Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:38, 17 June 2009

Television Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Animals Unassessed

Whale Wars is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Whale Wars. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Whale Wars at the Reference desk.

Australia-Japan relations

Should we add the Controversial kidnapping of the 2 activists on how its affecting the Australian and Japanese relations?--Villa88 (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They were not kidnapped, They willingly boarded the ship after attacking it. They were detained and were to be turned over to Japanese police but the Austrlian government stepped in after Watson spin his tale to the media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Again. NOT KIDNAPPED. The terrorists illegally boarded a ship and were detained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

they're far from terrorists. the correct term is activists, whether or not you agree with their (non-violent) tactics. but yes i agree they were not kidnapped. Fhue (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The point isn't if they were kidnapped, is it? The point is that it affected international relations. I think it's worthy of noting, but doesn't have as much to do with the TV show as the organization itself, and should be on the Sea Shepherd page, instead. --BarkerJr (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the above. This is worthy of mention in this article because the boarding of the ship was the focus of one of the episodes. --66.60.137.134 (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This absolutely was a focus of one show, and the one sided presentation attempting to claim these individuals were kidnapped (clearly for publicity purposes.) In spite of the claim that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be informational and not political, the presentation on this page suggests otherwise. This show has clearly created a great deal of animosity from once loyal Animal Planet fans.CharmsDad (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

your last point is questionable, at best: "..great deal of animosity from once loyal Animal Planet fans" is over-generalizing and thus misleading. Fhue (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism & Rating

I think we may need to consider getting an admin to (temporarily) semi-protect this article, since there are a lot of anonymous vandalism going on.Kyprosサマ (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. There are numerous good-faith IP edits here, which should not be discouraged unless really necessary. Kusma (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Episode Summary

Any thoughts on adding a breif summary on each episode? Kyprosサマ (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No reason why not. Seems to be common practice across WP. Here is one example, The Office (US TV series) season 1, from which you could get the episode table and begin compiling the info. Theflyer (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Mihirangi Portion

To the moderators- Why has this been taken off? "Also controversial on the voyage was the decision to dedicate an entire day of Operation Migaloo to creating a music video by singer Mihirangi in the Southern Ocean for her single No War. Mihirangi was aboard the MV Steve Irwin to support its cause, as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society commonly has celebrities involved in their campaigns. In return for her support, she was given access to the cameras and the helicopter to film her video, which was entirely acquired and purchased with money from donors, all of which she then used to locate and be brought on top of an iceberg, where she filmed her video. She soon left the crew shortly after the MV Steve Irwin returned to port to fix its engine roughly halfway through its voyage for unknown reasons. Although this was not covered in the final cut of the show, she was filmed by the camera crew and edited out during production of the series."

It has been cited, and vandalized, and criticized by lots of people. That makes it controversial- and also true. To any members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society- Why don't you want people to know about this?? (SSPirate (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

It was taken off because it is original research. See WP:OR and the section on synthesis in particular. You took a source saying she was going south and a music video link (of questionable copyright), and somehow came up with the fact that she used SS resources and they spent a day shooting her video. Nowhere in the sources does it say that, so therefore it is original research, and it was removed as such. --Terrillja _talk 12:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for the sake of all the folks reading this- and following all WP rules, including synthesis and Original Research, I'm going to lay down my case very carefully(SSPirate (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

(1)We know that Mihirangi planned to go aboard, and made it aboard the ship for Operation Migaloo. This is referenced http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-071119-1.html That is her planning to get aboard. This is her blog post while aboard the ship <http://www.seashepherd.org/migaloo/blog/blog_071216_Mihirangi.html so one could imply that she actually made it aboard. Finally, these are multiple articles http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/04/22/10285_gossip-news.html http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/may/03/born-music/ http://www.echo.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=542 confirming that not only did she go down to antactica with the sea shepherd, but she also shot her video there. Furthermore http://www.echo.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=542 states that Whilst down there she was fortunate to film footage for her new clip working with producer Peter Brown. Which leads me to my second point (2)Peter Brown is/was the 1st Mate during the Operation Migaloo http://animalplanet.mlogic.mobi/me_ww/detail/27696821;jsessionid=D64F10C9E15D1C9473377F8632122C06.anmplt. If it was produced by him, that would certainly imply that he spent time with Mihirangi working on the video while on board the Steve Irwin. However, being that the Sea Shepherd is 100% funded by donations http://seashepherdgig.com/ "To this day, Sea Shepherd remains totally funded by donation and staffed by volunteers.", that implies that whatever resources used was donated by their financiers, because Mihirangi was a volunteer http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-080102-1.html "The consequences of returning to port in the middle of a campaign with a volunteer crew are that we were bound to lose a few. ... Mihirangi, Brad Axiak, and Simon King had to leave because the delay cut into the time in February when they had events or appointments scheduled", and not paying to be aboard. Because there was only one helicopter on board, and Mihirangi used it for the express purpose of videotaping her music video, its safe to say she didn't bring it on board. About the only thing I can't prove is the exact time it took to actually film the video. Although getting ready, flying up to the top of the iceberg, then further flying while filming, then flying back would be a pretty substantial amount of time. For the sake of argument, I'm going to say something like "while aboard the Steve Irwin, Mihirangi and 1st Mate Peter Brown took a detour from their campaign to film a music video for Mihirangi's song No War."(SSPirate (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

To recap- We've established that Mihirangi planned to board the Steve Irwin. She got aboard the ship. She made a music video while the Steve Irwin was supposed to be on campaigning(Notice the reference was in Feb that she left- the campaign ended in March...). She used the resources aboard the ship that were donated to facilitate the intervention of whaling. After looking at all this evidence (there are 8 references for that one topic alone) its pretty easy to infer that she received all of these resources in lieu of her support quid pro quo. Because she was aboard, and the Whale Wars crew was aboard as well, she must have been at some point filmed by the crew. Because she didn't actually make it on the show implies she was edited out. If anyone has any objections after this "proof" please post your hesitations here.(SSPirate (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

I added a fact tag to the controversy portion. I think the fact that a video was made is well documented. It needs a source to show that the decision to assist in the making of the video was controversial however, otherwise it should be included in the general section about that particular trip.Seaphoto 01:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Buytric Acid censorship

Why has the statistics of Buytric acid keep getting removed? It is confirmed to he a harmful substance, potentially deadly to sea creatures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Whale Wars television series, Ok -- Criticism of Sea Shepherd, No.

"'Critic response has been generally positive'"?! This is blatantly biased, IMO. check this link http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2008/11/06/2008-11-06_whale_wars_reality_show_gets_a_seaplus.html. Not so positive. The way all of the reviews are shown in mediate context feels like an ad on animal planet. -|->TheFSaviator-|-> (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this an article about a television show? Why is there a section criticizing a Sea Shepherd's campaign? Propose removal of this irrelevant and unsourced content. RomaC (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Valid point. While there is no doubt that this is a controversial organization, the appropriate place to list such criticism would be the article on the Sea Shepherd's activities. The only thing I would leave, if it can be documented, would be the criticism over the music video, as the decision to edit it out of the show reflects on the program.Seaphoto 16:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets not remove it entirely, as it provides a good launching point to the other article. The section should be trimmed to a single paragraph. Text under "main article" notes is generally just a couple sentences summarizing the content of the other page. We don't want duplicate content. --BarkerJr (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is enough information on the criticism of Sea Shepherd on their page. This page should focus on the TV show. --RobertGary1 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Much of the criticism of the Sea Sheperd is unsourced and too irrelevant for the TV series page. And the music video portion needs to be clearer about why it's controversial. scotts (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed the content per this discussion. There remains only (yet unsourced) specific criticism of the show. About the music video, I saw no sources that were critical. Reports in the bigger media seemed favourable. RomaC (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Good edit. We need to take a look at the shooting section as well, which needs to be both shorter and better referenced as well. Most of the criticism belongs on the Sea Shepherd page, not on this article.Seaphoto 05:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The comment that criticism has come largely from parties normally critical of Sea Sheppard is blatently false. Numerous sources are easy to find, many from conservation organizations and their supporters, which are highly critical of this show and its one sided blatant endorsement of these terrorist activities.CharmsDad (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

the show is not endorsing the SS efforts, they are documenting it -- subtle difference, perhaps, but important one nonetheless. and to repeat what i've written above: they're far from terrorists. the correct term is activists, whether or not you agree with their (non-violent) tactics. Fhue (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Wrong. Sea Shepherd does exert a certain amount of editorial control over the series.
2. They absolutely fit the definition of “terrorists”; the only reason we don’t use the term is because it’s pejorative (read: POV). To quote a fellow wikipedian, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.
3. SSCS rams, boards, launches harmful chemicals at and scuttles whalers’, fishers’ and sealers’ ships. To call their actions “non-violent” is just downright ridiculous. — NRen2k5, 01:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. What's your source on this claim? From what I've read and seen in interviews, the film crew is independent of the SSCS. Take the shooting controversy, for example. The show included Watson's allegations, but they also balanced it with skepticism. Judging from the footage alone, I don't believe he was shot.
2. and 3) The terms "terrorist" and "violent" denote, first and foremost, more than just property damage. Again you're arguing for the wider connotations, which is just as misleading as "non-violent" .. but what is the middle ground? "eco-terrorist" is too close to the former.

Unfortunately, no one is coming up with better, more neutral terms. I use "non-violent" to mean that they don't harm people, but admittedly it is lacking. And I agree they do use violent direct action tactics, but it is restrained in the sense that they dont attack the people, just the property. so "violent" is misleading, as well. Fhue (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we somehow merge the two sections on criticism? The second section (simply entitled "Criticism") is primarily based on forum comments. Personally I dont object to including a summary of negative commentary, but it should be qualified: viewers who criticize the show are not automatically promoted to status of "critics." (I just made the semantic changes, but I'm not sure if this second section still stands up to scrutiny.) Fhue (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Forum postings are not appropriate sources. Please see my recent edit summary on the article.Cptnono (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Considerable and excessive edits by User:Cubrilovic

User:Cubrilovic has replaced so much content edited by so many with only his own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.135.168 (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That is the nature of Misplaced Pages - it is a dynamic encyclopedia, which everyone can edit. The question is not if someone re-writes an article, but if that edit stands up. Remember you have the ability to edit the article as well! Seaphoto 03:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Animal Planet disclaimer

I think it should be noted that, though they provide this (rather weak) disclaimer, Animal Planet created, developed and produces this show. As such, they have complete creative control over the show's content so making any claim that it does not represent their views is rather feeble.CharmsDad (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

please provide your source for claiming that AP "created developed" the show. As far as i can tell, they document the SS actions and edit the film later for airing. According to wikipedia's own pages, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (1977) pre-dates Animal Planet (1996). Fhue (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor updates to the "Shooting Controversy"

Hi. New on Wiki: I noted some minor and I'm certain unintentional discrepancies in the Shooting Controversy section relative to the reported articles, so I did some clean-up. No trouble; glad to help. Cheers, GeoffP1974 ~~

Certain lines in the section are not supported by the sources. One of the sources is not inline with wikipedia's reliability guidelines (might also be copyright but not sure of those rules). Look to be the viewers interpretation of the event which is a concern when it is contentious. Removing a few lines which are not currently supported.

Follow-up (regarding retraction not if it was a bullet): The Australian Foreign Minister offered 2 media releases on March 7 2008. One states "Japan has advised the Australian Embassy in Tokyo that a crew member on board the Japanese whaling vessel fired warning shots." while the later says: "Japanese officials have now advised the Australian Embassy in Tokyo that during the incident in the Southern Ocean this afternoon, three 'warning balls' – also known as 'flashbangs' – had been fired." Reuters and BBC reported off different ones but reliable source does not support a recant. It might have been simply a poor translation but until a reliable source says either way, let the facts speak for themselves. Three articles mention that it was a retraction and all need to be cleaned up. Any thoughts on how to clean this up to not lead the reader in either direction? Linking other discussion pages here. Sources: Press release 1) http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2008/fa-s048_08.html Press release 2) http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2008/fa-s049_08.html Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSYD154936 BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7282760.stm Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Shooting Controversy"

Notice how there is absolutely NO bruising under the vest. If it was a bullet, there would have been bruising. Also, the piece of metal removed was a thin, curved, hollow piece of metal. The Japanese statement that a real shot would have staggered Watson and left bruising was 100% accurate. As a member of the USAF's Security Police, I know a gunshot stopped by a vest when I see one. Open your eyes people! Don't blindly follow what these people tell you. SpudHawg948 (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your perception does not matter at all for the article. I agree with you but until a source says one way or the other it cannot go in.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cptnono. And on the other hand, no proof has been provided that Watson was shot, so I’ve been checking WP articles that mention the controversy, to make sure it’s made clear that these are only allegations from Watson and his crew at this point. — NRen2k5, 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

I’m thinking the show’s title card is more appropriate to use in the infobox than the DVD sleeve is. Anybody else care to weigh in? — NRen2k5, 02:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am down about ten pounds since my last weigh-in, but I have more to lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.68.134.132 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, really helpful... But yeah, the title card is more appropriate to identify the show than the DVD case. Jedibob5 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Piracy?

Can anyone explain to me how the attacking and "stink bombing" ships of another nation doesn't qualify as piracy? How do they get away with this stuff? Jedibob5 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of piracy, I guess. Interestingly enough, SSCS matches Misplaced Pages’s definition of piracy pretty well. But I digress. Talk pages are made to discuss improving the article, not to discuss the subject matter itself. Discovery Communications has a set of forums discussing the show here. — NRen2k5, 01:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

intro change

The introduction's final words "in the name of research" give undue credence to the Japanese whaling industry; a casual reader might take away little understanding of the true conflict. The SSCS's mission is to stop the whaling, not just "deter," and thereby enforce international regulation protecting whales; the Japanese claim they are killing the whales for research but, as the show's voiceover counterclaims, this is their cover story to get around the regulations. Fhue (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They are doing it in the name of research. Bias would be to call it either "under the guise of research" or "for research"Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. They only claim "research" to use a loophole in the regulation. The show includes footage of the meat being packaged for sale, which has been verified by other anti-whaling groups, including Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/activists-charged-for-exposing). Furthermore, according to sources on the Japanese whaling page @http://en.wikipedia.org/Japanese_whaling#Scientific_research, "Japan began scientific research hunts to provide a basis for the resumption of sustainable whaling." And even this last point on sustainability is questionable, given that the source cited in that wikipedia page looks suspiciously like a marketing piece from the Japanese whaling industry & its research front, www.icrwhale.org -- the wikipedia source is a vanilla PDF from their website. Fhue (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your evidence doesn’t say what you want it to. Please try to maintain at least a modicum of objectivity. — NRen2k5, 11:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm a new contributor to wikipedia, i'll take your dismissive tone with a grain of salt. So here's a quote from The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3325580.ece, referenced on the Whaling in Japan page:

"Australia and other critics dismiss the Japanese programme as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned, and claim that whale meat ends up in supermarkets and restaurants."

The direct evidence on film (in Whale Wars) points to questionable research, and thats what I'm saying. Not the other way around. Fhue (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You’re imagining the Japanese’s way of thinking based on your personal interpretation of a small amount of evidence. You’re trying to present your personal conclusion and back it up with that evidence rather than just presenting the evidence. That’s POV and original research. — NRen2k5, 01:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

They actually do not dipute the fact that they package it for food. But this isn't the appropriate place to debate the ethics of it or try to change anyones mind. They make the claim and we are letting the facts speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I’m comfortable with the way Fhue presented it in the edit he made about an hour and a half after my comment. — NRen2k5, 05:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear enough in summarizing the issue: I'm not arguing about whether Japanese whaling "in the name of research" is legitimate, but rather that the introduction should reflect this debate. Nowhere in the main article is there mention of this conflict. Yet it is an important part of the show & should be included. And no, the conclusions are not mine. Fhue (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

adding the extra line was fine. as long as there is balance it should be good. I think "claim"(Misplaced Pages talk:Words to avoid#claim) needs to be removed. should be easy enough to fiddle with.Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The program follows Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, as he and his crew aboard the MV Steve Irwin attempt to deter Japanese ships that hunt minke and fin whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in the name of scientific research. Environmental groups dispute the Japanese claim of research "as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned." or

• The program follows Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, as he and his crew aboard the MV Steve Irwin attempt to deter Japanese ships that hunt minke and fin whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in the name of scientific research. Environmental groups claim the research is a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned. (trying to make a point. bad!)

• The program follows Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, as he and his crew aboard the MV Steve Irwin attempt to deter Japanese ships that hunt minke and fin whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The Japanese do this in the name of research/say it is research something like that while environmental groups argue it is a "disguise for commercial whaling"

• The program follows Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, as he and his crew aboard the MV Steve Irwin attempt to deter Japanese ships that hunt minke and fin whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in the name of scientific research. Environmental groups argue that the whaling is "a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned."

Sure there are a few options which will eliminate some of the potential concerns with words to avoid. Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the last one, with a small but important change:
Environmental groups argue that the research is "a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned."
Fhue (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've done my share of shit talking on other pages but so far a few of us are doing alright on this one. Lets try not accuse editors who have been actively working on this and related page of vandalism. Assume good faith or some other fun guidelines can be pointed to.Cptnono (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this to stem from NRen's mistaken affront at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society&diff=296931246&oldid=296930843 when cross-editing/reverting with this article. Fhue (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.amplifier.co.nz/video,40154,2.do
2. http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-071119-1.html

• Unassessed television articles
• Unknown-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• Unassessed animal articles
• Unknown-importance animal articles
• WikiProject Animals articles