Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Mission statement

Opening discussion on the mission statement being used in the lead. My opinion is that having that much one-sided and biased language is not appropriate and slants the article. I believe we can paraphrase their mission without relying on their wording. I do not know if their is precedent for using a mission statement in the lead but it raises both neutrality and style concerns. Has anyone else ran into this or is there a set guideline for inclusion or not? Any feedback would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly consider the purpose of the first section, which is similar to others (talk about that below). the purpose is to say who the organisation is, that is all. It is not a place to put countervailing opinions, it is a simple statement of what the organistion is. It is appropriate to put the mission statement in and it is inapproprite, if you think about it, to 'paraphrase' it; It is the group describing it's purpose. As a simple statement of what the organisation it is not slanted or biased and can never be so.

Using the mission statement is common. If you go to the Sourcewatch page on Wikipedia it looks like this:

Mission statement According to SourceWatch, it aims:

'to produce a directory of the people, organizations and issues shaping the public agenda. A primary purpose of SourceWatch is documenting the PR and propaganda activities of public relations firms and public relations professionals.... [etc etc]' (citation)

If you go to Greenpeace in Wikipedia you'll see:

On its official website, Greenpeace defines its mission as the following: “ Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace by:

• Catalysing an energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our planet: climate change... [etc etc]' (citation)

If you go to the FBI page on Wikipedia you will see:

The FBI's main goal is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.[4]

If you go to citation [4] and to the link in that reference you will see:

About Us—Quick Facts Our Mission To protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.

If you go to the wikipedia page for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals you find:

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing cruelty towards animals. Based in New York City since its inception in 1866, the organization's mission is "to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States."[1]

If you follow the link in ref [1] you find:

Mission The ASPCA’s mission, as stated by Henry Bergh in 1866, is “to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States.”

Having the mission statement in the lead or intro is common, valid, and appropriate in this section, I think, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tranquillity Base (talk • contribs) 03:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For every article about an organization or company that has a mission statement included there are numerous others that do not (Earth Liberation Front does not use a 2 paragraph blockquote). I also don't want to bother with the potential concerns of other articles. When the mission statement overpowers the other lines in the lead and uses wording that is not neutral it causes a concern with balance. This also isn't an advertisement for the organization which is an unintended consequence. We should be able to paraphrase the organizations goals and reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a mission statement should be respected as the official statement of intention by an organisation, and not be tampered with. Particularly for this article, which is subject to the attentions of POV pushers. Paraphrasing the mission statement is just offering another area to POV pushers for edit warring and sniping from the sidelines. Mission statements are usually carefully worded by the organisation concerned, and paraphrasing may well misrepresent the intention of the organisation. Nor do I think you can say the mission statement is "one-sided and biased" as Cptnono does. It stand simply as the official declaration of intention by Sea Shepherd. If you, Cptnono, edit it so you no longer think it is "one-sided and biased", then it is no longer the mission statement–it is your statement.

It is altogether another matter whether the organisation behaves in a manner that is aligned with its mission statement. If you think that Sea Shepherd does not live up to its mission statement, then you can soberly document the relevant conflicting behaviour, and leave the reader to make up his/her mind. But it is not our job to impose our judgements on the reader.

I agree the mission statement is rather long to sit happily in the lead, and it could perhaps be moved to the top of the section immediately following the lead. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree. I do not think it is too 'long to sit in the lead' - it is shorter than others. I fully agree that it should not be paraphrased as it is their words and I think it should remain as it is a straight to the point statement of purpose by the group. I also think that the first descriptive section is just that; a descriptive section of what the organisation is about and leave it at that. It is not the place to start putting in conflicting statements, that is the role of further sections where the groups actions are responses are brought out. Tranquillity Base (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we should paraphrase the statement. I think we should find secondary sources and paraphrase those. Plenty of sources go into detail on the goals of the organization. Didn't mean chopping up the actual mission statement.

I also don't want to use synth by adding information that contradicts it but doesn't mention the correlation. I also don't want to attempt to balance it out since the article should not read like a debate.

It still comes across promotional and overbearing. We should be relying on verifiable secondary sources and putting an extra emphasis on that due to the nature of the organization.Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Find a secondary source and paraphrase what exactly? Find a secondary source that quotes the mission statement and paraphrase that? It doesn't make sense, we have the primary source right here.I don't think it is promotional or overbearing, it is the groups mission statement and readers would be aware of that as the section says 'On its official website, Sea Shepherd defines its mission...'. It still wouldn't promotional even if it were the Ikea page that said 'our mission is to provide affordable yet stylish furniture for the discerning customer.' It's a mission statement, it is how that group defines itself, that is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tranquillity Base (talk • contribs) 10:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No no no. Find secondary sources (I prefer this for everything but that is not a guideline) and use those to describe the goals of the organization. I wouldn't have even said paraphrased if it was going to distract from my main reasoning: Primary source here is given to much weight visually and is written in a promotional manner. We don't need it. We can summarize what they do and who they are and what they want without using their longwinded and weasel word (it isn't there but is considered so here) filled mission statement. We aren't helping the reader know anything about the organization by using this quote in this context. The reader can click on the external link if they want and we facilitate that already in the appropriate place. It is lazy of us and we are doing a disservice to this project by allowing its inclusion. This is compounded since it is such a contraversial organization.Cptnono (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. What are you trying to do Cptnono? It is not for you to change the mission statement to something else, and then pretend that is what the mission statement really is. And why are you looking for secondary sources that distort the mission statement? The mission statement is what it is, and to find what it is, you go to the primary source. However, to repeat. If you think that Sea Shepherd does not live up to its mission statement, then you can document the events that indicate that. If you think, for example, that the Japanese position is sensible, then you can document the reasons why they are sensible. The only fly in the ointment is that you must find reputable sources to back your statements. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you are tired. I do not want to change the mission statement. I want it out of the article and I want to find secondary sources describing them. It isn't that complicated. It is not for me to say if they live up to it or not (I actually think they do) and to add sources to counter what is not appropriate content for this project. Sea Shepherd is not a reputable source.Cptnono (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Sea Shepherd is not a reputable source" for its own mission statement? --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Drop the attitude in your edit summaries and drop the assuming bad faith. It isn't necessary. You mentioned reputable sources. I was responding by saying they are not a reputable source.

So back on topic, it looks like you are saying that their mission staement being included simply provides the reader with their view. Is that correct? What I am trying to say is we are giving writing that is biased too much play in this article and that some readers can read it in a promotional manner. Since it is easy enough to replace without raising concerns it should be done. That is "what on earth I am talking about".Cptnono (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course their mission statement is their view. That is precisely the point. Why do you think it should be suppressed or altered to fit your own point of view? --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my view or opinion of the group. Please reread the above discussion.Cptnono (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Really Cptnono? Are you being truefull? Perhaps you could consider backing off from this article. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider not assuming the worst in other editors. Have you read the new public relations seciton? Was that full of POV? Have you looked at the changes I have done to related articles? Please consider contributing to the article while discussing/attacking others on the talk page. So again, edit summaries such as "rubbish" are inappropriate. It is also incredibly inappropriate to call someone a liar even in a roundabout way. Stop being rude and focus on discussing the best ways to improve the article. This is the second time I have requested that you stop being uncivil. I see your pont and get it to a certain extent. I disagree. It doesn't mean I am a POV pushing whale killer.Cptnono (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you should drop this nonsense about rewriting their mission statement. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if it comes across as "nonsense". Again, please try to error on the side of caution with civility. This article was a POV pushing mess a month or so ago and there have been COI concerns. I am adding a RfC to see what uninvolved editors think. And to clarify, I am not proposing its rewrite. I am proposing deletion and adding in info from secondary sources.Cptnono (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Cptnono you seem concerned that Sea Shepherd are not reliable. They are entirely a reliable source when making statements about their own organisation, this is made clear in the Wikipedia reliable sources section: 'Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, ... or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals. The Sea Shepherd statement is the organisation defining it's mission. If you think that it is 'promotional' or 'self-serving' then that is your own opinion and reflects your POV - the group is defining it's mission and if you don't like that mission it will come across as self-promotion. However that is what they have written and as Geronimo20 has pointed out, it is not for us to paraphrase or edit it.

So in short: The quote is fronted with, 'On its official website, Sea Shepherd defines its mission as the following:' which clearly indicates what it is and what it is about. it is entirely within the scope of Wikipedia to include such quotes and they are common across Wikipedia. It is valid information for the reader about the group. As far as Wikipedia standards are concerned Sea Shepherd is a reliable source for their mission statement. It is an organisational mission statement and your POV about it is not relevant and it is not proper to edit or paraphrase. It is their writing, and if you think it self-promotion well that is you and others may not. Tranquillity Base (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say I DO NOT WANT TO PARAPHRASE THEIR STATEMENT I do not want it included. I think we can find an alternative way to summarize their position through secondary sources. I think it reads promotional both in its writing and the weight it is given within the article. That is why I opened a RfC last night. I want to see if other editors not involved think. I could be wrong (I don't think I am) and am looking for consensus through editors who are removed from any POV concerns.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I came across: WP:SELFPUB "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;. It is certainly written in a promotional manner.Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Half the mision statement was just removed by an IP editor who mentioned propaganda. It should be removed if it reads that way to 3 editors and does not meet WP:SELFPUB. Reverted edit for now but do not see how consensus can let this stay in.Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Geronimo: I am not trying to dispute if their mission statement is accurate or not. I have concerns with it being written in a promotional manner. When an IP editor blanks half of it, you agree that 1 of the lines looks amiss, and another editor (an IP that pops up fairly high on a wikicheck but has kept out of the article recently) expresses concern it makes sense to me that it is written in an overly promotional fashion for this article. We can summarize their goals without it. Don't take offense to it or assume I think they are full of garbage.Cptnono (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you are inconsistent, Cptnono, given that ALL the comments under "Mission Statement" were made by involved editors, including yourself. I am the least involved. And thinking that a couple of anonymous IPs, who make no cogent arguments, strengthen your position doesn't make sense. You have no consensus at all to delete the mission statement. You may take the fact that your RfC recieved no response as an indication that no established editors had any interest in supporting your position. To repeat what I have already pointed out, you cannot properly state Sea Shepherds goals by using your words instead of theirs. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If this was a vote it would be you and T-Base vs 2 Ips and myself. T-Base and one of the IPs are only editing for one sole purpose. The other IP has actually commented regularly on this talk page in a manner that improves the article. It isn't a democracy though. Concerns with people reading it as overly promotional make it a concern. There is proof of this if you look at the inclusion from other points of view. I tried to look at it from yours but so far it still looks inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Mission Statement

Is the use of the organization's mission statement in this article appropriate? Is the information from the organization better than that found in secondary sources? If so, is it appropriate in the lead? The subject is controversial. The mission statement is properly quoted and presents information that could be useful. The writing in the statement is biased and could present weight issues.Cptnono (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question, especially in an article that allready has "wieght issues". ;) I say either paraphrase or counter balance. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely reasonable to have the mission statement included as that the organisation defining itself. It is soemthing that is done in many other Wikipedia articles. The openiing paragraph is a brief statement of what the organisation is; what they do and the mission statement is the why and the mission statement provides this. It is of interest to readers and inappropriate to edit it. Tranquillity Base (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Commented above. This RfC has received 0 feedback from editors not already involved in editing this article. However, the mission statement is a concern to 3 editors and violates the self published sources guidelines. Will be removing unless opinions from other editors come up.Cptnono (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You say, Cptnono, that "the mission statement is a concern to 3 editors". Which three editors are you referring to? And what is their concern? Are they concerned that the mission statement should be included? You then say that inclusion "violates the self published sources guidelines". The self published sources guidelines state:

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:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The only issue you could dispute here is whether the mission statement is "self serving". A mission statement is simply a statement of intention. You might disagree that Sea Shepherd has acted in accordance with its stated intention. If that is so, you can then demonstrate that in the article by citing examples which clearly demonstrate that.

For some, as yet undisclosed reason, you seem implacably opposed to what Sea Shepherd is trying to achieve. So given that, what is the best way for you to achieve the balance you want in the article? The only part of Sea Shepherd's mission statement that could be controversial is to "take action when necessary to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas". I think you have a case where you can challenge Sea Shepherd in the article by clearly showing that some of Sea Shepherd's actions were not confronting "illegal activities on the high seas". However, instead of doing that you seem to want suppress Sea Shepherd's own statement of intention and image of itself. Which is unbalanced in an the article that is about Sea Shepherd. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to respond to your comments above the RfC since it is intended for opinion from editors not currently involved.Cptnono (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the RfC tag. This has recieved 0 feedback from outside editors but we have new editors chiming in on it now. It looks like we still do not have consensus but hopefully we can figure this out.Cptnono (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Russians

Does anyone have any good sources on the actions against Russians in the early '80s? It looks like the goup did some stuff in Siberia then later dropped some light bulbs on a ship off the coast of Washington.Cptnono (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done.Cptnono (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Clayoquot Sound

Does anyone have any good sources regarding the early '90s anti-logging actions on Vancouver Island? There are several pay sources available (blah), trivial coverage: [1], biased commentary from Watson: [2]. This should get inclusion.Cptnono (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Operation Leviathan

This is similar to the fishing subsection. We have source that goes into intricate detail of the operation. It is a well written and informative piece that everyone should read. Starting on page 4, there is all the information we need to give an unbiased summary if done correctly. One thing I found interesting is that pros and cons are integrated into the story. If we do this in a more informative way it would take care of the Supporters/Critics concerns that are tagged.Does anyone else want to tackle this? I have received a little flak lately for being biased but it is always appreciated if someone wants to get their hands dirty with the actual prose. The two subsections located above that have not received any attention could also use some work if someone want to start adding information in the article.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism/Support

In an effort to get those flags out and to meet guidelines, approximately 40% of the sections are now integrated into the the article. If we work at it, they can be removed completely. Any thoughts on this moving forward? Also, it kills my wikipeding heart to keep info from a press release in (I love secondary sources). Does anyone have any thoughts on Japanese dude's press release? If anyone can find related secondary sources that can summarize it we need to replace it.Cptnono (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Which media release are your referring to?

Tranquillity Base (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The one you attempted to remove earlier. It is out now since other sources already used summarized it well enough. Bloomberg > Japanese whalers for several reasons including minimizing the use of links to biased pages. Speaking of sources, the Environmental news source has so much info I want to use it but have seen concerns with their reporting due to bias. Also, per WP:NONENG, we can use non English sources but other sources were already available in the article covering the info.Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We have gone over alot on this talk page and in edit summaries. I disagree with the recent re addition to the article from the IP but was already bold and removed his previous attempt once. Reopening discussion on the criticism section of the article. I feel that it was flagged as inappropriate for a reason and removing the supporters section + this was a necessity to improving the article. As a reminder: All information was kept.Cptnono (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. The edits in the last hour or so prove that this article came across in a biased fashion to some readers. I would like to think that the criticism seciton is not needed per the guidelines and hope it is removed but at least we now see what happens when editors attempt to balance an article that comes across biased.Cptnono (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ian Campbell

Ian Campbell transcended being a supporter when he joined the Advisory Board of the organization. His info could go in a the following places:

• Org section
• '08 ops section when it was announced that he joined and his support was expressed
• After the lines explaining his criticism of the group in a previous campaign
• Taji section

The former Australian Minister of the Environment Ian Campbell has endorsed Sea Shepherd. Campbell now sits on Sea Shepherd's international advisory board. In July 2009, he called for a boycott of the Japanese Olympic bid for 2016 to protest the Taiji dolphin kill Cptnono (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would leave this one open to you. Campbell, when working as the Environment Minister for the Howard Government called Sea Shephed 'lunatics' et., when he resigned (no longer hving to say what his employers line) he revelaed that he had been a long-time supporter of Sea Shepherd and joined the Baord of Advisers and issued a call to boycott Japan's Olympic bid over the Taiji dolphin kill. This article records him calling Sea Shepherd 'lunatics' and him joining them. Contradictory but true. For me it seems best to fit in the article in the 'Org' section or the '08 ops' section. Not the criticism section where he calls Watson a 'lunatic' as it breaks the timeline (2006 operation with a 2008 addition) Tranquillity Base (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume that Watson loves the quote since "lunatic" might strike fear in his enemies. I'm thinking org section might look silly unless we are going to go into detail on every board member (the site shows quite a lineup). In the section where he is critical it could say: Ian Camppbell em dash who would later join the organization em dash yada yada "lunatics" yada and a line in the '08 section. This would tie it together without giving the wrong impression. We could add a quick line in the Taji section but unless he was speaking on behalf of the organization this might be better in his article or somewhere else related (I haven't gone through that source yet).Cptnono (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jail

I have removed "citation needed" flagged lines. A couple of these were sentences (some without any jail time due to the defendants not being in the country) that should be included if reliable sources are found.Cptnono (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bimping this before adjusting the bot parameters. THis is important info. When who... the other 3 "H"s + extradition, in absitna (or whatevera latina), all of that. Important info.Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Shooting

Please see Talk:Whale Wars#Minor updates to the "Shooting Controversy" and Talk:Paul Watson#Shooting Retraction (term used in press release not if it happened. Also, "However, it was also reported that the Japanese Coast Guard personnel onboard were equipped with rifles and may consider firing warning shots. = "Also, In general, "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." favors the latter assertion over the former. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z." under Wikipedia:Words to avoid#However, although, whereas, despite It borders on WP:SYNTH and is is pure speculation but it leads the reader to believe that it happened. We could add several scientific rebuttals to the shooting and several reasons for why or how it could have happened but it all leads to a debate on the article which is our conclusions.Cptnono (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Governance section

In the discussion on 'Ian Campbell' (see above), Cptnono canvassed 'Ian Campbell transcended being a supporter when he joined the Advisory Board of the organization. His info could go in a the following places: ...'

At the time, I replied that it was open to Cptnono but thought the 'org section' best. However, in a fit of enthusiasm I have made this section which solves two problems. The first is Ian Campbell being more than a supporter (tho' the Sea Shepherd website says all Board Members are supporters) and thus not fitting in the supporter section (from which Cptnono has removed him). the second is forme IWC deputy-Chair Horst Kleinschmidt, who is in a similar position to Campbell.

This section resolves this issue. Cptnono wrote that, 'I'm thinking org section might look silly unless we are going to go into detail on every board member (the site shows quite a lineup)'. I have avoided this by including only one or two board members from the various boards. Tranquillity Base (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine. I was skeptical at first but it seems to have worked out. I have a few concerns but overall the benefit outweighs the negatives. Good idea.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

POV Tag

Hey all. I'v placed a tag at the top of the page for concerns that I've brought up but feel haven't been addressed. Currently the top half of this article reads as if written by SS supporters. Here are some considerations I'd like to see taken more seriously top alleviate the problem. Word things how the experts (not SS) word them. That means consider using terms that the media and government are using, like attacks, violence and terrorism, quoting the appropriate sources. Even the wiki article on Direct action gives a clear enough definition of violent direct action for us to use. Give less wieght to what the SS say about themselves and more wieght to what governments say about them. Most of this article is like a public relations piece for the SS. I understand that none of the editors here are whalers, commercial fishermen or governmental policy makers but if you want this to be a good article and not look like it was written by a high school vegan club then your going to have to speak for the other side as well. On a positive note, the operations section has good information but every report by a news or government agent has some quippy reply explaining why the SS were justified. In trying to defend the SS this way you may think you are bringing balance to the discussion, but you're not. Your just demonstrating additional POV. Let the experts, news aand government agencies say what they said without having to rebut them. Quippy rebuttals make it look like your personal editoral. In short, we need to REMOVE our POV from the article by presenting the opinions of the experts and backing off on our fervant defensive representation of the SS. Also, the intro needs to change. It's like an SS recruiting pamphlet. Good luck. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. The article is getting expanded to the point of bloat but I am hoping all the info can get edited into an appropriate piece sooner or later. If you see anything (that includes my POV), go ahead and mention it. Please mention specifics because we are to the point that this is needed.Cptnono (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And thank you sir. :) I got irritated at having to counter all the POV last time with the anon writer that I figured I'd give the article a break and stop being so reactionary. Well done at mentoring "T-Base" but I'd still encourage you to be dilligent against the encroaching POV pushing. Our sources POV's are obvious and should stand for themselves. Here is an example. In the "Faroes" section we have two sources. Neither of those sources put the spin on the whale hunt that we do in the section. The sources POV (especially in the second one) is that here are some fishers that do an annual hunt. SS don't like it and intervene. Somehow that gets turned into the Peta-esque paragraph that is now standing. Where is that voice coming from? :) So I'm advocating that we tone our own voice back. Even me, I'm vehemmently anti-POV pushing to the point where when I see it I tend to go the opposite way. But let's go with the POV of the experts. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the sake of transperancy and to clear Tranquillity's name: I made the major edit and s/he added the wikilink. I think it is easily a screw up on Australia's end and that is why they made an update. However, Reuters ran with it while BBC went with the updated version. I was hoping that the facts could speak for themselves but if it still comes across off then it can be discussed in more detail.Cptnono (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording muddies up the facts on this one and makes it harder to understand what's going on. It also appears that we are trying to insinuate that they admit to shooting at Watson with guns which never happened according to all observers. I would reccomend a rewrite to clarify. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(See below for further discussion)Cptnono (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Defensive editing

It is happening. I have done it, #68 seems to do it slightly on the talk page (not in the article, just being extra skeptical/cautious on this talk page), and T-Base primarily edits in a pro SSCS manner. I'm calling us all out and hoping we can at the very least watch out for it.Cptnono (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

NO doubt. :) I get irritated at article POV pushing. In the talk page I don't mind letting my opinion be known. Thanks for the check. I will keep my opinion OUT of the article. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't done it yet. Just spreading the blame around to any and all :) Cptnono (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Per "Also, the intro needs to change." I agree. It is off with since it reads promotionally (mission statement discussion above) and does not meet wikipeida guidelines (we need to break it into concise and related paragraphs instead of a few lines smashed together)Cptnono (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you step back and look at it again. It is a simple paragraph and serves one purpose and one purpose alone. it is there to say what the organisation is, what they do and why they do it - and the mission statement does that. Tranquillity Base (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a link for you up in the above discussion regarding use of the mission statement. (WP:SELFPUB} In regards to my second point, the lead is just messy. This is a style concern not related to the information. Take a look at: Wikipedia:Lead section for some useful tips. Cptnono (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"what they do and why they do it " The mission statement only provides what they say about what they do. We can create a more balanced statement about what they do with a concise summary of available expert source materials. You and I write the article for the reader. SSCS does not. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning "somethings"

Proposal on presenting this info?Cptnono (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the words "flash bang warning devices" Should be used primarily. Not "warning balls" and definately not "warning shots". Primarily because we editors know the connotations of those words in our language. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So far, #68, NRen2k5, and myself have expressed concerns with it over the last month or so. Tried to consolidate discussion but now we have three. Previous discussions are found here and here. I think it is clear that the updated press release is what we should go off of ([3]) and that "warning shots" was either a mistranslation or some sort of crazy conspiracy between the two governments. Cptnono (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That article seems to be the perfect source to use for that section. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Canadian government's perspective on SS

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service defines single issue terrorism as "extremist militancy on the part of groups or individuals protesting a perceived grievance or wrong usually attributed to governmental action or inaction." from the Brittish article "combatting terrorism". The CSIS places Paul Watson and SSCS in this category for their "millitant actions". Id like to think that Canada as a whole is more notable than the SS. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. If you look at the document the first thing is that it is a 'Commentary'. It is not an official position. The next thing above the article is this: 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. This commentary was written in 1998 and a search of the CSIS finds no other reference to the Sea Shepherd organisation. Tranquillity Base (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My appologies. This article is not written by Canada. The article that claims the Sea Shepherds are terrorists was written by a "counter-terrorism specialist with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service". Thank you for that mild distintion. It doesn't change the fact that notable experts round the globe consider Paul Watson a terroist for attacking, ramming and sinking ships. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong again. The article does not claim Sea Shepherd are 'terrorists' The single paragraph in the commentary that mentions Sea Shepherd says, 'Greenpeace is generally credited with being the first environmental group to employ "direct action" in pursuit of its aims. But, impatient with what he considered the slow pace of progress, one of the organization's founders, Canadian Paul Watson, formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, with its off-shoot, Orcaforce. Watson and his supporters have been involved in a number of militant actions against whale hunting, driftnet fishing, seal hunting and other related issues. Recently he undertook activities against logging operations in Canada.' Sea Shepherd has been called a militant organisation since at least 1979, so that is not new. This paragraph is historical discussion and the commentary does not claim Paul Watson or Sea Shepherd are 'terrorists', nor does the CSIS, nor does the Canadian Government. As for 'notable expert' I haven't heard of him before. Tranquillity Base (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to read the whole article (or perhaps my first post). It defines single issue terrorism and then goes on to list organizations employing that same definition. "As for 'notable expert' I haven't heard of him before." I don't think your knowledge base is the qualifying factor for notabillity. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is more than 10 years old. The Government of Canada has changed a few times since then. I think you'll need to find something much more recent for it to be "official". 206.130.91.228 (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The age of a document doesn't determine it's officiality but as Tranquillity noted, the article states it's not the official position. Just the opinion of the experts, which is what is important for this article. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides, your government has been very clear on how they feel recently about the actions of the SS, having taken their flagship into custody and banning two of the crew from the country under threat of arrest if they ever try. Is Paul Watson even allowed to go back? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone wikilink it? I am having a hard time finding which source is being discussed.Cptnono (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm74-eng.asp It's like the Canadian counterpart to the FBI article --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a great source that sheds some light on them being perceived as a radical environmental movement by a country's intelligence service. Mention the date and who said it. Remember to let the facts speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Greenpeace

Added in split info.Kept the actual split light since it is disputed. Sure it will be expanded. Exercise caution because most sources have other ones that contradict. A line on Watson calling Greenpeace names/criticising them would be interesting. Too many to choose from.Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I left the 'criticism/supporters' sections in for two reasons. Firstly to minimise edits if my changes were disputed and secondly, since you have been working to integrate them into the body text, I felt the coup-de-grace was yours. They are gone and good riddance, as long as the information they contained remains in the article.

On the Greenpeace topic, I do not think the Watson/Greenpeace argument should be explored in this article. It is Watson's argument and this article is about Sea Shepherd and it's operations. It is a side issue in this light and would simply bloat the article. On another note, I agree with your description of Watson as an 'early member' of Greenpeace. I have found no substantive evidence that he founded, or co-founded, Greenpeace. His membership number is 007, but that is ambiguous; the Founders could well have been the first members. He was a Director of Greenpeace and in the absence of Spong and Hunter was in charge of the organisation. He was the lead campaigner for the first Greenpeace seal campaigns. He did drive a zodiac on the first whaling campaigns (his description of his encounter with the dying sperm whale has been verified by other people there). He did command the Astrid for a Greenpeace campaign. However, there is no real evidence that I have found that he was 'at the table' when Greenpeace was founded. I think this article should continue to say that he was an 'early member' rather than 'founder' as the former is more correct at this time. I'm not particularly interested in pursuing the issue (or seeing it pursued in this article), as it is, in essence, off topic. Tranquillity Base (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a slow process but at least it is finally done. Good catch on the duplicate info a couple edits ago and moving a good chunk of the supporters seciton recently. The cofouder, founder, or early member argument has recieved lots of play in the sources and on other talk pages so hopefully we can not let this article get sucked into it. Watson's words and philosophies do recieve a great deal of attention in the sources discussing the group so he will recieve more mentions here than anyother member. We don't need to go into extreme detail, though.Cptnono (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Greenpeaces attitude towards sea shepherds and it's founder should be concisely stated but other than that I agree with the above. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I played around with the "Differences with Greenpeace" and I think the wording makes more sense. Thoughts? Also, I removed a counterpunch sentence that quotes Watson. It's these counterpunch Sentences like this that I think really hurt the article. In any given section we are going to have a plethora of well sourced and pertinent information. Watson will have an answer to every one of these news bits, opinions and facts. If we run through the article closing statements with rebuttals it does not make the article balanced. It imbalances the article. The article is about Paul Watson from the perspective of notable and reliable experts and not FOR Paul Watson. Everything that comes out of his mouth is NOT notable. Every argument out of his mouth is NOT reliable. I'd caution against direct quotes from him in the same way as I'd caution using the enquirer for information. Watson is not a reliable source for that section. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Counterpunches and debate being brought into the article are one of my primary concerns in any article so you are looking at this correctly. I liked the informers within Greenpeace since it was interesting and has been brought up on the TV program. If it reads like a counterpunch then it is a concern, though. The ecoterrorism thing has been a subject of hot debate since editors did not paraphrase it as well as you did. I like the summary you provided of the source and am happy either way on that one.Cptnono (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Eco-Terrorism

I placed the new Eco-Terrorism section directly below the self-promoting mission statement. I hope that having these two perspectives, one self-published, the other from governmental experts, will have the effect of presenting a balanced perspective when read closely together. I tried dilligently to summarize what the authors were saying. I used direct quotes, did not call the SSCS terrorists and feel like the information is presented acurratly. Please have a read and let me know if you don't think that's what the authors are saying. Thank you. There is one author that will say that anything negative about the SSCS is a lie so I ask that if that's your attitude please don't bother commenting, this isn't a vote. But even you, if you can read the article objectively and tell me what you think about the quoted "millitaristic actions" I'd appreciate it. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your first source is not an "article" as your text says, it's a congressional testimony. It's a political document that uses a ridiculously wide definition of "eco-terrorism" and insinuates, without saying, that what falls under it is also terrorism, and it insinuates, without saying it, that SSCS committed that. If the FBI functionary who wrote this (not: the FBI) is careful to stay clear of libel, why should we be less careful? It's not an encyclopedia's job to play the telephone game that government institutions like to start in this way. If you personally want to believe something because it is insinuated, by all means do so, but don't present it as the truth, or as said by a government organ that didn't actually say it, in Wikipedia.

Your second source is a differen matter. It's a new one that I had not seen before. It does in fact say that the Japanese government (unsurprisingly) and Greenpeace have called them eco-terrorist. But that accusation doesn't deserve its own section, with a heading that insinuates that SSCS are eco-terrorist. This is about real, living, people, most notably Paul Watson. In my opinion it falls under WP:BLP, i.e. there is an elevated standard of evidence, and particular care must be taken not to stress dubious information too much. Almost everything connected to the term "eco-terrorism" is dubious because, as I explained above, three brothers jointly destroying their neighbour's lawn mower so that their mother gets a bit of sleep already falls under most definitions of this term. This term is an instrument of political propaganda.

Apart from that, the information from your first source is already twice in the article, and that from your second source once. But of course not with an eye-catching heading

OMG ECO-TERRORISM!!!

and not as far up in the article as one can possibly squeeze it.

Also, I encourage you to take up this issue with the editors at the eco-terrorism article. If they come to a consensus that the term is as you say simply a political tool then I will agree that it has no place here. As it is, it recieving the same use with exspert citation as elsewhere on wiki. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Try this stunt once more and I will report you to WP:AIV, because of the BLP problem. Hans Adler 19:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Try not to get all upset at me. You can report this to whomever and I'd appreciate their input. It was placed near the top because the discussion above involved "who they are and what they do". If you need to change the wording away from "article" to "congressional hearing" I think that would be wise. The article clearly uses them as an example of eco-terrosim without calling them eco-terrorist. I've done the exat same thing by quoting as I thought was plain to see. I'll take another look and see if we can't make it more plain and clear, but please no that this is NOT an article about Paul Watson. The subject is SSCS and therefore doesn't violate BLP. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You are at least reacting to what I am saying now, although only to the leastt important things. It's no longer a case for AIV, but I have notified the NPOV noticeboard at WP:NPOV/N#Eco-terrorism claims against Sea Shepherd. BLP applies to statements concerning living people in all articles. The idea that it only applies in biographies is a misconception. Look it up in WP:BLP: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. (In case you wonder: The technicality whether this is "biographical material" in some strict sense or not isn't all that important because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.) Hans Adler 19:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

They have been referred to as eco-terrorists and it needs to be. As long as we follow WP:EXTREMIST guidelines there should be no worries. That being said, they have also been called pirates, vigilantes, and several other terms. It might be better to go into detail on this without an Eco-terrorist subheading. I understand that it looks neccasarry to balance the article with the POV pushing but think that this may not be appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the wikilink does not show that you made a report. If you feel this is necessary that is your call but it needs to be mentioned that other involved editors have been just as blatant in POV pushing. I also believe this was #68's first instance of editing this much of the article. His input on the talk page has been invaluable and I believe addressing these concerns and finding a solution here is appropriate under the circumstances. You can't get upset that an editor added "eco-terrorism" since to some (look at the edit history) it is a correct and well sourced label. We ca fix this without running someone off.Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the wrong link, I fixed it now.

The IP didn't actually add any substantial information; the accusations were already in the article. What the IP added was repetition and undue weight. Hans Adler 09:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a major problem with using the word 'eco-terrorism'. Terrorism is a strong word and is routinely used by resource extraction industries and their supporters to try and demonise their opponents The Wikipedia article is woeful, I urge all concerned to, for a fuller understanding of the use and origin of this term, read this article: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Eco-terrorism A recent example of the use of this word to denigrate and distort legitimate dissent comes from Australia where an Uighur dissident has been called a terrorist, make up your own mind at this link http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/11/2652699.htm As well, an Australian group The Wilderness Society recently put adverts in European newspapers urging investors not to support a pulp mill it is opposing; supporters of the group made a public statement calling the group 'financial terrorists'.

Terrorism is a word to avoid according to Wikipedia standards precisely because it is used to denigrate and put down opponents. It's use has been criticised by the ACLU and a recent paper by a legal scholar pointed out that under the current US laws, members of the direct action event The Boston Tea Party could be arrested as eco-terrorists.

It is a politically created word, used in political ways and used to denigrate and demonise groups that are dissenting. I would also think that it should be not used out of respect for people caught up in real terrorism. Is the sinking of the Nybroena the same as the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Indonesia? Is the ramming of the Nisshin Maru the same as the Lockerbie bombing? Opponents of Sea Shepherd try to make this link. The organisation is controversial and militant, but they are not terrorists.Tranquillity Base (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between avoiding the term and using sources that say it. Follow the guideline mentioned baove and we should be all good. I think a whole subseciton still might cross the line though.Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being reported as sources have. I have a problem with slanted writing to imply they 'are' versus 'have been called'. At the minimum. I have a problem with the section being called what it is and how it is written, as well as its placement which interrupts the logical flow of the article. If it were to remain under a different name it would fit best before after 'Differences with Greenpeace'. I also consider the continual reversion of the critics section and the false info in there to be vandalism.

Tranquillity Base (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I whole heratedly agree that we should not refer to them as eco-terrorists but should only cite what the authors have said. I think if you look at that section you will see we have been very careful to only allow to remain that which the notable experts have said and not make any claims ourselves.. which is of utmost importance. Regarding it's placement in the article or it's prominence, I can only say it is only as appropriate as the organizations own view of what they do and who they are. The only difference being that the governments of the united states, canada and japan and thier experts are more notable and reliable that the SSCS own view. But if we must keep both sections of differing views of who the SSCS are and what they do so near the top then so be it. After all is said and done I don't mind the two being up there because it provides a precursury glance at the two prominent viewpoints, heroes and villains. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hans and T-Base, I do not agree with the recent edits. I'm not a fan and all of the informaiton was available. However, I have been honest that I am also not a fan of the group. I can understand why the recent edits were made. There is frustration with the direction of the article and it was POV pushing in a pro manner up until recently. It is my hope that the two editors who want this section in will be open to switiching it back but I do believe the way they read the article is important. It shows that there is a problem in the way the article comes across if they see glaring concerns with the page and feel this is the best way to fix it.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All you have 68.41.80.161 (talk) is two references to "terrorists". One is a snidely oblique statement from a minion during the increasingly discredited Bush administration, which implies but does not actually state that Sea Shepherd are terrorists. As Hans Adler has repeatedly pointed out to you, the FBI clearly do NOT consider Sea Shepherd are terrorists, or they would have arrested them long ago. Your other source is somebody in the Canadian system talking off the top of his head, again not making any official statements. Over the last thirty years, the Canadian government has had the worst record of all nations, including Japan, as far as fisheries management goes, with massive and unnecessary collapses of major fisheries. Statements from their officials have no more credibility than statements from the Japanese whaling interests.

Name slinging, seeking the most loaded and fraught terms you can throw at your opponent, is not something that Wikipedia should be indulging. Recent research shows that the conservative, do not rock the establishment mindset, appear to be genetic and based on fear. So it is pointless to try and reason with people afflicted this way. I propose deleting this article, not on the grounds that Sea Shepherd is not notable, but on the grounds that Wikipedia procedures seem unable to deflect the silliness that three editors, one established, two with anon IPs, are perpetrating here. There are many other areas in Wikipedia where constructive editing is needed and possible. --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would recocmend striking that last comment out.Cptnono (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. There are many other areas in Wikipedia where constructive editing is needed and possible. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just don't be rude. Your comments aren't going to do anything to improve the article and might upset other editors to the point where they are not able to work with you productively. I'm sure you know all that so take a few minutes or hours to unwind before attacking other editors on this discussion page.Cptnono (talk)

I think Geronimo20 was being flip. I can agree with his sentiment, I would not shed a tear if this article was deleted and blocked from being created again (is that possible?).Tranquillity Base (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That part of the comment was the least of my concerns. Hopefully it doesn't need to be taken seriously. In regards to deletion: I doubt that is even a reality. A few months ago it was a wreck of only recent news, giant pictures, and POV. We have successfully stuffed 85% of the info in that I see as important (a few ops and org expansion would make me happy). If it gets to the point of bloat we can always split off a time line article/list for the majority of the ops info.Cptnono (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, of course I was being tongue in cheek. You can only delete articles in Wikipedia if they aren't notable. But it is very annoying to waste time here, instead of doing constructive work elsewhere. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo, the comments you've provided here don't really do anything to help me see how you propose making this a better article. The article had been unduely wieghted to a pro-whaling POV. I offered two suggestions to fix this, an unsightly addition of all the opinions or rephrasing in a neutral manner. Some pro-SSCS editors had a big issue with rephrasing so adding the information from both sides was the only other option. I'm glad Hans and T-Base have the good sense to see that we really don't want to go that route. I'm not sure what you are proposing though. It appears that you are saying remove any information that appears political but I think that would be wrong on both sides of the POV. Virtually alll fo the SSCS quotes are political which is why we paraphrase them for the most part. I don't think I'd advocate removing the political information as you seem to suggest. We need to tell the story that the experts are saying, using our editorial good senses to word it appropriately. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming Geronimo was not actually saying it would be clever to delete major portions or the article itself. It looks like he was expressing that he feels that time could be better spent on other articles that have less back and forth and wanted to get some inappropriate digs in while saying it.Cptnono (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well let's hope this endless to and fro-ing with editors who seem focused on how they can sling verbal mud with terms like "terrorist" and how they can distort the mission statement, has come to an end, and the focus can come on appropriately documenting actual events and positions. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No. I think we should just be really jerky to eachother over and over again.Cptnono (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo the entire issue you took contention with is that the SS were being presented in a "Mud Slinging" light, wishing to present info in light of the mission statement. As wiki editors we are bound to present the POV of the notable experts. This definately means noting the mudslinging when the notable experts note it. It also means presenting the mission statement as the notable experts see it. If you want to fight the notable experts and have your opinion become an article, go get a PHD, become an expert and get published in a major news source. I will quote WHATEVER YOU SAY at that point. Till then my opinion and yours are not what's important. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up

I missed the discussion concerning the mission statement. It's simply not encyclopedic in this form. The first paragraph consists entirely of duplication of information that is already in the lead. Only the first sentence of the second paragraph seems worth preserving in some way. I will remove the section and work the information of that sentence into the article elsewhere.

The Mission section is being used as a pretext to put an "Eco-terrorism" section at the top of the article. That's completely unacceptable, not just the unqualified use of the word in such a prominent position, which is a severe violation of WP:EXTREMIST but also the fact that it got a section on its own. I will correct that as well. I am not suppressing the information, I am putting it elsewhere. Hans Adler 09:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. The mission statement was once part of the lead, and it fit. The mission statement is the only part of this article that explains why Sea Shepherd does what it does. I think it is worth including for this reason, but 68.41... considers it self promotion even though it is a mission statement as many other organisations, from the CIA to the Red Cross have. It was clearly pulled out of the lead to make a section by itself as, as you point out, a pretext for the 'eco-terrorism' section. As it stands the 'mission statement' section is unencyclopaedic as you point out. But an article about Sea Shepherd should explain why the organisation does what it does.

Your comments about the 'eco-terrorism' section are also correct. Tranquillity Base (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "eco-terrorism" section header was a concern. As I have stated above the mission statment is self serving. It looks like we are getting closer to a resolution though. Good edit.Cptnono (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally. Thank you Hans. The problem (as stated above) was that the article had undue wieght on the pro-SSCS side which had pro-SSCS commentary after each potentially negative statement. The two ways of fixing that were to reword everything (including the mission statement) or add simmilarly presented material from the opposite perspective. Pro-SSCS editors were opposed to the first so we proceeded with the second. I am glad with the direction we are going now and I think you have done agood job wording and placing the material. --68.41.80.161 ([[User

talk:68.41.80.161|talk]]) 14:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also here is the text from WP:Extremeist: "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source" I don't think you or I have been in violation of that. We have been careful to attribute the comments to whom they came from. Keep it up. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WOW! I Like IT!

Folks, I think we have come a long way and I want to thank everyone for this hard earned point. The article is looking good! At least in terms of the intro, the crti & supporters section, etc.. I think this article is looking NPOV and represents a good deal of the info out there! Well done! :) The next thing is to tackle the operations section. It is big and unwieldy. It is frought with NPOV remarks and dubious comments. It is a little bit hard to read. Any suggestions on where to begin? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that, too. How would everyone feel about splitting the details of individual operaitons into a separate timeline/article? I would also like to merge the random vessel pages into a single article with a see also (Template:Details) from a concise subsection here. Please see: WP:SPLIT Cptnono (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Good thoughts. Vessels may need it's own section, just as a quick referrence to the cuurrent state of the fleet. I think the three things in that section could be organized better but it should include the status of 1. Steve Irwin, 2. Farley Mowatt and 3. Earthfirst. As for the timeline suggestion, I think a timeline article would be a good idea. We could have summarizations in this article of various eras. "Early days" "90's" "Whalewars days" with better sounding titles but I think we could organise summaries by major eras. A detailed timeline in another article would be great though. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking summaries of the style of ops (Anti-___) themselves. Whaling would probably have some extra info or additional subsecitons with an overview of concerns with different countries. I wouldn't be against organizing it by era if that is what people think would look best. With the vessels, take a look at the list earlier in the discusison page. There are several retired vessels and information regarding flags that could be summarized here and have much more detail separately.Cptnono (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively for the Ops info, we can go back to a timeline format on this page if editors think that would be better. I didn't like the data that way and we are at the amount of detail for a split (see the above linky) but thought others might consider that.Cptnono (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the linky and agree it's time for a split. I personally don't like category summarizations because figuring out which category gets prominence is just another thing to argue about but if each category was concise and represented the reliable experts then go for it. I would not like too see counter punches with undue wieght given to snappy comebacks, rationals and adverts which an article like this is prone to. Coming up with a consenus on how to deal with that would be imporant in my eyes. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The way it is now is base don chronological order (besides fishing maybe). Seal hunting actions were first and so on. Does it come across as one aspect of their ops is more prominent due to its position in the layout? We could also do it alphabetically or another way. My concern is doing it purely based on era (or whatever time scale) could become more disorganized and lead to concerns the question of happened in that time period to be included.Cptnono (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing lines

I am removing these two lines since they are simply quotes from Watson that don't say much about the organization:

In July, the High Court of Ecuador upheld the Parks Service limits on the take of sea cucumber. The Parks Service banned the catch of sea cucumber for 2005 and 2006 to allow for the populations to recover from over-fishing. Watson called this a ‘great victory for conservation in the Galapagos’.[159]

In 2005, Watson commented on the fishing industry lobbying the Ecuadorian Government for the approval of longline fishing by saying: "The new government has seen a hike in the influence of the fishing lobby. Corruption was already out of control and I didn’t think things could get worse".[156] Cptnono (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are doing a great job for the quality of this article. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Galapagos

A couple of issues were raised by Cptnono. Firstly: A sentence was flagged:[not in citation given]. The actual reference was there, but seems to have gone missing. The link goes to a story in Business Wire called 'Sea Shepherd Vessel Departs US for Five-Year Patrol & Relief Mission in Galapagos Islands' I have put that reference in.

Secondly, this sentence was flagged for {improper synthesis?}: In September, 2001, the Ecuadorian Navy detained the Ocean Warrior. This occurred after the Parks Service captured seven illegal shark fishing boats at sea and Sea Shepherd criticized the Ecuadorian Navy for not enforcing the law.[154] The local Sea Shepherd representative, Sean O’Hearn-Giminez, was arrested and threatened with deportation.[154][improper synthesis?]

It was not improper synthesis. The sentence summarizes the Guardian newspaper story that follows this sequence; 'Armed guards from the Ecuadorean navy have detained the Ocean Warrior, a patrol ship operated by crusading environmental group Sea Shepherd, and arrested one man.' 'The confrontation with the Ecuadorean navy follows a series of high seas captures in which the Galapagos National Park Service stopped seven illegal shark fishing operations; the Sea Shepherd loudly criticised the navy for not strictly enforcing Ecuadorean law.' 'In the ship's log, Sean O'Hearn, a US citizen and Sea Shepherd liaison officer, who was later arrested and is now threatened with deportation, describes the contents of one shark "finning" operation caught inside the Galapagos marine sanctuary:...'

From the synthesis page: 'Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.'

Finally, I have returned a sentence to complete part of the story: 'In July, the High Court of Ecuador upheld the Parks Service limits on the take of sea cucumber. The Parks Service banned the catch of sea cucumber for 2005 and 2006 to allow for the populations to recover from over-fishing. Watson called this a ‘great victory for conservation in the Galapagos’. I did that because the para opens with the fishers in conflict over quotas, follows Sea Shepherds involvement, and finishes with the outcome of the conflict and Watson's remark about that. It that last line is removed the reader is left hanging they do not know the result. All they know is that a conflict over quotas happened. It is good practise to give context to events (the classic who-what-why-where-how mantra). This sentence closes the issue and is relevant for that reason. Tranquillity Base (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Crap. I hope it wasn't me who deleted it.
• It doesn't come across like synth when you read the source. I believe it is due to it being part of broader information and something about the wording is off. I can't put my finger on it so maybe I am being cynical. Would like to see if there is any feedback on this one in case I am reading into the paragraph incorrectly.
• I do like the quoted line now. It seemed separated before but adding it directly to the paragraph worked well.
• Too much detail on the shark finning with the intro line on it (did I fail to remove it or did it get reinserted?) A wikilink is available to get into the details of the ban so those couple lines aren't needed. The relaxing of the ban is close enough to driving reasoning from the subject. I'm going to remove it but open to feedback if it is reverted.Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the section looks good with very few exceptions. Well done TBase and all. Two minor contentions. The opening paragraph is uncited, Also I don't like the phrase " Paul Watson said she was not being held because of her Sea Shepherd status but had been caught up in the protest.." for several reasons. 1. It's only a guess of Watson's 2. It's not exactly what the article says. 3. Common sense strongly disagrees with Watson's guess. Other than those two bits, well done, good sythesis props to Tbase. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see what the sources say on that tagged paragraph due to the Asian market and illegal lines. Also, is the amount of detail needed to paint a clear picture of what is going on or is it a little much?

And I figured out what I didn't like about the potentially synth line. It wasn't synth but led me to make synth. It reads like "they were arrested for criticizing" when the author could have just as likely (I don't know but he had much more space) been giving a quick review of the preceding events instead of a catalyst for that day's breaking news. Like I said, it could be me being cynical. Do we have another source that might give more information on the reasoning for the detainment?

Also, I saw all my recent edits as touch up not smashing the info you put in. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the above comments. As for O'Hearn's arrest, the situation was very complex. Something like eight Park Directors in six months. The sea cucumber quota was appealed and denied by the local magistrate, went to the High Court and was upheld. The arrest seems to be political. I went by the source, which if you read it closely, goes back in time to quote a log entry by O'Hearn about a shark fishing bust, then says that the writer, O'Hearn, was 'later arrested'. The source says that when the Ocean Warrior was detained one man was arrested. The only person mentioned as arrested in this context was O'Hearn. The Byzantine political and legal moves are far too complex to go into in the section as they are, in the end, peripheral.

I wrote the Galapagos section as a contribution to the article but I do not own the words. I don't mind if edits are made to tighten, improve, or enhance the section. I would object if edits change the meaning of the section or damage the continuity or the 'who-what-why...' structure. Tranquillity Base (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of why, do we have a source discussing why the Navy detained them. I looked and found nothing :( .Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That story comes out through a variety of sources and seems to have something to do with internal politics between the Navy and Ecuador, difficult to drw out and largely irrelevant as it is about the power plays of politics in Ecuador. I think the relevant part and the only part directly concerning Sea Shepherd is that the ship was detained after Sea Shepherd publicly criticised the Navy for not enforcing fishing law as they are apparently supposed to do.Tranquillity Base (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I have been thinking about your comments about O'Hearn-Giminez's arrest in relation to the Ocean Warrior. The sentence as it was a bit vague there was not a very clear connection to the Ocean Warrior. I went by the source which said the ship was detained and one man arrested. The only person mentioned as arrested is O'Hearn-Giminez, so I changed the sentence to tighten this connection. Tranquillity Base (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews!

[4] There are some sources and links to related stories that may be useful. Haven't gone through them but though it would be of interest and could help.Cptnono (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nybroena

Another convuluted Sea Shepherd situation. In a nutshell, Norway sentenced Watson, in absentia, to four months prison but he never served any time. In more detail, the Nybroena was sunk in 1992. Watson did not sink the boat but was involved, however, he was not in Norway when the boat was sunk. Five years later a Norwegian court sentenced him in absentia to four months prison for assisting in the sinking and issued an Interpol notice for extradition. He was held on this notice for about a day when he travelled to Germany. The Germans declined to act on the Interpol notice and he travelled to Holland. There he was held on the Interpol notice for 20 days to allow Norway to begin extradition. Then he was held again, and again. In all, Holland detained Watson for 80 days while considering the extradition notice and awaiting Norway's extradition request. Holland denied the extradition warrant in the end and the Interpol notice disappeared and the sentence never served. See:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=DSNB&d_place=DSNB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F360A6AE33F333F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1997/041797/news5.html

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1997/060597/news1.html

http://www.greenleft.org.au/1997/270/17240

http://www.whales.org.au/alert/watson/timeline.html

So, the sentence I removed, saying that he served a 80 day gaol sentence for the sinking, is incorrect. The above is a lot of info to dump into the article particularly as it isn't about Sea Shepherd but is about Watson. So I have added a line in the 'Norwegian' section to summarize the whole thing, in a nutshell. Tranquillity Base (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the sentences are annoying. The biased sources love to point them out but in all reality Watson and his crew aren't there for the court preceding. If you have sources that describe what actually happened go for it. There are a number that need to be in. "So and so was sentenced in absentina and never served time for the offense" or "so and so was charged but it was dropped" If it is 80 days a mention of extradition proceedings might warrant a line or more info can go in the main Watson article.Cptnono (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A note to Cptnono; good catch on the Five Nations. As well, the registration of the ship under their flag is symbolic, it has no legal force - just as when Tibet flagged the Edward Abbey, symbolic support but not legal under the IMO. Tranquillity Base (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Those legalities are kind of a shame in some regards but that is for another article : ) . The Edward Abbey isn't even mentioned in the article so that is probably a good next step.Cptnono (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably only a line or two at most. As far as I have found out, the ship was operational for only the 1991-92 driftnet action.Tranquillity Base (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the Edward Abbey was renamed the Sirenian then the Yoshka and is now crewed by (given to?) locals .Cptnono (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)