Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Bethune convictions

I've just noticed that the page has a glaring deficiency in that it does not make any mention of the arrest, trial and conviction of a Sea Shepherd member, Pete Bethune. This was perhaps the most significant event in Sea Shepherd's history and should clearly be added. It is strange that it is absent. I'm happy to draft some wording to add it in, unless someone else would like to? Veritas Fans (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

These events are addressed in Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations, which is linked to from the "History" section of the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I realise that, but my point is that it is entirely missing from the main article. As I said, it's one of the most important events in Sea Shepherd history, not just in terms of being news-worthy but also for the resulting criminal conviction. It really needs to be added to the main article and not hidden away elsewhere. I'll put together a paragraph.Veritas Fans (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"It's one of the most important events in Sea Shepherd history" is a subjective claim at best. Bethune was supposedly out of SSCS after his return to Japan, so the trial doesn't warrant inclusion in the article as, technically, it's not SSCS related. SSCS wasn't on trial, an individual was. This is an overview article, at least from the point of vie of operations, so there's no need to include everything that people perceive as significant. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well no, it's not really subjective at all. Any objective analysis would arrive at the conclusion that it is one of the most significant events in Sea Shepherd history. After all, it is an instance of a violent criminal offence being committed as part of Sea Shepherd's operations by a Sea Shepherd operative. It really doesn't get more important than that. You would have to be strongly biased and intending to distort the Sea Shepherd article if you actually think this incident does not warrant inclusion.

In the mean time, are there any senior mods active on this page? I think someone may need to reign in this 'AussieLegend' character. His continued ability to edit this article does nothing for its already dubious neutrality.

I will draft some wording about the Bethune convictions for the review of others. Is there somewhere I can post the wording for discussion prior to addition to the main article? Please advise. Veritas Fans (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Anything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. In order to justify inclusion of this content you'll need a citation from a reliable source supporting your claim that it is "one of the most significant events in Sea Shepherd history", otherwise it's just the belief of a Wikipedia editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope. You seem to be suggesting that this incident needs to be identified as 'one of the most significant events in Sea Shepherd history' by a reliable source for it to be added to the article. That is incorrect. The sooner you cease your involvement with the editing of this page, the better. Cheers. Veritas Fans (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

According to SSCS, Bethune, and the nature of the conviction, Bethune was not acting according to SSCS directives when he undertook the events that lead to his arrest and trial. Now, we can debate as to whether that was really true, and whether or not it was simply said that way to give a cover to giving Bethune a light sentence and causing more international discord...but that would just be a bunch of Wikipedia editors debating. Now, if someone could produce sources explicitly stating that this was an SSCS action, and that it was important, then we could add it to the article. But VF is basically correct here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, looked at the user names wrong; AussieeLegend is correct here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's irrelevant whether he was acting in accordance with SSCS directives. The simple fact is, he was a member of SSCS and actively participating in one of its campaigns. His criminal convictions include that of assault, which was for the act of firing an acid projectile at whalers. That was/is very much within SSCS's ordinary actions. And he did it as part of a campaign and with materials supplied by SSCS as part of that campaign. Any attempt to distance SSCS from those actions is entirely fallacious. The incident and the trial and repatriation of Bethune is objectively one of the largest media-attention generating incidents of SSCS's existence. I'm not sure how that is at all even debatable. To keep any mention of this incident off SSCS's main page reeks of biased censorship and a desire to cleanse the record of this unmarketable episode.

If you are genuinely in doubt as to whether this was an SSCS operation or a significant event, please just type it into Google. Otherwise, if you can legitimately counter anything I've just said, I'd be very interested to hear it. Veritas Fans (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The burden is on you to provide sources that show that he was acting as an SSCS member, especially when, if I recall correctly (though I admit I may be misremembering) his sentencing was specifically predicated on him not having been an SSCS member. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well ok. But what you are remembering is that he was apparently expelled by SSCS prior to sentencing. That expulsion would imply that he was, up until that point, a member of SSCS. But given your reluctance to type it into Google yourself, here is a link: www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/08/sea-shepherd-expels-peter-bethune

Do you have any further questions? Veritas Fans (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds negative.. you should know by now that if you add negative sounding things to SSCS people will flip out and pretend that you are POV pushing by adding your negative sounding facts to what should be a nice neutral happy article about our eco-protecting friends. Neutrality is supposed to mean that our opinion of the subject doesn't affect how well we edit. Just make sure it's well cited and notable and do your thing. 68.42.144.46 (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Institute for Cetacean Research

Could NorthbySouthBaranof please explain in what way the Institute of Cetacean Research is a part of the Japanese government? As far as I can tell, they are an independent non-profit group. Of course, this might raise the question of whether or not their opinion is WP:DUE for inclusion of this section. I'm willing to consider removal on the grounds that as just another non-profit, their voice isn't sufficiently important to deserve a note in an article about SSCS; I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on that. But I don't see how NCSB can remove it by saying it's a part of the Japanese government. The treaty itself is very explicit in that the government is allowed to grant special scientific research permits to its nationals, which are the grounds under which ICR kills whales. This is no different than, say, a driver's license--just because a person is authorized by the government to drive does not mean that person is acting as an agent of that government when they operate a motor vehicle. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Take it up with the Gray Lady.

The Institute of Cetacean Research, the government group that operates Japan’s widely criticized research whaling, suffered a nearly crippling financial blow last year when its annual hunt in the Antarctic Ocean was disrupted by an environmental group, a Japanese newspaper reported Tuesday. It said the institute suffered a loss of $20.5 million, requiring additional financing from the government. -from The New York Times [1]

A wide variety of reliable sources describe the group as government-linked, and clearly describe the fact that the "research" conducted by the group is little more than a front for killing whales, and that the meat from those kills ends up being sold in restaurants.

The group's activities are a paper-thin veil for commercial whaling. Wikipedia is not required to adhere to corporatized euphemisms. It is fundamentally misleading to note that the group opposes SSCS and not note that the "research" the group is actively involved in is, in fact, killing whales for commercial sale. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Recieving funding from a government doesn't imply that an organization works for that goverment. In your own country there are many non-profits that both recieve funding from the government, work towards goals that benefit both the organization and the community and are not directed by the government. You are doing independant research and/or your own synthesis to claim that the org is a part of the government, unless I am missing something. I do not speak Japanese but I've seen no Enlgish documentation (including what you've linked to) that demonstrates the organization is not an independant non-profit. 68.42.144.46 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected again

I've fully protected the article for another one month. Please continue to discuss on the talk page rather than revert each other. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also proposed that the article be placed on a one revert rule on the administrators' noticeboard. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

re added summary of some negative things in the lede

Now don't flip out! But some negative information that is readily available has been briefly summarized and placed in the lede. If someone wants to summarize a little better than I, please do. But please do not remove it again. Aussie, I know you're a good protector of this article, keeping vandals and all off of it, but please don't remove "negative" stuff just cause it sounds negative. Let's keep a neutral POV and make sure even the "negative" info is summarized accurately. 68.42.144.46 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You know very well that the lead is supposed to summarise main points from the article body, not to introduce new information that is not discussed elsewhere. Periodically returning to add the same content that was earlier removed and which you were warned about[2] is inappropriate and disruptive, especially when you have been asked to discuss it on this talk page. And please, when adding new threads, please add them to the bottom of the page, not in the middle. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So summarize the negative as well as the positive. Summarize the legal issues and the violent physical entanglements that have led to court action. 2001:558:6007:6E:5DE5:395F:2C03:78D6 (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is already adequate discussion in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"So summarize the negative as well as the positive" - As has been clearly explained to you at length since October, here and on your talk pages, the lead is supposed to summarise main points from the article body, not to introduce new information that is not discussed elsewhere. Content that you are adding to the lead is not discussed in the article, so it can't be summarised in the lead. In any case, as NorthBySouthBaranof has indicated, it is adequately summarised in the lead, given what is already in the article body and its significance. I'm seeing a lot of "I don't hear that" in your edits. You really need to start taking notice of what other editors are telling you, which is a reflection of our policies and guidelines. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You have summarized the problem with this article. Instead of making the article better by integrating information that you see, you deleted it entirely. You could have just as easily expanded the article sections to include the well cited information. So why don't you? Is it too difficult to add negative sounding information? 2001:558:6007:6E:5DE5:395F:2C03:78D6 (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Please disregard my irritated tone. You guys teamed up and deleted all my additions. Would you please mind reviewing the information you removed and add it to the appropriate place in the article instead of simply deleting it. Thank you. 2001:558:6007:6E:5DE5:395F:2C03:78D6 (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Instead of making the article better by integrating information that you see, you deleted it entirely. You could have just as easily expanded the article sections to include the well cited information." - It's not up to me, or any other editor to fix your mistakes. The burden is on YOU to add the content to the appropriate section in the article body and then summarise it, if it is significant, in the lead. And, if your changes are reverted, it's up to YOU to begin discussing it, not to edit-war over it. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Howdy. In the 2nd paragraph of the Activism section the first ref (#25 overall currently) is marked as being a dead link. The link does not appear to me to actually be dead. That dead link template should be removed.--Rockfang (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the fix! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - date format

In order to remove this article from Category:CS1 errors: dates, could someone please change reference #86 from "Novewmber" to "November"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Redundant text

In "Government response" the article says

"However, Nationals Party Senator Barnaby Joyce has opposed granting Sea Shepherd tax-exempt status stating that "Criminals should not get tax concessions – if you break the law, then donations to your organisation should not be tax deductible".[61]"

and a few paragraphs later

"Nationals Party Senator Barnaby Joyce has opposed granting Sea Shepherd tax-exempt status stating that "Criminals should not get tax concessions – if you break the law, then donations to your organisation should not be tax deductible".[61]"

which is redundant, isn't it? --Brandbarth (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

SSCS actual status

It seems to me that most of this article is no longer correct or we need to do a lot of clarification. Since the court order barring Sea Shepherd and Paul from interacting with the whaling fleet, they have utilized a separate entity, Sea Shepherd Australia Ltd. Not only is this a separate entity, but Australia has ruled that it is not a non-profit.

References

I feel like we need to either make this a "Sea Shepherd America" article or whatever their legal name is, or add clarification in the lede and through out the article, or some other option I am not aware of.

The pros of making it a "SSCS America" article are that it would be more concise and less gray area. The cons would be that separate articles would probably need to be created for each of it's other entities, and those difference are rarely designated in news articles.

If kept an umbrella SSCS article, we would have to change a lot about the lede...non-profit, based in the U.S., and other items. The biggest con about doing this is that the article would be misleading at best. Each of the entities calling themselves a form of Sea Shepherd are separate legal entities. They face separate legal challenges, conduct separate operations.

I may be over-thinking this, but I believe some changes are required. All input would be greatly appreciated. El Heuro (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Conservation organization?

The description of Sea Shepherd as a "non-profit, marine conservation organization" is misleading. The organization does not have non-profit status in many countries as it is a primarily political organization. As for being a conservation organisation, I don't think that its actions meet that definition. It is not involved in conservation at all, but rather politics. Finally it is widely regarded as a terrorist organisation. I suggest that the current introduction is far too favourable towards SSCS, to the extent of being biased. The description should reflect the militancy and controversial nature of the organisation, and omit the claim that it is non-profit.125.237.105.102 (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For all purposes, its goal is conservation. If you found legal loopholes that play with semantics, feel free to add a subsection entitled "Criticism" and add inline citations. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

William Shatner...

He is born in Montreal, Canada, so the sentence his native Australia is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.124.31 (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The only reference to William Shatner is in a sentence that says "while William Shatner has also been mentioned as supporting the group." The phrase "his native Australia", is part of the following sentence and refers to Heath Ledger, not Shatner. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverting

It is very sexy to see all of the sourced text in this article. Just to verify, if it is being removed there is a destination for it, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 09:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Is the the real Cptnono or has the account been hacked? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No it is me. I decided to whip up an article on a badass drummer and logged in. Noticed on the watch list that a whole mess of referenced material was removed. I assume it is in the child article but wanted to make sure since we have tons of citations to newspapers that are now harder to get to with Google's changes to News a while back. Those scanned articles are still there but it isn't as easy to find them.Cptnono (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused. The only reverting that has been going on has been reverting of vandalism. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. There wee chunks getting reverted a bit ago. Maybe it was one of the child articles and I was confused? Whatevs... are we good with getting rid of the neutrality tag or is there anything pressing? I'm pretty grouchy and even I am OK with it for the most part.Cptnono (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Broken link

Reference #19 is a broken link, which took me to the Japan Times's front page, not the specific article. This is a link to the article- http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2010/02/09/issues/watson-to-whalers-we-will-never-surrender/

12-Feb-2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.115.15 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090830114857/http://www.seashepherd.org:80/who-we-are/ to http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100915201653/http://www.wearethemasses.com:80/news/modest-mouse-king-rat-directed-by-heath-ledger/ to http://www.wearethemasses.com/news/modest-mouse-king-rat-directed-by-heath-ledger/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629124152/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23069678-30417,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23069678-30417,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150927034537/http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=51sQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zpIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5728,1161703&dq=sea-shepherd+sierra to https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=51sQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zpIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5728,1161703&dq=sea-shepherd+sierra

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090830114857/http://www.seashepherd.org:80/who-we-are/ to http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091227080844/http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca:80/pblctns/cmmntr/cm74-eng.asp to http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm74-eng.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit suggestions

Hi editors,

Full disclosure: I am an employee of Sea Shepherd Global.

I have some updates to suggest to this page, as some of the information is out of date. There is no headquarters in Melbourne, Australia. The Southern Operations Base located in Williamstown, VIC is often in the news as that is where there ships are primarily based when they are in Australia, but it isn't headquarters.

The first suggestion has been mentioned already in the talk thread regarding the legal and financial separation of Sea Shepherd Global + Australia from Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. I would suggest the text below be added to the summary paragraphs at the top of the page, or to the history section which clarifies the separation:

Pertaining to the Ninth District Court Injunction prohibiting Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Paul Watson from coming within 500 yards of the Japanese whaling fleet, there are now two seperate legal entities named 'Sea Shepherd': Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, based in California, and Sea Shepherd Global, based in The Netherlands. Sea Shepherd Global is the coordinating body under which many seperate national entities exist (Excluding Sea Shepherd Conservation Society) which are each entirely self-reliant. Paul Watson and American members of Sea Shepherd are currently prohibited by US courts from approaching or harassing Japanese whalers. However, Sea Shepherd Global still operates anti-whaling campaigns in the Southern Ocean.

I also have suggestions for the infobox:

The CEO of Sea Shepherd Global is Alex Cornelissen

The CEO of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is Paul Watson

Headquarters: California and Amsterdam

Tuberose87 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done You propose to use references to sources controlled by the various branches of Sea Shepherd to back up the assertion that these are separate groups and that legal restrictions on one do not apply to the other. This is a highly controversial assertion, and we need sources entirely independent of Sea Shepherd in order to make such an assertion in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617151310/http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/2009/06/09/whale-wars-sea-shepherd-nets-anthony-kiedis-and-rick-rubins-support/ to http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/2009/06/09/whale-wars-sea-shepherd-nets-anthony-kiedis-and-rick-rubins-support/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708115351/http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080409%2FNEWS%2F804090347 to http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080409%2FNEWS%2F804090347
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1995/03/17/1995-03-17_seal_fishermen_attack_group.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070622193855/http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1997/060597/news1.html to http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1997/060597/news1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm74-eng.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130215062504/http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1737280/US-Supreme-Court-rejects-Sea-Shepherd-bid to http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1737280/US-Supreme-Court-rejects-Sea-Shepherd-bid
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806113404/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

CNN: Sea Shepherd to suspend pursuit of Japanese whalers

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/29/asia/japan-whaling-sea-shepherd/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.12.235.53 (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

The tone of this article is biased and should be re-written. "Self Described" is used as a pejorative in the context of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.122.198 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a no-brainer to fix: the society appears on the IRS site for non profits (Tax ID 93-0792021) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/displayAll.do?dispatchMethod=displayAllInfo&Id=1030846&ein=930792021&country=US&deductibility=all&dispatchMethod=searchAll&isDescending=false&city=&ein1=93-0792021&postDateFrom=&exemptTypeCode=al&submitName=&sortColumn=orgName&totalResults=1&names=&resultsPerPage=25&indexOfFirstRow=0&postDateTo=&state=All+States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:5094:2F00:D555:E9E8:6C:4B05 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

White Ensign use?

I can see that the MY Steve Irwin in a photo in this article appears to be flying the White Ensign. I am not an expert on English maritime law but it is my understanding that use of the White Ensign is restricted for civilian vessels. If so, is Sea Shepherd's use of it noteworthy? Perhaps this was a form of protest?

MY Steve Irwin apparently flying the White Ensign

38.140.255.210 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea. Based on the White Ensign article, Sea Shepherd probably shouldn't be using it, but I can't imagine why they are doing so.

Nice photo, by the way. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a courtesy flag. Rama (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

What Rama said. An ensign is the national flag flown on a vessel to indicate citizenry. The ensign is the largest flag, generally flown at the stern (rear) of the ship while in port. In this case they are flying the Dutch ensign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.243.130.183 (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)