spoken with the Japanese fisheries people to confirm that they have indeed suspended the whaling season. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 12:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

ICRWHALE ADMITS JARPA IS TO STOP THIS SEASON: Website: http://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/110218ReleaseENG.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.106.34 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be comfortable adding a sentence with the icrwhale.org press release as a citation (since it's about icr's actions, it should meet the exception for SPS). I think the sentence would belong in "Activism"; anyone else have a preference? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes to lead

Per WP:WEASEL, we can't say "arguably ecoterrorist". A better phrase, which could be put at the end of the first paragraph, would be something like "Some governments have described the organization as being "ecoterrorist" or otherwise involved in terrorist actions."

As for the "gaining notoriety for the brutality of the tactics and methods", TheHerbalGerbil said in xyr edit summary that it is a summary of "facts cited further down in the article". I, however, don't see any such description in the rest of the article. Could you point out specifically what this is summarizing? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, LPW. You made a contentious change and it was reverted. The end. If you want any of that edit in you will need to get consensus here.Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sealers, removed material

I removed a sentence about Sea Shepherd being “confronted by a threatening group of sealers”. First, the source of the information is word-of-mouth from a then-member of Sea Shepherd. Second, Sea Shepherd themselves had released a video of the encounter (yeah, this one’s just a copy). Although accompanied by a similar sob story, the video itself tells a completely different one. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 21:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The content is sourced from the New Zealand Herald, which is not a primary source, despite your claim in your edit summary.[17] The Sea Shepherd video clearly shows the sealers being aggressive towards the SSCS crew, with the SSCS crew standing still for the most part, except for the odd occasion when they're either defending themselves or walking. It seems to support the newspaper story so I have restored the content. You're well aware of the requirement to remain neutral, having just discussed this on my talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Herald article only passes on the account of a Sea Shepherd activist who was present (primary source). The article does, however, mention the fact that the activists’ presence was illegal. Further, the video shows the activists carrying Jolly Roger flags and clubs of their own and fighting with the sealers. Further, the video is cut. It’s blatantly obvious that this wasn’t a one-sided attack on the sealers’ part but rather a staged confrontation on Sea Shepherd’s part. I am being neutral and I ask you to do the same. You can start by reading other existing news literature on Sea Shepherd as well as their own writings. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 08:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, despite your assertion in the edit summary, the New Zealand Herald is not a primary source. Most news articles include a quote from somebody closely associated with an incident but that doesn't make the newspaper article a primary source and the SSCS video that you linked to seems to support the Herald's article, so there is no reason to remove the content. I'd ask you at this point to demonstrate good faith by not to continue removing the content but to first gain consensus to do so, since your edit has clearly been challenged and to date you are the only editor who seems to have an issue with the content. I've asked another long term editor of this article to the conversation and I've copied everything from my talk page to the section below so that we can keep all of this in the one place. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The wording in the article did not say anything about SSCS being victimized or nonagressive so I don't see it as a major problem. I personally think it is cool that sealers and fisherman fight back and am surprised a bloody nose was the only result. But the line doesn;t detail enough and I agree that the SSCS claim that they were nonviolent isn't needed since we know that it is not true. I am expanding the line. But the whole paragraph might be better in the Operations article and not he main article. Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Your expansion seems reasonable and you are correct, it probably should be in the operations article if it isn't already. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Aussie, do you have reading comprehension problems, or are you trolling me? (I’m not being cynical, I’m 100% serious and asking this without bad faith.) This is, what, three times now I’ve explained it to you? The Herald’s report on the incident consists of taking the Sea Shepherd activist’s account verbatim. So at the very least, the article text need to be modified to say “Lisa Shalom said x was y” rather than “x was y”. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 03:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, be civil. Comment on content, not other editors. Until now you've been arguing for complete deletion of sourced content, arguing that the NZ Herald is a primary source. Another editor has said he doesn't see the content as an issue and has made a reasonable edit to provide better context. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What is going on? The NZ Herald piece did use the first-hand and biased account of an activist but it was not completely biased. The line is even less biased on Wikipedia (We could easily skew it one way or the other based on that one source). So what is the problem? Remember, Gents, it isn't about winning and I think I am the only troublemaker left here. My bias has historically been anti-SSCS and if I don't see a problem with the way the line is written then I am surprised anyone else would. But I am still col with axing the paragraph altogether if it has turned into a COATRACK. I honestly think it has and have no problem merging it into the secondary article. Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see an issue with the content and I'm a bit surprised that TheHerbalGerbil is concentrating on that one sentence. The section in which it is located is about activism and the last paragraph is all about response, mainly opposition, to that activism. The sentence starts with the claim "Sea Shepherd has been criticized and sometimes physically attacked by people in several of the countries they protest against." Since there is no "one size fits all" citation that supports the claim, there are examples of the opposition to the organisation from 1988, 1995, 2005, 2008 & 2010 that show the response throughout the organisation's history. This seems to be the best way to support the claim that opens the paragraph. While these examples are related to individual operations, they're being used here to demonstrate opposition to the organisation as a whole so they really should remain in the article so that support for the organisation and opposition to it are both represented, as our neutrality policy requires. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. I think I am the one who inserted the base for the paragraph at least a year ago (could be wrong) but it now is turning into a coatrack. I say ax the whole thing as long as it is merged into the Ops article. Originally I did not realize that there were going to be so many instances of fishermen/whalers/sealers/whatever sticking up for themselves but I also did not realize that there were decades of aggression (Slayer?!) before Whale Wars. Thank you and RIP Google News archives. So lets cut it and throw it into the appropriate sections at the Ops article. For this incident, I would recommend mentioning that there was medical attention for minor injuries to the activists but here it would just be too much. Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is characterizing the sealers as “threatening”. Sea Shepherd activists approached the hunt within an unlawful distance, showed up with jolly roger flags and clubs, and filmed the sealers without their permission. The sealers were not the aggressors here; they were not the “threatening” ones. And we have the source for this oh-so-objective appraisal of the situation as a direct account from one of the Sea Shephed activists? Good job. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

“Until now you've been arguing for complete deletion of sourced content, arguing that the NZ Herald is a primary source.”

You did not seriously just say that again, did you? I give up. It’s impossible to reason with someone when they keep pretending you’re saying something entirely other than what you are. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

[18][19][20] Did I misread the intentions expressed by you in those edits? If you were only concerned about the words of the SSCS crew-member then a simple re-wording would have made this discussion unnecessary. Instead you opted for total deletion. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a tough time pretending to have only read my edit summaries and not my explanation here when you’re fucking well commenting here. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 19:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Related content copied from my talk page for reference purposes

Extended content

Sea Shepherd, sealers Your reversion of my edit to the Sea Shepherd article was mostly off the mark. You’re right about the sealers who supposedly confronted Mr. Watson in a hotel room being Canadian, but not about the confrontation with Newfoundland sealers on the ice. The news article cited for that information uses one of the Sea Shepherd criminals as its source, there’s a video of the incident showing her account to be inaccurate at best, and the article does mention the fact that the Sea Shepherd criminals were on the ice illegally. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 21:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC) The edit you made[21] said the the sealers were French, while the source clearly states they were Canadian and does not even mention France or French.[22] The second source,[23] says that the seal hunters threatened them, so that should not have been removed, regardless of whether or not you don't like the source for "threatened". Removal breaches our neutrality policy. The source says that they were charged with "violating seal protection regulations by approaching within half a nautical mile of a hunt", not that the protest itself was illegal. In fact it appears that it would have been entirely legal if they had stayed >0.5nm way. If you wish to add content about that you have to reflect what the source says and not "re-interpret" the source because that also breaches WP:NPOV. Given the errors in your changes, the reversion was entirely appropriate. As for today's effort,[24] the content is cited and your edit summary demonstrates a decidedly POV reason for removal. If you wish to remove the content you have to come up with a verifiable, neutral reason for doing so. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC) “The edit you made[1] said the the sealers were French, while the source clearly states they were Canadian and does not even mention France or French.[2]” Yes, I already admitted as much. I was thinking of St-Pierre et Micquelon, which is French territory, whereas the Magdalens are part of Quebec. Don’t pretend to be setting me straight. “The second source,[3] says that the seal hunters threatened them, so that should not have been removed, regardless of whether or not you don't like the source for "threatened".” The source does not say that at all. The source just quotes a Sea Shepherd activist characterizing the confrontation as an assault by the sealers: “ Lisa Shalom, 23, and 10 other crew members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society vessel Farley Mowat were arrested yesterday while trying to take pictures of seals being killed. Speaking from the Farley Mowat, off the coast of Prince Edward Island in the Gulf of St Lawrence, Ms Shalom said the crew had been assaulted on the ice by eight sealers carrying clubs and pickaxes. "The moment they saw us they threatened us with their hak-a-piks, they were verbally abusive, and their fists were flying," Ms Shalom said. "They knew we were opposed to what they were doing and they were completely indignant about it." The sealers were not arrested, but the anti-seal hunt activists, who Ms Shalom said stayed non-violent, were charged with violating seal protection regulations by approaching within half a nautical mile of a hunt. ” “Removal breaches our neutrality policy.” No, it does not. “The source says that they were charged with "violating seal protection regulations by approaching within half a nautical mile of a hunt", not that the protest itself was illegal.” Now you’re not even making any sense: ‘The protest was legal, but would have been legal if x.’ “If you wish to add content about that you have to reflect what the source says and not "re-interpret" the source because that also breaches WP:NPOV.” You’re the one who’s doing that. The source is very clearly quoting a participant on one side of the incident. “Given the errors in your changes, the reversion was entirely appropriate. As for today's effort,[4] the content is cited and your edit summary demonstrates a decidedly POV reason for removal. If you wish to remove the content you have to come up with a verifiable, neutral reason for doing so.” Don’t pretend to be the authority on the exact proper interpretation of Wiki policies. It makes it that much tougher to gracefully accept that you’re wrong. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 09:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC) "Yes, I already admitted as much. ... Don’t pretend to be setting me straight." - I was simply identifying all the reasons your edit was flawed, as explanation of why a full reversion was necessary. "The source just quotes a Sea Shepherd activist" - Since that was part of the source, the source does indeed say that. The source isn't just cherry-picked parts of the article. "Now you’re not even making any sense: ‘The protest was legal, but would have been legal if x.’" - It makes perfect sense. They weren't arrested for protesting, they were arrested for being there. The law doesn't differentiate between purpose. If a group of pro-seal killing supporters, or a group of tourists armed only with cameras, had been there they would have been subject to arrest for the same reason. "You’re the one who’s doing that. " - Um, no. As I've pointed out above, and which you've quoted, the source says they were charged with violating seal protection regulations. Your edit changed the content from "confronted by a threatening group of sealers while on the ice", which is supported by the source, to "confronted by a group of sealers while illegally protesting on the ice", which is not supported. YOU are re-interpreting the source. "The source is very clearly quoting a participant on one side of the incident" - That's irrelevant. Most sources quote participants on one side of a conflict. Admittedly, "threatening" is probably too subjective given that only one side is presented but the youtube video you linked too seems to support that. Since this discussion is about specific content in an article, I suggest we confine any discussion to the article's talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

--AussieLegend (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Media storm

The line is in the PR section since it is about PR. It is directly sourced to season 1 episode 3. It was originally like that until people assumed otherwise. It is not about Bethune. Legality does not need to come into play but I am sure a source can be provided that says it was an illegal boarding if someone really wants to point it out.Cptnono (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This is not about Peter Bethune. It's about Benjamin Potts and Giles Lane, who jumped aboard onto the Yushin Maru No. 2 on January 15, 2008. They didn't have a permission to do so, of course, but legality is questionable. They were handed over to the Australian authority and freed eventually. A couple of articles said the Australian police would look into the incident, but it seems that that never happened. They were never charged, although the Japanese government and ICR condemned their behavior as "illegal". --Bugandhoney 21:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugandnohey (talk • contribs)

Oops. Sorry that I mixed up the two members with Bethune as there was already a ref. on Bethune. I do not desperately want to add the word "illegally", but it's illegal under the international law of the sea. See Convention on the High Seas, Piracy#Overview, and Boarding (attack). Sorry again for my carelessness. Oda Mari (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally understand. I don't think it was legal but the original intent of the line was to add to the PR section so legality wasn't even something I thought of. And then people started adding refs to another incident (which was illegal according to the court) and it got really thrown off. Cptnono (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Help needed for the Japanese article

Is there anyone who can read and write Japanese? I've been experiencing a great difficulty to maintain neutrality of the Japanese article. I edited a lot, adding tons of citations, yet the article is far from neutral...yet. I appreciate any kind of help. --Bugandhoney (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Description

Is "conservation organisation" an accurate description for an organisation that openly admits to carrying out acts of sabotage and terrorism? Whatever the motives, the modus operandi of the group is essentially terrorist. Is there a more accurate description than the bland and innocuous "conservation organisation" possible?124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Supporters will say that “terrorist” is an exaggeration, although I agree that it’s more or less the appropriate term.

Something else to consider: Sea Shepherd is not much of a conservation group. Their main campaigns throughout their 35-year existence have been for the protection of the harp seal, the minke whale and the common dolphin, none of which are endangered or even close. So it would probably be more accurate to term them a “wildlife protection” organization. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 20:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What terms to reliable sources use? We cannot make our own deductions based upon what we perceive the purpose/style to be. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Gerbil. I didn't see this before. Anyway, you're wrong:

The Japanese whaling fleet set out for the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary with a permit issued by the Japanese government to kill 935 protected Minke whales, 50 endangered fin whales and 50 endangered humpback whales. Their objective was to kill 1035 whales in total. Intervention by the three ships of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society prevented them from taking that number. Sea Shepherd crewmembers were successful in cutting that kill quota by more than half. Their success at saving the humpbacks was 100%, and their success at saving fin whales was 98%. Of the fifty humpback whales that were targeted, they did not take a single one. Of the fifty fin whales that were targeted, they managed to kill only one. Of the 935 targeted Minke whales, they killed 506.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/2010/04/13/sea-shepherd-whale-defense-campaign-saves-528-whales-210 4.246.162.54 (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

FBI ref in opening para

Hi, The ref to the FBI (ref.8) is to a dead link. The link that works is http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism But I don't know how to insert it as the edit page seems to have a short cut <ref name=fbi> which I don't understand. Can someone with skills please rectify? Ta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.232.243 (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what is called a named reference. To actually change, you have to search for the place in the article where the real reference is; I just searched by the ref name ("fbi"), and found it down a ways; the full citation is there. I've made the change. Thanks for providing the fixed reference! Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of references in the LEAD

Hi, I don't time right now to put my reasons but I am of a mind that their should be no need for references in the lead, mainly because all the material in the lead is redundant to material in the article; that is, everything in the lead is referenced and covered in more detail in the lead and the lead is a dummary. Besides it looks messy :-) I am hoping you can provide your perspectives and ideas so when I get back we can carry the conversation forward to a decision.Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that MOS:LEAD says, "The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate". If the content in the lead reflects sourced content elsewhere in the article then there is generally no need for referencing, but that doesn't mean the lead can't be referenced. At least two of the references used in the lead aren't used elsewhere in the article, so perhaps they should stay. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I see, I'm not bothered either way, it just looks messy and if the info is mentioned elsewhere in the article and referenced there I see no need for them in the lead, but they've been put there by other people for a reason and I will not be deleting any. Oh, by the way, have you seen this? http://lohere.net/kulkapedia/samuel/Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, some people have no life.[25] They should call it wankerpedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this is offensive. After reading this, I don't see any problem in the SSCS article in JAWP anymore....

I'd like to have references in the lead. This is an article about highly controversial group. It's better to have reference as much as possible. --Bugandhoney (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Article objectivity

Admittedly I am new to this, but the only revision I had put in was pulled. Saying that consensus was reached that citing them as terrorists early on was bad and to leave it for later. I was unable to find that consensus. If anyone can point me towards it, I thank you. It seems this article has an atrociously low objectivity rating. At this point it is below 1.5. I believe this is due to the fact that the article sounds like a cheer-leading section, especially in the beginning. The way that I laid out that there were differing views on this particle organization seemed fairly straight forward and unbiased to me. I also feel that the use of euphemisms through out the article, such as calling their methods "direct action" seem to demean the credibility of the article. Are their standards for how an organization is deemed a terrorist organization? It seems that a lot of opinion is in this article.

El Heuro (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is a standard, and its basically that we don't call groups terrorist organizations unless it's nearly universally agreed upon (or self-applied, I suppose). As they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. See WP:TERRORIST. However, if you look later in the lead, we clearly state that SSCS is designated as a terrorist organization by several governments, and we discuss it in detail in the article text. I'm not quite sure why you think this article is so biased. Could you point to other places besides this one point that you see as a problem? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the terrorist instruction. It makes sense. As for why I think the article is biased, it is not just me. As I pointed out the objectivity rating is extremely low. I would say that makes a consensus? When it comes to the "direct action" part, maybe it should be changed to "violent direct action", as that is where they are listed in the direct action wiki. This would also be more descriptive and more accurate. They also admit to damage to property which would qualify them for this. I feel that the article leads off with the feel of stroking SSCS. It is fairly difficult to pinpoint exactly why so many people feel this article is biased. It seems to be the wordsmithing and order of items. I am not sure if there is a specific way to describe it but the closest descriptor I can come up with is the opposite of undue weight. El Heuro (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I support Qwyrxian. "SSCS as terrorists" is clearly a POV and should be noted as such. Plus, "some to consider to be a terrorist organization and others consider" simply violates WP:WEASEL. That's why we explicitly stated who referred to them as terrorists further down in the lead. I like the way the things were laid out right now.

I have problems with other edits by El Heuro.[26][27] This is too much interpretation of the source. I also don't like the idea that tactical disagreement between the two groups scatters all over the article. Actually the same source was already cited in the body.[28] Why don't you just expand this sentence, if you feel you need to, instead of squeezing this in into the lead? --Bugandhoney (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have agreed to the explanation on why not adding terrorist as descriptor here is correct, so I do not see what your point was. As for the other two edits you pointed out, they are directly relevant to the thoughts that were already established where they were edited. Why do they need to be pushed down? If they need to be pushed down, do the entire thoughts that they edit need to be pushed down? As for saying there is to much interpretation from the source, there is not interpretation the source explicitly states they do not cooperate with them because they are committed to non-violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Heuro (talk • contribs) 14:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just as we question the words of SSCS we have to question the words of Greenpeace when they talk about SSCS. The two organisations have been at war with each other for some time and there is some obvious bad blood between the two. We can use Greenpeace as a source for information about Greenpeace's attitude towards SSCS, but when it comes to criticism of SSCS, their comments can't be regarded as credible. If you want to put this sort of thing in the article, you need a better source. As for page ratings, with so few contributors they really don't mean much. A reader here or there can affect the rating considerably. For example, in the 12 hours since you posted an objectivity rating of below 1.5, it has risen to 3.4 from 63 ratings. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Will citing sea shepherd's own site, where they say that ramming ships is an accomplishment be sufficient for you? I still don't understand though. Even though they are not friendly, they cited their information and these tactics are very well known. El Heuro (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has mentioned my suggested change of direct action to violent direct action. Does this silence meant approval? El Heuro (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If SSCS says their operations are "endangering human life" then yes. If not, you need an independent source. No, silence does not mean that "violent direct action" is approved. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dude, stop edit warring. Get a consensus here first. Don't discuss what an editor think of SSCS. It's futile and irrelevant. What's your source for the words "violent direct action"?--Bugandhoney (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Would saying that they rammed ships qualify? As a sailor I can tell you that things like ramming a ship definitely put lives in danger. On another item, there is a sentence I believe also needs work but do not know the proper way to fix it or even if it should be addressed "It was the notorious pirate whaling vessel Sierra.[13]" The citation links to the book, but does not contain the information. It also seems to be an interesting use of wording calling it notorious. What would deem a vessel notorious? Would there need to be the same standards as calling an organization terrorist? Also what declares them a pirate ship? It seems to be lifted from Watson's words here http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Interviews/PaulWatson.htm I would not think that his words would be able to be used to describe a whaler, as AussieLegend pointed out. El Heuro (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This newspaper article doesn't seem to be lifted from his words and National Geographic uses notorious too.[29] --AussieLegend (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

El Heuro, the ref [13] is a journal article. You may need subscription to read. "Notorious" is in there. If you are interested why the authors used such a word, read it carefully. --Bugandhoney (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bug, I am assuming that by "Dude" you mean me. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say don't discuss what and editor thinks of the SSCS. I don't think anyone here did that. As I said earlier, the SSCS is used in the wiki of Violent Direct Action and they fit the definition by their own admission.El Heuro (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

El Heuro, I think you are referring to Direct action#Violent direct action. It's unsourced and as per WP:CIRCULAR, we cannot use a Wikipedia article as a source. Sorry. This means no to "violent direct action" (unless you find a good source).

It really doesn't matter if you, me, AussieLegend, or anyone else think SSCS is violent or not. What only counts is what a source says about it, and when I say a source, it means an independent, neutral, and third-party source, but not like Greenpeace, which has been in long dispute with Paul Watson since he departed from the organization. Just read a couple of newspaper articles form Australia and New Zealand. They never condemns SSCS as violent, unlike Canadian and Japanese press. The current article just reflects mixed and confused views of the media towards SSCS. --Bugandhoney (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I know a new season just started and all but you guys need to STFU if you are going to treat this like a forum. I think the stupid ratings (or whatever Wikipedia implemented) shows that this article is pretty objective. You want to see them as terrorists? Read the source? You want to see them as heroes? Read the source. So either present sources of your own (show me one of you who is looking at sources from the 80s) or go away. Cptnono (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The only person here who seems to be treating this page like a forum is Cptnono. The article in my view is systematically biased, with far too much weight being given to Japanese and Canadian sources. So if some of you guys want to get more balance into the article, that would be great. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's be specific and constructive, okay? You just cannot claim that the article is "systematically biased" simply because it is written in a way you don't like! Here's the fact: There are currently 90 references and only 5 of them are from Japan. (That's 6 %.) Four are from the Japan Times([30][31][32][33]) and the other from Kyodo News([34]). I don't see how possibly we can give too much weight to Japanese sources in this situation. Plus, it seems to me that these 5 sources are cited just like others. Probably, there are more Canadian sources cited than the Japanese sources, but the majority are British, American, and Australian, from countries which haven't had clashes with SSCS yet. If there is any description you think is biassed, then you can provide an alternative view using a similarly reliable source. That's how we deal with controversies in Wikpedia. --Bugandhoney (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

An interesting discussion which goes to the heart of the problem of Wikipedia. It seems that people with an anti-Sea Shepherd agenda try to load the article with as much negative content as possible while others, either pro-Sea Shepherd or simply editors trying to write factual unbiased material, try to counteract the biases put in by the anti-Sea Shepherd people.

Consider this sentence, in the lead para which has high visibility for readers:

'The American,[9] Canadian,[10][11] and Japanese governments,[12] as well as the Institute of Cetacean Research of Japan,[13] have referred to them as terrorists.'

If we drill down... 'The American,[9]...' This is factually incorrect. In 2002 a FBI Chief mentioned Sea Shepherd once, historically, in the context of 'eco-terrorism'. He is not the American Government. The American Government, represented by official White House communiques has never declared Sea Shepherd to be 'terrorists'.

'Canadian,[10][11]...' This is factually incorrect. One reference goes to an employee of the Canadian Government writing an opinion piece in which he states that Sea Shepherd can be considered as 'militant', which is a far cry from terrorist. Indeed the disclaimer on the article states: 'Disclaimer: Publication of an article in the Commentary series does not imply CSIS authentication of the information nor CSIS endorsement of the author's views.' The second reference goes to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador Provinces who calls Paul Watson, not Sea Shepherd, a 'terrorist'. Clearly the Premier of a Province of Canada is not the 'Canadian Government', nor is a government employee.

'Japanese governments,[12]...' This is factually incorrect. The reference says that the Japanese Government has called Paul Watson, not Sea Shepherd, an 'ecoterrorist'. Being knowledgeable about the machinations of the Japanese Government, I went looking for a statement from the Japanese Government calling Sea Shepherd 'terrorists'. I found none, that is nada, zero, zippo, natch. The Japanese Government has never declared Sea Shepherd terrorists. The closest is the Institute for Cetacean Research and the Japan Whaling Association, both of which are part-funded by the Japanese Government, but who do not represent the Government of Japan. At most I would say the author of that reference concatenated, or conflated, the ICR/JWA statements with the GOJ.

'Institute of Cetacean Research of Japan,[13]...' A representative of the ICR has publicly called Sea Shepherd 'eco-terrorists'. But again, the ICR is not the Government of Japan. The history of the ICR media fight against Sea Shepherd shows an interesting growth. Back around 2006/7 they started out calling Sea Shepherd 'pirates', then 'pirate-vigilantes',then next 'pirate-terrorists' and finally, after hiring a Western public relations expert (Glenn Inwood) they fixed on 'ecoterrorists'.

So, the lead paragraph contains false and misleading statements, based on tenuous links (A 2002 FBI statement becomes the American Govt; an opinion piece by a Canadian public servant and a statement by a provincial Canadian Premier becomes the Canadian Government, a comment by a newspaper writer about Paul Watson becomes the Government of Japan, despite no supporting evidence). None of these sources have called Sea Shepherd terrorists (the Canadian Premier used the term in reference to Paul Watson), at most they use the term 'ecoterrorists'.

The usage of 'terrorist' and 'ecoterrorist', is an interesting topic. In the USA 'terrorist' is the ultimate denigration, put-down or hate term, linking the disliked parties activities to the hot-button topic of bin Laden and 9-11, etc.

For example, in the USA, a couple once defrauded an elderly lady out of her life savings and were called by the town police chief 'financial terrorists'. The practise is spreading, in 2012 in Australia, a man pulled out a gun and shot another man in the arm inside a shopping mall. The ricochet slightly injured a woman standing nearby and the Mayor of Gold Coast called this a 'terrorist' act.

Looking at the history of this article, one can see that the lead paragraph had the US Government calling Sea Shepherd 'ecoterrorists', the language has been hardened up to paint the organisation as 'terrorists'. Just as further down in the article what originally said 'paint bombs' being thrown by Sea Shepherd has become simply 'bombs' leading casual readers to think high explosives when in fact, if I am recalling the correct incident, they were light-bulbs filled with paint.

I would be interested in what other editors think about such sloppy and inaccurate material placed front and centre in the lead para. Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Rough hewn. Since the Bush administration demoted and devalued the term "terrorist" to mean simply "something inconvenient to US administration interests", referring to the Sea Shepherd organisation as "terrorist" is unhelpful and absurd. We now need another word if we are going to refer to proper "terrorism". --Epipelagic (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Rough's point. And please adhere to discussion on wording and content in the lead, but not to discussion on what the word terrorist means in general.

The lead serves as a summary of the main body of the article. Word substitution is necessary and I don't call it "sloppy". I call it "succinct". As for "the American and Canadian governments", it's explained in the main body further down who said what in what context. As for the Japanese government and ICR, the sources are not mentioned in this context again in the body, so probably we want to improve that. We can put the words "officials of" in the lead to clarify Rough's (to my opinion) minor point. We can also completely repeat what's in "Governmental response" in the lead to be super-accurate, but I don't think that's what you want to do or that's what the lead about.

ICR operates with very close association with the Fishery Agency, but you are right it's not a part of government per se. That's why I changed the wording at some point to separate the word "governments" from ICR to avoid that kind of mixing-up. (The two sources were treated together before.)

Please keep in your mind that the lead summarizes the body. It looks strange to me that even though you care exactly who called them terrorists, you seem not to be bothered by the wording, such as "quarters such as media personalities", when it comes to support for SSCS. The supporters are also fully described further down in the body. We can change wording to clarify things, but we cannot put all the information there. So the discussion is rather we want to put the terrorist references in the lead or not. Wording is a minor point and any changes to clarify things should be always encouraged and welcomed.--Bugandhoney (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

So, looking at you latest edits, the article is now being tipped even further in its unbalanced POV. The article really needs someone willing to put the time in to establish some objectivity. As it now stands it is a disgrace to Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Other than Campbell's quote in the body, it's a regular maintenance. As per WP:DEADREF, I replaced the Time's online article which has been dead for a long time with a printed form. Responding Rough's concern, I went specific with "critics" and spelled out who they are, according to the source. Then I realized I could combine this with El Huero's edit. As for Campbell's comment, it was covered by several newspapers and Watson responded to it.[35] So I figured it was worth mentioning in the body. FYI, in Wikipedia, anyone can edit any article at any time when he/she finds a problem in it. --Bugandhoney (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Tell me, what exactly is this POV you’re talking about? — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 07:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You could of course start with your own edits. Any objective person who examines these will see the consistent pattern of a POV warrior representing the SSCS, whenever possible, in the worst possible light. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right Epipelagic, this article is atrociously edited and a disgrace; but it is an excellent example of what Wikipedia articles should not be! Perhaps it should be archived and used as a teaching resource? Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

in regard to calling SSCS terrorists, what is the problem with calling them eco-terrorists? since the definition, according to the FBI is "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against people or property by an environmentally oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons..." can anyone dispute that SSCS is guilty of doing exactly that?85.220.124.203 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read the above and through the archives, as this subject has been done to death. The consensus is not to include this, so your edit has v=been reverted. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The article already mentions that they have been labeled by some as eco-terrorists, doesn’t it? It should. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 07:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not a matter of if they are "labeled by some as..." its a matter of, if, objectively they fall under the definition of eco-terrorists. no one has shown that they don´t, in fact i would think that with their actions thru the years, they have proven themselves to fit that definition perfectly, so why is there a problem or even a debate about calling them that. for example, wikipedia doesn´t call the former USSR a union of Republics even tho they called themselves that, it is identified as a hegemony because that is the definition that they fall under. in other words, why not call a spade a spade?85.220.124.203 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

In regard to the lead, I have gone through it line by line and suggest edits according to WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, WP:AVOID, etc.. I will leave them up here for discussion and for other contributors to make suggestions and comments, essentially to ‘sandbox’ or ‘beta-test’ the suggested edits. Please insert your comments/replies/discussion AFTER the relevant sentence and comments, rather than at the end of this post as doing so would be confusing. If you do put comments/replies/discussion at the end of this post, please CLEARLY indicate the sentence you are referring to (FIRST, etc.).

FIRST sentence: The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a non-profit, marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor on San Juan Island, Washington in the United States. My first consideration is that most of this sentence is redundant as the information is in the sidebar. The acronym ‘SSCS’ appears only in the article in this sentence and so is also redundant.

As stated below, the sentence should be redundant to the info in the sidebar. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean info in the sidebar should be in the lead text? As the comment you mention (below, by AussieLegend) says 'it should never be redundant to the infobox'. Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What AussieLegend means by "its not redundant" is that the information is supposed to be in both places. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As per MOS:BOLDSYN, we should include the acronym. It's commonly used in newspaper articles. --Bugandhoney (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen it used in a newspaper article. Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

SECOND sentence: The group uses direct action tactics to protect sealife. Sea Shepherd currently operates the vessels MY Steve Irwin, the MY Bob Barker, and the MV Brigitte Bardot, and most of the group's recent activities take place in international waters. Firstly, ‘sealife’ is incorrect grammar, using ‘marine life’ would be better. In the second clause the word ‘recent’ fails WP:AVOID and the clause is simply wrong; most of the organisations current activities are within national jurisdictions (e.g. Canadian sealing, Namibian sealing, Faeroese whaling and Taji). I also added ‘for their campaigns’ as the sentence gives no reason why the organisation has ships and is thus vague WP:AVOID. In keeping with WP:MOS, I have inserted ‘controversial’. I suggest:

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a non-profit conservation organization that uses conventional protests and controversial direct action tactics to protect marine life. The Society currently operates the vessels MY Steve Irwin, the MY Bob Barker, and the MV Brigitte Bardot for their campaigns.

Agree with marine life, agree with removing recent. On the International vs. national, we need a citation to decide between the two. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it obvious - sealing happens on land (well, ice), their intervention in Taiji is in an inlet on the coast etc. Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

By citation I mean we need a source to decide whether most of the current activities are national or most are international. If we can't get one, your version is fine because it doesn't say either way. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, otherwise it would be original research.Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

THIRD sentence: The group has a strong focus on public relations to spread their message via the media. I question whether this sentence is needed, as every humanitarian and conservation group world-wide has a strong public relations focus to spread their message. Greenpeace is a classic example. It simply states the bleeding obvious and is unnecessary.

Definitely need this; Greenpeace, for example, does not have their own television show on a major international cable station. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, I thought it redundant as they all do; lets see what other editors think but I have no qualms about leaving it in and at the moment you stand as 100% of the votes for keeping it! Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep It's covered in Sea Shepherd Conservation Society#Public relations. This sentence should go with the fourth para. --Bugandhoney (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

FOURTH sentence: The organization was founded in 1977 under the name Earth Force Society by Paul Watson, a former member of Greenpeace, after a dispute with that organization over what Watson saw as its lack of more aggressive intervention. This is a clumsy sentence, I suggest:

Initially named the Earth Force Society, Sea Shepherd is directed by Paul Watson, a former member of the Board of Directors of Greenpeace. Watson left Greenpeace to establish Sea Shepherd after a dispute over what he saw as Greenpeace’s lack of more aggressive intervention in environmental issues.

Agree with the rewording; it covers the same info in a clearer way. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

FIFTH sentence: Watson purports to be a co-founder of Greenpeace, a claim vehemently denied by that organization. Firstly this sentence violates WP:AVOID and WP:NPOV. ‘Purports’ is a biased term that pushes a negative slant on the sentence, as does ‘claim’, and the use of ‘vehemently’ is a weasel word under WP:AVOID. Secondly the topic of this article is Sea Shepherd, not Watson’s hissy fit over Greenpeace (and vice versa). It is irrelevant here, entirely against WP:NPOV standards, and more properly belongs in the Paul Watson article where the issue is discussed at greater length. I suggest this sentence be deleted.

Agree that this info belongs in the Watson article, not here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete I agree with you. It's POV. --Bugandhoney (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

SIXTH sentence: Sea Shepherd has received support for its tactics against fishing, whaling, and seal hunting from quarters such as media personalities, while critics have called the direct action violent. As Bugandhoney has suggested, this sentence needs a rewrite. The use of the word ‘quarters’ is simply ugly prose. I suggest that the eighth sentence be moved to follow this sentence, as there is a logical flow on. So, in keeping with Bugandhoney’s suggestion, I have removed ‘quarter’s’ and given more summary detail. It could read:

Sea Shepherd has had support for its actions against fishing, whaling, and seal hunting from media personalities, Australian Greens politicians, business people and the public; while critics have called their direct action tactics violent. In 2008, Animal Planet began filming a weekly documentary-style reality television show, Whale Wars, following Sea Shepherd’s encounters with the Japanese whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean; the program has brought the organisation much publicity.

SEVENTH sentence: Operations have included scuttling and disabling whaling vessels at harbor, intervening in Canadian and Namibian seal hunts, shining laser light into the eyes of whalers, throwing bottles of foul-smelling butyric acid onto vessels at sea, boarding of whaling vessels while at sea, and seizure and destruction of drift nets at sea.

I suggest the following to better summarise the majority of actions and tactics. I insert ‘controversial’ per WP:MOS:

Sea Shepherd has intervened in Japanese, Icelandic, Norwegian, Faroese whaling and illegal whaling; the Canadian and Namibian seal hunts; illegal fishing activities at sea and the Taiji dolphin slaughter. Since 2001, the organisation has had a formal partnership with the Ecuadorian Government to assist in policing the Galapagos Marine Reserve.

Their controversial tactics have included: Painting baby seals to make their fur worthless to sealers; ramming fishing and whaling ships at sea; scuttling whaling ships at dockside; throwing bottles of paint and vomit-smelling butyric acid onto the decks of fishing and whaling ships at sea; using lasers to try to temporarily blind Japanese whalers; deploying ropes and wires to entangle ship propellers; boarding whaling ships at sea; and destroying driftnets and longlines that they find floating in the ocean.

Take out the phrase "illegal whaling", unless there are sources in the text to support that any of it was illegal. Change "slaughter" to "harvesting" per WP:NPOV. Take out both "foul-smelling" (original) and "vomit smelling" before butyric acid, and link it instead. Remove the "at sea" and "at dockside", because I'm not sure that the distinction matters (and it's bad prose to repeat the same phrase 3 times in one sentence). Make sure that every one of these activities is sourced in the body of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I added 'illegal whaling' as the Japanese whaling is not illegal but some of their first actions were against illegal whaling (e.g. Sierra and Russia). Illegal whaling is defined as whaling carried on outside of the IWC regulations as the IWC has control on all whaling. Some whaling slips under the radar (e.g. a tribe in Indonesia), but that is because it is too much effort to pay attention to it. The word 'slaughter' is the best term as it is the clearest, plain language descriptor. I think reference to the odour is important as it gives the reader an idea of why it is being used, otherwise they may assume melting faces and horrific burns, if you have ever smelt it, it does smell like vomit! the phrases 'at sea' and 'at dockside' are relevant because they have never sunk a whaling ship at sea but they have attacked fishing and whaling vessels at sea, maybe rephrase 'at sea' to make it read better. Regarding sourcing, once wording is settled I was going to look to see if they are in the body. That is why I suggest removing the 'SSCS' as it occurs once and only in the lead. Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If that's what you think butyric acid does, I strongly question your ability to edit this article. That's SSCS propaganda, pure and simple. It's acid, and, depending on how refined it is, it can be quite a strong one. It burns people. It causes damage to skin. That whole "it's just rancid butter" is complete fabrication done by SSCS to make it sound like their not engaging in a violent act. But anyway...it's not a dolphin slaughter, that's a ridiculously POV word. It's harvesting. It's killing. It's catching. I'm sure there must be other words. Slaughter has extremely negative connotations...you're welcome to your opinion of the dolphin hunt, but WP cannot reflect your opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is messed up. It's because their targets and means are mixed up. But I don't think your writing is any better, either. Too much detailed. --Bugandhoney (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk Qwyrxian. where did I mention 'rancid butter'? It is butyric acid and that is what the article should say - my comment is that it ranks up there with acetic acid (vinegar) in the hazardous materials stakes, it is not hydrochloric acid. I propose changing from 'foul' to 'vomit-smelling' as that is more accurate as a description. Foul is a pretty good description but a bit vague - in Indonesia one can buy durian fruit flavoured hard candy, but for most Westerners durian fruit is foul. Similarly there are people who like the flavour of the quinine in indian tonic water but others are disgusted; what is 'foul' can be culturally specific, but most people would know what vomit smells like. As for slaughter, I disagree. I think that is an adequate descriptor and not POV - cattle ranchers herd up and drive cattle to be slaughtered at the slaughter house. The taiji fishers herd up and drive dolphon into a pen and slaughter them. That is all, it describes the process. However I would object to the word 'slaughter' being used to decribe whaling or the Canadian seal kill as whaling is a specific type of hunting and is not a slaughter, the same with seals; calling this 'slaughter' would be POV pushing. I object to the use of the word 'harvest' as in all situations it is generally used as a euphimism, a weasel word, as in ; old-growth forests aren't clear-felled or logged they are 'harvested'. Organs are 'harvested' from dead people as that sounds nicer than 'taken' or 'removed'. The technical term for marine fisheries is the 'wild capture' of 'living marine resources'. It is not a harvest. Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, on Wikipedia there is the article dolphin drive hunt. Do you think that would be a better term to use than the others mentioned? Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this. Yes, I agree that dolphin drive hunt is better. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

EIGHTH sentence: Sea Shepherd claims that their aggressive actions are necessary as the international community has shown itself unwilling or unable to stop species-endangering whaling and fishing practices, while their violent tactics are sometimes opposed even by those who denounce whaling, such as the governments of Australia and New Zealand and Greenpeace.

I suggest some changes: The word order in the last clause as it implies ‘the government of Greenpeace’; the removal of ‘violent’ as it fails WP:NPOV and WP:AVOID, using this word in this context pushes a biased viewpoint on a Wikipedia article. Replacing ‘claims’ with ‘says’ for WP:AVOID reasons. Also, reading the references shows only the Australian govt Greenpeace opposed their tactics. The sentence could read:

Sea Shepherd says that these aggressive actions are necessary as the international community has shown itself unwilling or unable to stop species-endangering whaling and fishing practices, while their tactics are sometimes opposed even by those who denounce whaling, such as Greenpeace.

No, you cannot remove "violent". It's the key term. That's why they are against SSCS. It's in the source, too. About "the government of Greenpeace", you just need to swap the words. "Greenpeace and the governments of Australia and New Zealand" --Bugandhoney (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you Bugandhoney. It is not about whether or not Sea Shepherd are violent, it is about if Wikipedia can say that that is the issue. You may be of the opinion that Sea Shepherd are violent and share that opionion with many others, but equally many others are of the opinion that Sea Shepherd is not violent. There is ongoing debate, and there has been for years, about if property damage is violence. Right-wing activists like Ron Arnold promote the line that any civil disobedience is violent, even tresspass, leafleting, graffiti, picket lines. Corporation in America have lobbied for buyer boycotts (like 'don't buy Nike') to viewed as violence and a criminal offece as it causes economic 'harm' to businesses. Greenpeace has been convicted and fined under the UN Convention on the Funding of Terrorism for paying for a banner that was hung of a town hall saying 'No GMO!' Using the phrase 'their violent tactics' is a positional statement that makes it appear that Wikipedia has taken a p[osition or the position is universally accepted. If one uses 'controversial' instead of 'violent' it is still ok as it is Wikipedia recognising that there is more than one viewpoint on the topic, but stating 'their violent tactics' is not NPOV in content or form. Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

NINTH sentence: Officials of the American, Canadian, and Japanese governments, as well as the Institute of Cetacean Research of Japan, have referred to them as terrorists.

Despite some recent editing, there can be more done to make the sentence factually accurate. I suggest the following in which I’ve clarified the various statements. I have removed the reference to the Premier of a Canadian Province as he was making a statement directly about Paul Watson, not Sea Shepherd. The sentence could read:

Sea Shepherd are categorised as vigilantes, while an FBI Deputy-Chief once mentioned Sea Shepherd in the context of eco-terrorism. A Canadian Security Intelligence Service analyst once described the organisation as militant. The Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research has repeatedly called Sea Shepherd pirate-terrorists and eco-terrorists.

Keep The lead is a concise summary. We seek for common denominators and one-fits-all words. --Bugandhoney (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

'one-fits-all'? Well 'militant' is better then. None of the sources have called Sea Shepherd 'terrorists'; it is untrue, innacurrate and POV-pushing to decide then that 'terrorists' is a better word to use. Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

thats not true. the Icelandic government has called the SSCS a "terrorist organisation" see: http://www.grapevine.is/News/ReadArticle/Iceland-Calls-Sea-Shepherd-Terrorist-Organisation and this isnt the first time they have done so.85.220.124.203 (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

TENTH sentence: In 2008, Animal Planet began filming the weekly series Whale Wars based on the group's encounters with the Japanese whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean, a development which brought the group much publicity. Just changing ‘development’ to ‘program’ (which is what Whale Wars is), ‘based’ to ‘documentary-style’, as ‘based’ implies fiction and so fails WP:AVOID, and putting the sentence behind the sixth sentence as there is a logical flow on. Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to address the rest of what you've posted at the moment, but regarding the first sentence you say "My first consideration is that most of this sentence is redundant as the information is in the sidebar". The lede is an essential part of an article and is never redundant to the infobox, which is not an essential part of an article. Lead sections and infoboxes often duplicate their content. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look at other info boxes, but your point is valid. However another comment also seems to say (?) the infobox info should also be in the lead text

You haven’t read Sea Shepherd’s website, or the website of the Institute for Cetacean Research, let alone the news much, have you? If you had, you wouldn’t be trying to tell me that it’s more fair to call the show a documentary than to come anywhere near implying it’s partly make-believe. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 05:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Gerbil, I only watched a few episodes of Whale Wars, but was amazed at the apparent amatuerishness of the crew. In younger days I worked on ships and was part of a swift RHIB deployment team, being the person who released the boat from the knuckle when it hit water (I believe it is automatically done now), watching their failed deployment made me cringe. However, I take your point and have edited the sentence suggestion to read 'documentary-style'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rough hewn and made of wood (talk • contribs) 01:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On further refelection, I think 'a weekly documentary-style reality television show' is better. Rough hewn and made of wood (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with Rough that the lead is messy. It's not because it's POV. It's because it lacks a good structure. For example, the second paragraph starts with its history and ends with peoeple's reaction. Then the third paragraph again ends with people's reaction. The last sentence in the first paragraph is about public relations. They are described again in the last paragraph. Pretty much random things appear here and there. Probably you want to first agree with the structure of the lead, what we want to include in there, rather than we go through sentence by sentence. --Bugandhoney (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC) This should be better.[36] It's mostly reorganization, plus some minor word changes. "Watson as Greenpeace co-founder" was entirely removed. --Bugandhoney (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead 2

Someone with more time than I have might like to add the fact that a US Court has today called them Pirates, saying "when you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid and drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers - you are, without a doubt, a pirate.". Moriori (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, because it's just one judge's opinion. It's not even a legal decision (i.e., they didn't find the SSCI guilty of piracy). It's a comment in a decision. Should they be convicted of piracy, or should larger governmental organizations declare them pirates, that info could be included (as, in fact, it already is in some cases). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

:) Moriori (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the "pirates" remark should go into the lead, but since there's wide coverage of the judge's remark, I put it into the body.[37]--Bugandhoney (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and your edits seem quite reasonable. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

How is the judge's comment WP:DUE? Don't think about the "wide coverage"--that's falling into a WP:RECENTISM trap. The question is this: does the non-legally binding commentary by the judge form a lasting part of SSCS's "story"? I'm not sure that it does, but I am open to being persuaded otherwise. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The comment itself is probably not WP:DUE but it's part of an an ongoing story dating back to 2011. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I should say it's not only wide, but significant. The judge's remark was cited not only by Japanese and Australian/New Zealand media, but also by third-country media (BBC, the Times[38], and now the Guardian). Some of these articles predict that the Japanese will get more aggressive on lawsuits based on this remark. So, yes, it's likely that this will be a lasting part of the whole story. Plus, we can always revisit the issue in the later time point to see if it's really lasting. --Bugandhoney (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal difficulties

It seems that Sea Shepherd's legal difficulties are somewhat buried in the article and, given their growing number and significance to the group's history and operation, it stands to reason that the topic be given its own section and that coverage of the issues be cleaned up. Whilst 'recentism' should be avoided, the group's legal difficulties are of increasing interest to the media and public and should therefore be afforded greater attention. Veritas Fans (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what sources will be in the proposed section? --Bugandhoney (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Affiliated international legal entities

Since SSCS in the US has been barred from anti-whaling by a court (put loosely), and by everything Watson and SSCS say publicly, Sea Shepherd Australia is now conducting the anti-whaling activities, it would seem that a slight overhaul capturing that would be in order. 68.5.176.101 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)