Misplaced Pages

Ridiculous but true, Martin Sheen is not just a member, but on the Board of Advisors . RHCP don’t seem to be members per se but do financially back SSCS. Considering your track record for honesty thus far, I take any claim you make about past consensus with a grain of salt. Still bleating and projecting your misunderstandings about Misplaced Pages on me, I see. Balance is not the goal. Neutrality is the goal. For example, if a movie is a box office flop and the vast majority of reviews are unfavourable, you don’t go digging for the few good reviews you can find. You accept that most reviewers say the movie is bad and work that into the article in a neutral tone and/or let the reviewers speak for themselves. — NRen2k5, 21:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

neutrality not balance is an excellent way to put it. RHCP does deserve some mention since it has received some attention. Mentioning that they donate to the group could be included. I would consider them "supporting" the organization and its ideals both in spirit and financially. If we really are considering cleaning up the two lists, we could add a section explaining the donations and any other financial info (ie tax status if it is note worthy enough).Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You’re right. RHCP isn’t a particularly good example of what I would call public support of SSCS, but they do fit into that category much better than into the category of celebrity members. — NRen2k5, 22:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, NRen2k5 distorts the concept of balance to his own incomplete understanding. The movie analogy is simply weak (and stale, you used it above )   while your self-righteous tone does not give you any more authority than the next editor. In fact, it diminishes your limited credibility as a contributor. I suggest you do a bit more reading of WP policies instead of setting up camp on controversial sites just so you can argue. From WP:NPOV: "the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance.."  You might also read WP:How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle(aka Balance) which summarizes the issue: "Misplaced Pages articles eventually reach neutrality because warring parties push their POV, not in spite of it. Misplaced Pages therefore depends on POV warriors. Which is just as well. (As there are lots of them)"

Funny how you don't refute the assertion that you are pro-whaling. So you're welcome to keep pushing your POV, just be honest about it and stop trying to bully everyone else. PrBeacon (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to point out that that is an essay not a guideline. Many editors actually take offense to that method although sometimes that mentality can be beneficial it needs to be done carefully.Cptnono (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

PrBeacon, I am not pro-whaling. Is that what this has come to – that I have to say the magic words before you stop harassing me? (And you accuse me of wiki-bullying?…) — NRen2k5, 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

lol @ "harassing" ..But, seriously? Get over yourself and stop personalizing these disputes, learn to accept disagreement. I can admit to some incivility but not nearly as much as you, nor did I start it -- you have been dismissive and patronizing since we first exchanged words at the Whale Wars discussion and then carried it over here. So, yes -- counting all your template warnings (on my talk page etc ad nauseum, & other talk pages, even to more-established editors like SV ) as well as prolonged complaints to admins , , including the current one plus the disingenuous attempts to remove comments & just because you don't like them -- you are the textbook example of a wiki-bully. Thus you've scared away other editors but I'm still here, rising to the occasion. PrBeacon (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually.. I'd like to point out that in this section alone NRen has been the undue topic of discussion by two separate editors. I ahve been by one and CPTnono has by one. Here's a friendly reminder to all, this area is not for talking about other editors. It's for talking about the article. If you have something to say about the person go to their talk page, not here please. And BTW, I think there's a nice balance of people on here rightnow. You guys are good for each other. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

in re Balance: yes, the WP article i linked is an essay but it also contains guidelines. Here's something a bit more straightforward:
"The ideal Misplaced Pages article is well-written, balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing comprehensive, notable, verifiable knowledge." - from
Balance is more than a simple scale -- ie, it's not about giving equal weight to both positive and negative, as with the false analogy in reviews of a bad movie. It goes hand in hand with the concept of neutrality, yet it's not just a zero-sum game or even divided into two distinct camps. In the case of this article, the SSCS receives a wide range of both support and criticism regardless of how effective we editors are at reflecting that. For instance, you don't have to be pro-whaling to be anti-SSCS. PrBeacon (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there’s hope for you yet. =) — NRen2k5, 18:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Governmental Siezure of the Farley Mowatt

Hey guys, rather than edit it myself I'd like it if one of you registered users would kindly change the wording in the opening paragraph to note that the Farley Mowatt is not part of the fleet and has been siezed by the Canadian government. I think it's important to the accuracy of this article to include the perspective of major international players (like Canada) prominantly. I applaud the effort of the above registered users who have shown restraint and editorial neutrality. You are making this a better article. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas on the lead? It will be easy to throw a few lines on the recent judgment in the section already explaining the incident. With the lead, should it be mentioned? If so, "they used to have a boat yada yada"? For now, I'll remove the boat name in the lead but it should be easy enough to re include-if needed-after some ideas on what fits best.Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean the Farley Mowat is not part of the fleet? 4.246.202.172 (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Nevermind. It was the flagship so at least a single line is needed.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up x2: I am shocked right now. I was so busy yesterday concerned about a single link I didn't realize how poor the Canadian seal hunt paragraph was. Time to fix it. Here are my concerns:

• General layout may need improvement. I'm having a hard time with the first line myself.
• Canadian Coast Guard ship is used but all sources say the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
• The group was "observing" is used. Maybe true maybe not but according to the source: "The group contends it was ... observing Canada's seal hunt, and has been unfairly and unlawfully arrested." While a sealer said (in the same source) "Mowat harassed..." while another source says "The ship also chased the smaller, slower vessels or cut them off from reaching ice floes where there were seals"
• International waters. Again, this is disputed. The group says one thing Canadian government says another. Both can get mention without hurting anyone's feelings.
• Collision should get the same treatment: "The Fisheries department says that during the incident, the coast guard's Des Groseilliers icebreaker, which had been dispatched to help, was "grazed" by the Mowat, while the Sea Shepherd Society says its ship was rammed."

Whoever wrote this paragraph should be ashamed. I know I said we shouldn't be rude but that is just horrible.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops. It was Coast Guard. Also, the RAID was in Canadian waters so that is OK to. A little hasty on my part. Added a little more info. Removed court preceedings which were only dded as news and are no longer needed Source removed is .Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Added more info. Did not format refs properly but assume there will be some changes requested. I think a line should be added mentioning the organizations concerns with the arrest and cleaning up the lawyer lines would be good but I don't get it all without researching it more.Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I failed to use the sandbox in my rush to finish up and get some wine in me. Apologies.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A few comments about this. Apparently a couple of SSCS people were convicted of coming to close with their boat to some sealer boats. I'd hardly consider that terrorism though. Taking their boat and fining them just for "getting to close" is over the top in my opinion. But were talking about Canada here which has people like this in charge. What is it that people here so object to about the SSCS? Because they are trying to stop this from happening . That makes them heroes in my book. 4.246.202.172 (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, one thing that I have said before that I think is missing from this article is why Sea Shepherd is doing what they are doing. The human element. Otherwise it's just a bland and confusing recital of facts that give people the impression that they are just a bunch of "terrorists" raping and pillaging at will on the high seas. Some sort to explanation, the philosophy behind their actions needs to be mentioned. The sad fact is were it not for Sea Shepard and Greenpeace the world would not even know about the brutal massacre of baby seals and whales. People need to understand why they are doing what they do, and why good people support them. The story of the Sea Shepherd is a quintessential David v Goliath struggle.

As an example of what I'm talking about, to the seal section I once added the following (but it was deleted):

"Each year up to 350,000 baby harp seals are clubbed to death for their fur, usually in front of their mothers . The hunt has been criticised by scientists,The risk to the seal population is alarmingly high. The study demonstrates that the government may not know that the seal population is at a critical level until it is too late for anything but drastic action. That means they would continue to set high quotas for hunting when the seal population is in serious decline" . Additionally, polls have revealsed that the majority of citizens who are aware of the issue are against sealing . As with whaling, the Sea Shepherd Society has assumed the role of defender. As such, they have been attacked, sometimes physically by the sealers .

Some photos, not necessarily gory ones, but a photo of a seal and/or whale hunt would help people understand. By the way, I could use some of that wine.

4.246.202.172 (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Screw you hippie, the bottle is gone :) ! Critique of the seal hunting is not appropriate for this article however, a wikilink to seal hunting needs to be provided so the reader can see what is going on out there. Information about the groups reasoning for their direct action is definitely OK. I am sure we can find something out there explaining why they feel/are justified. "The group calls themselves 'xyz' or states they do it because '____' or whatever else" from a good source should for sure be included. Watch out for the "in your face" and many times biased writing styles of some organizations, less professional freelancers or solely internet based "news" sites, or blogs and there should be no worries. As always, if you see me put in a source that looks questionable bring it up.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice edits Cptnono. It's getting cleaned up nicely. On concern though, the Farley is no longer in the fleet due to siezure by the Canadian government. The opening reads that it is still operated by the SS. NVM :) I'm dense. You've handled the job perfectly. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding back and removing

68, I am removing your comments from the Response section. Here's why: 1) Inaccuracy - the claim that they have received "noting but criticism" from governments is wrong. 2) Redundancy, you are repeating what is already found in the criticism section. 3) Ungrammatical including numerous spelling errors. 4) This section is the SSCS's chance to answer their critics which is not unreasonable seeing as they are accused of being terrorists.

Also I am re-adding information you removed since I think it is important to point out for those who think that they are a criminal organization that they have never caused any provable physical harm to any whaler or sealer. Additionally it is from a reliable source (the New York Times) so in light of everything that we have been talking about lately, re: sources, I certainly think that it can and should remain. 4.246.202.172 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hooray sources! Sorry for my grammar screw ups over the last 45 minutes of stuffing in information. Edit as appropriate and have a good evening.Cptnono (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1, you misread it. Re read the "nothing but" sentance to see what was said. 2, The critisim/support section is reduntant from the article, remove it from there if you need to. 3, Fix the grammer then don't delete. 4, We do not need to provide POV sections. It's actually against the rules to make a section for POV and say no one else can talk except them here. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting 68. Again you are adding criticism which is already in the criticism section. Also, your new additional criticism about the Netherlands and shipping registries shows that you are simply fishing for anything bad that can be tossed in. You say not to delete, yets precisely what you've been doing when you remove reliably sourced information that has been there for a long time. By the way I moved your above comment down as it was dividing my comment. Usually okay but I wanted to keep those two paragraphs together. 4.246.200.33 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You've just erased the edits of another registered user. Listen I'm not sure how to make this clear but there is no appropriate place for a POV section. Then entire article must be NPOV. Summarise the beliefs of the Sea Shepherds and leave it at that, we don't need to defend them. The facts (and appropriate refs shouls speak for themselves. Thanks. Also.. in summarizing, NONE of your information is being removed. The refs are still there. The facts and opinions are just being stated ina neutral way. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

68, what don't you get here? The information your are trying to ram into another section is already covered in the criticism section, where it belongs. Additionally, you need to read up on NPOV. Specifically go to this section Information Supression of the Misplaced Pages:NPOV tutorial page. There it says, and I quote: "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Misplaced Pages article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant ... Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: ... Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors ... Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.". By continually removing Mr Watson's comments in which he explains that they are not criminals and which are published in the New York Times you are attempting to censor. NRen2k5 (08:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)) has even called for the elimination of the supporters section but not the criticism section. In what universe is that NPOV? Certainly Mr Watson is allowed to make one statement in his defense in an article about his organization which refers to them as terrorists and is loaded with critical quotes from his enemies for crissakes? Sheesh! By the way, you'll notice that I have not removed one thing from the criticism section while you and others have been busy trying to censor anything favorable. Who's the villian here?4.246.206.190 (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, let's work on getting the "crtitisism and supporters" sections into the main body of the article. Then we can do away with both of those sections, yes? For that to work, you need to work with me on this goal instead of against me. We can't disect all relavant info inot separate POV paragraphs. The whole article needs to flow from the same neutral perspective. Help me with this please. Let's not silence anyone but rephrase and restate in a neutral fashion. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. If you bother to read the history you'll see that there was a reason that these sections were done as they are. People felt it was a mess before that so they decided to organize it this way. I'm not saying that it couldn't work but it's disrespectful to the labors of those who went before to just screw with it because you feel like it - or because you think it might be an effective way to censor. Also you say, "Let's not silence anyone". Agreed, then please stop deleting Paul Watson's comments agreed? 4.246.202.65 (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent use of sources. I've removed the large blocks of quoted text in favor of concise summarization, while leaving the sources intact. This way we have the source of the information without allowing the article to be taken over be needless POV. Cheers. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Needless POV", that's funny. Then kindly remove all those negative POV comments that someone obviously went to a lot of work to dig up just to post here for the express purpose of trying to influence readers against the SSCS. Come on, clearly your only interest is in being fair and objective right? 4.246.203.136 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added back additional refferences to that section as well. Please do not chop up this article into Critisism and support section. That's not how these articles need to read. It opens the door for easy potshots. Can anyone else shime in on this last paragraph so we dont have this back and forth? Again.. please refrain from removing infomration from the dialogue. The objective is to take the information within the critisim and support sections and weave it into one article. Thanks. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, all the information is there in that last paragraph would one of the registered users who have been working on this artilce mind taking a look at it and cleaning up any POV wording that may eb left over? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Working the Critisism and Support into the main article

OK.. this is going to be a chore, especially if edit wars persist. Anyone want to give suggestions on how we can proceed with this? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded.Cptnono (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverts and POV pushing from San Jose

I see that all the recent blanket reverts, edit wrring and general smack talking is comeing from the IP addys starting with 4.246.. It's a dialup account in San Jose. I've tried bringing it to the talk page on several of these IP addreses but not with any response. I'm fairly certain that it's the same person. I don't know the official route to take at this point. Would one of you registered users mind doing a little problem solving? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We could request the article be semi-protected. It’s much better than blocking that IP range from Misplaced Pages – for all we know, it could be a school or public library. Unfortunately, protection will probably prevent you from editing too. But from what I read at Misplaced Pages:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users, if you register an account and make a few good edits, you should be able to resume editing here in short order. — NRen2k5, 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That might be the best step.. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And the cabal conspires to silence their opponent. You people are really disgusting. 4.246.206.190 (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This page won't likely be protected anytime soon. Even if that happens, you can simply register an account which is encouraged for both of you currently with IP addresses as handles. And I'll repeat what I quoted above since it applies here, as well: Misplaced Pages:How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle "Misplaced Pages articles eventually reach neutrality because warring parties push their POV, not in spite of it. Misplaced Pages therefore depends on POV warriors. Which is just as well. (As there are lots of them) So, don't despair."  PrBeacon (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PrBeacon, Actually I thought about it and made the decision not to register. Per Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Overview "editing as an unregistered user is acceptable. Many valuable contributors have made this choice". Maybe it is better to do so as you say, and I have noticed that anonymous contributors often suffer what I would call "IP discrimination", which is a strange, almost racial in tone thing. But oh well. 4.246.202.65 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

San Jose, there is no conspiricy. You continue to revert entire sections of the article to represent one side.. you say your edits are creating a paragraph giving "SSCS's chance to answer their critics" but to do that you keep removing refs to the discussion on legality and authority. Please quit erasing the refs that you don't like.. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow. Then put the damn refs in the Criticism section where they belong and stop duplicating them! 4.246.202.65 (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And what right do you have to be trying to track me down 68? 4.246.206.190 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

San Jose, you published your IP for the whole world to see. It's not secret.. this is all in the open. I wish we could work together seeing as how you seem to have lots of energy for this. What this article could really use is for you to take the critisisms and supporters sections and start melding those into the article body. Perhaps chronologically. That would make sense of some of this. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What a bozo. Hey 68, I know you think you're clever but just for your information I live nowhere near San Jose. Just because an IP might trace to a certain area that has no bearing whatever on where a person lives or is writing from. IPs can range all over the country. You should be embarrassed, and ashamed. 4.246.202.65 ([[User

talk:4.246.202.65|talk]]) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Also, instead of large blocks of POV quotes, summarize concisely. This shouldn't read like an ad for whale wars. Thanks. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Please refrain from personal attacks" That's rich coming from a guy who was trying to track me down. And to what end? If that's not personal I don't know what is. Then comes your continual deletion of Paul Watson's reliable sourced comments which even Cptnono agreed on. What is it that he is saying that you feel so threatened about Mr 68? Is it because he gets a chance to explain a bit, that his comments are not those that would come from a raving lunatic. Is that what you don't want people to see? And don't give me that crap about it's too POV. It's a damn sight less POV then those six other negative comments that preceed it which you apparently have no problem with. I can see right through you. I'll say it again, you are a bozo. 4.246.203.136 (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Get your shit together, 4... . Your attempt at balance could be a great thing if you put forth the effort you obviously want to. Get some good sources and make this a better article. You're learning the ropes (guidelines and all that stuff) and know the subject well enough so put it to good use. Instead of calling 68 a bozo and adding in sources and language that will have to be reverted you should fix the article. Every time you make a defensive edit you are losing the opportunity to add much needed content to this project that could be informing readers in a way that won't get them on their heels as well.Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute Cptnono, "blatant violation and the bias source"? Are you refering to the Paul Watson comment found in the NYTimes, the one about which you earlier said, "Hooray sources!" and "Information about the groups reasoning for their direct action is definitely OK. I am sure we can find something out there explaining why they feel/are justified. "The group calls themselves 'xyz' or states they do it because '____' or whatever else" from a good source should for sure be included."

Sorry, I don't have time for this game anymore. 4.246.203.136 (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I just went through each of those quotes in the last edit to the last section of the article. I ensured that each of the citations you requested are represented in the article. Large quotes of text have been summarised but all of your information is still there. For instance it talks about th adoption of a "a law enforcement mission".. nice and clear. That means we don't have to introduce a long preachy quote verifying that. We just provide a link so if soeone wants to do additional research they will be directed that way with the article staying neutral. We have to treat this article the same way as the Hitler article. Take a look sometime.. it is biased even though everyone has strong feelings about him. They were still able to make a good neutral article. We should be able to do that here as well. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh.. scratch that. Looks like Hitler has been taken off the goo article list. Still you get my point (hopefully). It was for a long time a quality good article non biased and everything.. while still presenting all the facts. We can do that here. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't notice the "blatant" #4 inserted was a quote. Apologies for making a mistake in the reverts edit summary and what probably cam across completely terrible. In regards to the sources however (primary reason for reverting): I saw too many Sea Shepherd citations after the added lines which got under my skin. Like I said, we need to get rid of those. NY Times is a perfectly fine source and it shows that there are reliable sources covering this stuff.Cptnono (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Layout

It is time to set a functional layout for this article. Currently, "Operations" is a limited preamble and info on rammings. After that, it goes into a detailed time line starting in '05 when editors started paying attention. Operations could be read as the groups internal ops (similar to a business model with developments) while activities could be all the info about its direct-action operations. I don't know if this should be in a timeline format (similar to now) or grouped into types (anti-whaling, ant-fishing, anti-seal hunting). Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

here is a source removed. Not sure of its neutrality (only glanced) but there is a timeline:

2 points. I like what you did with the opening paragraph. It allows the reader to know the philosophical base (what the SS say) and how the rest of the world sees them (what the government, etc say). I think it will be difficult to make sure an undue wieght is not placed on what the sea shepherds want to be seen as but I think the opening navigates those waters well. In the topic of layout. I think the idea of a summary in timeline form is a great idea. I think one section "Organization History" would be appropriate (no need for both sections in my mind). I think almost all of the info in the "Background" section could be reworked into the History and left there. I think all the notable critisms and support could also be worked into that section when NOTABLE groups have critisised or supported their actions. Good work so far mate. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! We are going to need to expand "early history".Cptnono (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is another time line that covers most of the Watson's history. It is not neutral and cannot be used as a source but it will help with key words while google news searching. Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also: . So we have a press release from the government of St Lucia along with information from both Norwegian and Japanese whalers. Plenty of info here. Hopefully, we can find some sources not from the whalers.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty is that the Sea Shepherds seem to stage opperations around small fishing villages, like in Norway and St.Lucia. Their whole community will be pro-whaling making it biased.. and their governments themselves have come under attack, making them biased. Still, it is well documented and we should present the information as it is manifested, noting it's source in the article so as not to claim the bias. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the Norwegian one for the most part but we need to watch paraphrasing since it might come across too negative. Another source would be preferred but we can always see what comes up. I ran into some heavily biased environmental "news" sites so I would hate to set a precedent if people take offense to this one.Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)recently removed but might be used: Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the way the layout is going. Info is being duplicated and there isn't a good flow with the "accusations of terrorism" and "membership" sections (one line section too small anyways). We need to figure out a better layouts somehow. Also, the recent whaling stuff is getting more weight than anything else since it is current, has a TV show, and in more internet news sources. We should work to give more info about the previous decades. I don't know the best direction to go layout wise.Cptnono (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Another source (biased) Cptnono (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Source with extra info: Cptnono (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

undent: I have added some more info.

• I have added citation needed tags to info found in the biased crwhale.org source. It isn't contentious but thought it might be appropriate.
• It is probably time to start grouping info together (whaling, fishing, shark poaching, trees) to reduce the couple line sentences in subsections. This will reduce clutter and remove the newsy feel of the prose.
• The 1992 vessel was not sunk as originally stated in the article.
• Still need to add info to Sea Shepherd dispacthing "agents" to spike trees
• Still need to add info alleged weapon use.
• Still need to add info to the boats being sank Cptnono
• Still need to add info to the fleet (they have had several more vessels than this article currently states)
• These are pretty basic entries. Feel free to fiddle with grammar, expand, complain here, anything else. (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Here are some ideas for the layout. I am running into plenty of couple line subsections that should be included but giving them their own subsections seems off. For example: Watson and Martin Sheen getting ran off by 200 Canadian seal hunters with clubs and Sea Shepherd ramming a Mexican fishing boat. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Now

Lead

Organization

Operations

Date

Date

Date

and so on

or

Lead

Organization

Operations

Canadian seal hunting

Whaling

Norway

Makah

Faroe Islands

Japan

Japan sub 1

Japan sub 2

Japan sub 3

Other marine life ops (turtles, sharks, fishing)

or (to remove the massively subcategorized Japan section)

Lead

Organization

Operations

Canadian seal hunting

Date 1

Date 2

Date 3

Whaling

Date 1

Date 2

Date 3

ect

Other marine life ops (turtles, sharks, fishing)

Date 1

Date 2

Date 3

Discussion on Violence again

I clipped the phrase within support that someone didn't consider SS direct actions as violence. If you read further in that article the best he says to defend his position is that no one had been killed yet. I'm thinking that doesn't really add to the discussion at all.. unless we want to open the discussion on what or what is not violence.. which I don't think we want to do here and now. So I shortened the quote to demonstrate who he was and that he supports them and left the rest out. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Monash University

Might be used. Where to go and how to paraphrase?

In a recent (2008) paper, Dr Gerry Nagtzaam, a lecturer and researcher in the School of Environmental Science, the Faculty of Law and the Global Terrorism Research Centre, Monash University, Australia, and Dr. Pete Lentini of the Global Terrorism Research Centre, Monash University, wrote:

'Throughout the article we maintain that the Sea Shepherds constitute an example of a gray area phenomenon. Despite the ambiguity surrounding their legal status and academic interpretations of their actions, the results of nearly three decades of the organization’s activities, including its 2007 campaign to disrupt Japanese Antarctic Whaling, suggest that the Sea Shepherds may be best categorized as a vigilante group, because they claim they are seeking to enforce a legal status quo because of states’ and the international community’s inabilities or unwillingness to do so.'

From: Vigilantes on the High Seas? The Sea Shepherds and Political Violence. Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 20, 2008, pp. 110–133

Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have found the direct quote (above), which comes from the abstract for the referenced academic paper in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence. The website that contains the abstract is below for use as an external reference. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a789728401?words=nagtzaam&hash=3964044342

Darwin's Fishe (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Decent enough quote. Where should it go and how should it be paraphrased?Cptnono (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So it is in now. I didn't register to read the whole thing. What incidents doe sit discuss? Is it solely about whaling? Does it cover them as a whole? Any info on the context would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm
2. http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/docs/1999/e1999-8.htm
3. "Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health: "The Threat of Eco-Terrorism"" (HTML). United States Federal Bureau of Investigation. 12 February 2002. Retrieved 15 June 2009. Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.
4. "Cetacean Society International homepage". Cetacean Society International.
5. "N.S. court grants bail to anti-sealing activists". CBC News. 2008-04-13.
6. Bousquet, Earl (2001-07-23). "Ocean Warriors Confront Lucian Fishermen" (HTML). Government of Saint Lucia web site. Retrieved 2007-02-11.
7. Vidal, John (2 January 2006). "Greenpeace fights sea battle with rival anti-whaling ship" (HTML). The Guardian. Retrieved 8 June 2009.

If you want a wesite reference for the paper that was quoted to use in any rewrite, it is here: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a789728401?words=nagtzaam&hash=3964044342 This is the article website which has the abstract which contains the direct quote as seen in the section you removed. 59.167.84.148 (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

FBI reference

I have removed the statements saying that Sea Shepherd is listed as an eco-terrorist organisation by the FBI for the following reasons:

1) The FBI do not currently list Sea Shepherd as an eco-terrorist organisation. The FBI National Counterterrorism Centre's 2007 Report on Terrorism (published in April 2008), contains no reference to the Sea Shepherds as an ecoterrorist organisation nor do other FBI reports.

2) The reference given in the Misplaced Pages page is the: Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, given in 2002. He is giving personal expert opinion on the subject of ecoterrorism and is not making direct statements on behalf of the FBI as to offical actions, listings or policy.

3) The only reference in the testimony to Sea Shepherd is in one paragraph of two sentences. The first is:

Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. This sentence contitutes his personal opinion. The second sentence is:

The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature. This sentence is a definition, apparently used by the FBI in 2002, of ecoterrorism and he uses it to qualify his first sentence.

Neither sentences directly or indirectly state that the FBI has listed Sea Shepherd as an ecoterrorist organisation. Nor do the sentences, together or apart, constitute an offical listing of Sea Shepherd as an ecoterrorist organisation. At most they reflect Jarboe's POV and while they may, or may not, reflect a cultural view of Sea Shepherd within the FBi, this does not constitute an official position.

4) The FBI is a domestic policing body of the United States and only has jurisdiction within US areas, except in rare and exceptional circumstances. If the Sea Shepherd conducted a direct action within US jurisdiction then the FBI may or may not list Sea Shepherd as a ecoterrorist organisation. This has not yet occurred.

Therefore the reference is incorrect, inaccurate, and disengenuous.

BE ADVISED, if this reference reappears then:

a. The poster is perpetuating a fallacy,

b. The poster is acting in an intellectually dishonest manner,

c. The poster is acting contrary to Misplaced Pages standards of fact, integrity and balance,

d. The poster will be acting to an agenda and/or a bias that contravenes the NPOV standard.

Darwin's Fishe (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually just reverted. It was not a-d. It was a simple knee-jerk reaction to edits that came across like you were the one with an agenda. Nothing wrong with a little clean-up though. Do you want to tackle cleaning up these line? It also does not need to be in the lead but the label "eco-terrorist" is common for these guys and I believe the editor who originally attempted inclusion was trying to make sure the label had a source to be in accordance with the guidelines and was not attempting to be as malicious as you seem to think.Cptnono (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see: Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle This is a good standard to follow but not a guideline. Along with your recent revert of a revert, you just removed another source with info. It is best to make a mention of it here since it is contentious and several editors have had a hard time keeping the POV pushing from editors who will not work neutrally out. No offence, but your edits are being viewed with skepticism. I don't understand why the recent material was removed. Personally, I believe both criticism and endorsements need a rewrite but section blanking is not the answer. Also, if you remove anymore sources, can you throw a link on the discussion page so editors can easily reference it in the future during any rewrites?Cptnono (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You say that you reverted as a 'knee-jerk' reaction because my action 'came across' to you personally as if I had an agenda. My only agenda is fair representation. Sea Shepherd is not listed as an ecoterrorism organisation by the FBI. It is unfair and dishonest to say that they are, by doing such readers of Misplaced Pages will come away with unfounded, erroneous, knowledge and the belief that Sea Shepherd is officially seen as an ecoterrorist organisation.

I consider it wrong for, as you note, the statement being put in the lead of the article. The first part of an article ('the lead') is the most often read part of an article. Placing an incorrect statement in the lead, to me, smacks of an agenda, especially as it is most likely to put the idea of Sea Shepherd as 'terrorists' in the mind of a reader by claiming that 'the Law' (FBI) says they are.

You also justify this incorrect statement by saying that, 'the label "eco-terrorist" is common for these guys'. Indeed it is. This does not justify trying to make a reader believe the organisation is a terrorist one by falsely claiming that the FBI lists says they are.

You then go on to say that I believe that the statement was put in with malicious intent by the original poster, I do not think that, the statement is simply incorrect. I am suspicious of malicious intent in the fact that this statement was lifted from the criticism section and put in the lead.

I do note that when the statement was put back, by you, into the lead and was changed from Sea Shepherd 'is listed' as an eco-terrorist organisation to 'are considered an 'are considered' an organization by the FBI. This tells me that you have read my original reasons for removaland acted upon it. This word change is again incorrect and puts an unfounded belief into readers minds. Jarboe may believe Sea Shepherd are eco-terrorists but that is not the position of the FBI and it is unfair and wrong to perpetuate that falsehood, as I advised.

In your edit notes your admonish me by saying 'don't remove sourced criticism'. The fact taht a statement is sourced does not give credibility alone. The strength of the source does. The claim that the FBI 'list' or 'consider' Sea Shepherd to be an ecoterrorists is wrong and the source weak and on closer examination, as I showed in the quotes in my original comment, does not support the claim. Therefore I removed it.

By putting it back, as I advised, you are weakening the article with falsehoods and misleading readers. The next time you have a 'knee-jerk' reaction, please reconsider, as I would regret seeing you put false and misleading statements into Misplaced Pages, particularly in the lead of an article.

Darwin's Fishe (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In 2002 James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, told a House of Representitives Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health: "Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of 'eco-terrorism' have occurred around the globe." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.84.148 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Per your edit summary: " Removed Jarboe's statement as it is not criticism and is the personal POV of one person" Does that mean we should remove: Former Australian Minister of the Environment Ian Campbell, leader Bob Brown, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and the Dalai Lama?Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cetacean Society International

I have removed the Cetacean Society International criticism section because it is a false reference. It is false because:

1. The section claims, Cetacean Society International president Bill Rossiter criticized the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society 2004 campaign to defend dolphins in Taiji, Japan, saying:...

The reference the section is based upon has no author, therefore it is not possible to determine if Bill Rossiter said or wrote what is alleged in the section to be a quote from him. The alleged quote is:

"We can't report how many dolphins were mercilessly killed or sold to captivity, because of effective strategies this year to stop the world from witnessing the travesty. After some early protesters from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society played into the hands of the authorities and freed some netted dolphins, their actions became the excuse to keep almost all other outsiders legally restricted and unable to document the slaughter any further."

However, this does not constitute criticism, it merely reports fact; the fact that past protest actions have hardened authorities responses to future protests, akin to saying that early civil rights protests played into the hands of autorities, thus hampering future protests. The comment just reports the way things are and this criticism does not make and cannot be reported as a criticism.

This quote is reported as the criticism allegedly said by the international president of Cetacean Society International. However, in the text of the reference it is just that, text, part of a report on the Taji dolphin kill, at no point, or anywhere, is it a quotation of Bill Rossiter, nor is bill Rossiter quoted anywhere else in the text.

BE ADVISED that if this section reappears:

1. The poster is propogating a falsehood,

2. The poster is misleading the readers of Misplaced Pages,

3. The poster is misrepresenting Bill Rossiter and Cetacean Society International,

4. The poster is running an agenda and/or a bias in violation of Misplaced Pages standards and the NPOV. Darwin's Fishe (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rathr than deleting the material outright, it'd be better to fix it. Cetacean Society International has certainly commented on the SSCS. I suggest finding a better, more neutral summary of their point. They write:

• After some early protesters from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society played into the hands of the authorities and freed some netted dolphins, their actions became the excuse to keep almost all other outsiders legally restricted and unable to document the slaughter any further.

So something like, "The CSI has said that SSCS 'played into the hands of the authorities' by agreeing to the release of some captured dolphins, but their actions had the effect of preventing other groups from documenting the activities at Tiji". Would that be acceptable?   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The webpage referenced is Cetacean Society International’s newsletter on their own website. You could change it to read “Cetacean Society International said x” rather than “Bill Rossiter said x” if it really bothers you that much. I’ve asked whether CSI even deserves inclusion in the article based on WP:RS, and a case could probably be made for exclusion on WP:NOTE grounds. My personal opinion is that it’s notable in that Sea Shepherd are pariahs even in the eco community. — NRen2k5, 01:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Knock it off with the BE ADVISED will ya? It isn't neccasary and we can come to a consensus without terms like "propagating falsehood". Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting this editorial on the SSCS website: "Cetaceans Society International Attacks Sea Shepherd for Saving Dolphins", April 28, 2009. It cites this Misplaced Pages article. The conclusion is "Sea Shepherd is saving the lives of whales and dolphins. Rossiter is using his organization to attack Sea Shepherd and slandering our name on Misplaced Pages and who knows where else." Even if we didn't quote CSI directly, we could quote the SSCS rebuttal, which is allowed for comments about their own activities and views.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd is obviously biased and any rebuttal would have to be heavily paraphrased to reduce weasel words. The lines originally put in awhile back were not very good but it looks like we have cleaned it up over the last several hours. I suggest we find a secondary news source completely uninvolved with the either group's arguments to put to rest any POV pushing concerns. Both Sea Shepherd and the CSI can then be removed. I could also care less what SSC says about Misplaced Pages. They could have attempted to request assistance by mentioning concerns on the talk page. I assume there have been editors on here with a Conflict of interest and they need to remove themselves from directly editing the article.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: (not all are RS) Lets get this stuff fixed. In my opinion the act itself is more notable than the criticism anyways.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

YEs, secondary sources are alwys preferable.   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm going to remove the subsections. It reads poorly and is frowned upon. Breaking into paragraphs. I will refrain from too much content changes the first go through so if yuo see something that pisses you off just bring it up.Cptnono (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Canadian criticism

I lied I guess... I am removing the information on outrage from Canadians and the government official regarding Watson's comments. I think the quote gives a great insight to how some people view Watson and should be in his article. The quotes and source might be a nice add on to lines regarding that campaign. I am removing and putting the info below but please feel free to work in somewhere else or revert if I am reading it wrong. In March 2008, four Canadian sealers died after their trawler capsized as it was being towed by the coast guard. In response, founder Paul Watson made comments on a radio station that compared the death of the sealers to the seal hunt, which in turn angered many Canadians. Government official Loyola Hearn blasted Watson for trivializing the deaths: "Mr. Watson has proven to the world that he is gutless, shameless, and has not one shred of human decency. His lust for media coverage knows no bounds." Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorsers

This list needs to be altered as well. All news sources from the Sea Shepherd website need to be removed from this section. Anyone else feel like doing the leg work on finding unbiased secondary sources? Any thoughts on how to break this into paragraphs?Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Refs

I just deleted several primary sources. All are pretty non controversial but I wanted to give a heads up on removing more: There are three instances of "but Sea Shepherd said something else on its website". This does not add anything to the article and is only there to lead the reader. I understand the temptation to add rebuttals to accusations but this is not a blog. Please find a secondary source that is not biased. If the allegation is a concern (as in the CSI organization being discussed above) those should be taken care of, too. Tit-for-tat does not improve the article and "hey look at our link" is not appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see edit summaries. I hope we can get this article up to par quickly.Cptnono (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity endorsements

Celebrity endorsements are expressions of opinion by people whose opinions are worth no more than anyone elses, and they should be removed. They are useful in funding solicitations for organizations, but not in encyclopedia articles, where they add no information of any significant value. The reader really doesn't care. This is an encyclopedia article, not a funding solicitation. The celebrity endorsements should go. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning that way but it is of value. It is noteworthy and interesting which is part of requirements to be notable per the project's guidelines. I have moved it into a paragraph since lists suck. It is a little long winded (so and so, so and so, so and so) but "Actors (add link here)" might suffice. Thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sunk

removed "* 1980 – the whalers Susan and Theresa sunk in South Africa;" since it is unsourced and disputed. willl readd when secondary RS is found. Previously removed others that were disputed by RS.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Try page 50 of 'The Whale War' by David Day. the timeline in Figure 4.1 says; Susan' and 'Theresa' seized as pirates by SA (South African) government', then Susan' and 'Theresa' held for five years and then sunk as target ships by SA navy'. I would think that this book is a RS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.84.148 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Then put it in.Cptnono (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up, when you don't adjust the wording, your edits are just fine. If you see something that needs sourced info go for it. Don't screw around and put in what you want it to say. Just go with the facts and let them speak for themselves. I would like to think the next step for this article is getting it laid out and adding a few more bits on the fleet and other skirmishes but feel free to bring up concerns with the current info if oyu do not think it is factually accurate.Cptnono (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Book

I screwed up and put in that Watson had actually done the bombing of the Sierra. Plenty of sources say it was Sea Shepherd but it wasn't actually him. All fixed now. Another Australian IP has provided the following source: http://books.google.com/books?id=TqwOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=sea+shepherd+min+sierra&source=bl&ots=NnfwPcEK9-&sig=lTkSHMcWD3aYrSXoK0Xx7O8UCVU&hl=en&ei=AW1dStSPBJ_CmQeIgalx&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 hopefully it can be put to good use.Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sierra and Ibsa sinkings

cptnono you sent me a message that read, in part: You need to stop edit warring, removing sourced information, and using sourced information out of context. You are breaking several guidelines. If you continue to edit in an improper manner, I will request steps be taken to prevent it. It is a contentious subject so let me know if there is a way we can instead work together to improve the article and provide the reader with accurate and neutral information.

I need to 'stop edit warring'? It takes two to tango. I have no bias, I am not interested in being pro- or anti-Sea Shepherd. This is Misplaced Pages. Sea Shepherd has 30 years of operation and has been the continuing focus of hate and slander. This is Misplaced Pages where the guidelines are simple, a descriptive unbiased article about a subject.

It is you who have a bias, you have done everything you can to turn this article into a negative attack article against Sea Shepherd. The source you cite, considered a definitive history of the 'whale wars' of the 70s and 80s, categorically states that Sea Shepherd did not sink the Sierra. yet you slant the article to imply that Sea Shepherd did. First of all by writing that Paul Watson sank the ship. He did not. You repeatedly alter the a sentence to read that the Sea Shpherd's involvement has not been 'verified' from it not being 'proven'. This is weasel wording. 'not verified' implies 'suspected'. 'Not proven' indicates an open finding. You want readers to suspect Sea Shepherd involvement.

You use the word 'reported' in the phrase 'operatives reported to be associated with' to appeal to authority. It was 'reported' implies widespread acknowledgment. In fact the 'reported' is the opinon of the engineeer of the ship. When I clarify this, using your source and quotinf from it, you remove it, preffering the ambiguous 'reported' to cast suspicion on Sea Shepherd despite a RS stating Sea Shepherd was not involved.

You write the Ibsa sinking section to implicate Sea Shepherd, despite clear knowledge from a RS you have clearly read, that says Sea Shepherd had no involvement in the sinkings. Not only that, when I wrote a line based on the RS that stated that Watson stated what he heard as to who did it at an IWC meeting. You rewrite, spin and twist that line to read; 'Watson has claimed to not be involved with the attack but later gave a detailed description of the event to the IWC'. He did not do this at all, He reported what he heard. The way you write it casts doubt and implies Sea Shpeherd involvement in an act that has never been attributed to them.

You continue throughout the article. You wrote that Sea Shpeherd 'fled' from the confrontation with the Andennes (and you even spelt that wrong!..Andernes). That is your POV and is desinged to give an innocent reader a misleading idea. You believe the cowardly Sea Sepherd fled. When I put up a documented event that damaged the hull of the ship underwater as an event that happened (watch the 60 minutes 1994 story) and may be a reason for their leaving you remove it. You prefer the impled 'the cowards fled' as opposed to a ship taking on water. I edited that to a neutral 'they left'. You rewrite that to say the Norwegians chased them towards the Shetlands, which they did not. The Norwegian Captain's mandate only applied to Norwegian waters and the confrontation occured right inside Norwegian territory, the Norwegians did not pursue the Sea Shepherd (see the Norwegian navy video).

A statement that is a POV but is in line with your prejudice, that the Sea Sheperd are 'terrorists', is removed because it is one persons opinion. You put it back, because you want people to believe that Sea Shepherd is listed as a terrorist organisation by the FBI. when this is proven incorrect you moved it into the criticism section so you can still put out the misinformation, despite it not being criticism and only being one persons opinion. A quote that was added, that identifies Sea Shepherd as being a vigilante organisation, despite being an RS from a peer-reviewed paper in a recognised journal by two senior researchers, is immediately pulled from the article by you. You write in discussion (under Monash University) 'How to paraphrase?' How to paraphrase with a negative slant you mean. Everything you write, how you phrase, how you edit is designed to put a negative view of Sea Shepherd, not a neutral view. Others in the discussion page have made similar comments. Even you tag 'cptnono' (Captain No no) betrays your bias.

You are constructing a negative article attacking Sea Shpeherd and you are doing it on Misplaced Pages where this should not happen as you are misleading and lying to people who trust Misplaced Pages to be unbiased and honest. You have a bias, a prejudice, and I strongly suspect, an agenda. Though this has not been 'verified' :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.84.148 (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I was giving you a heads up because for whatever reason your edits seem exactly like what you are accusing me of. I noticed that you left out the part where I mentioned helping out and disregarded above edits where I have said we should be able t get this fixed. So:

• Verified/Prove. Sea Shepherd has claimed they did it. Sources (actual reputable newspapers and not a book with flare) have said it. Governments have said it. Even the book you cite alludes to it. It is assumed they did or paid someone to. Since I have not seen reports of an in depth investigation checking into the organization's involvement and it is assumed by so many parties, "verified" seems accurate. "Proved" leads the reader to believe that they have mounted a defense against the allegation.
• I did not spin anything. I actually have looked at sources reliable and on both ends of the spectrum. Instead of accusing me of spin you should watch your on edits. Go off viable sources and there should be no concerns. I also ask that you take a look at some of my edits that have been in favor of the organization in ways. Or how about the edits where I thought it was true information but really didn't think the source was appropriate so flagged my own edit for review. I want to be neutral as much as possible and would appreciate it if you stopped assuming the worst. If I made a mistake go ahead and point it out but your counter edits seem only be in there to spin it in a pro Sea Shepherd manner. Maybe my perception is off but yours might be too.
• Fled. Fine, the source said "chased" I didn't like the way it was working grammar wise so "fled" was used. It is fixed now but your "left" was not sufficient.
• Terrorist lines were in there before I started editing here. Also, sources have called them terrorists. They have also called them vigilantes, criminals, saviors, and God knows what else. I have no problems with any properly sourced info or labels going in.
• Cptnono has been used for a few years now. I see how you could jump to the wrong conclusion, but you would be wrong. In regards to bias, I have mentioned to the other IP editor from Melbourne that being associated with the organization presents a conflict of interest which would limit the ability to edit the page. I'm not too far from Friday Harbor myself which is just a coincidence so I don't want to assume the worst.

In conclusion, stop assuming the worst since you are way off. Apologies if my editing was perceived as constructing a negative article. That wasn't my intent. However, it is easy to have edits look biased when much of the information was blatantly too favorable of the group. That is just reality. Take a look at the edit histories. I would prefer the article to be neutral and laid out much differently. If you want to stop being so concerned with what you assume are attempts to skew the article and contribute yourself in a non biased fashion we both could get to work on fixing it. If you refuse to do so than you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of. Get over it and fix the article already. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if we both got our opinions on each other's editing off our chests and focused on more important aspects of improvement than bickering. Hopefully a clearer understanding on the other's intentions in previous edits will be enough. Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I can appreciate the amount of effort you have put into this page, I think anyone can. However, you do have a bias. I don't attribute maliciousness where a simple mistake would suffice. I think your bias is unconscious or you're unawre of it. For instance, using the word 'fled' puts a whole different perspective on an even for readers as opposed to 'left'. You settled for 'chased' which is what the news reports you found say and I guess you can't go beyond that, but 'fled' is a step beyond and editorialises your perception of events. I have a slightly different perspective as I was sent a copy of the Norwegian Navie's video of the events. I logged the location calls of the ships on a fairly large scale chart and the Sea Shepherd ship went about 14 nautical miles into Norwegian territory before the Norwegian ship intercepted them. The Norwegian commanders brief was to prevent Sea Shepherd incursion and I figure a 14 nm distance would have given him enough to prove incursion and give him an adequate battlespace, because he had no brief to take the Norwegian ship into internaional waters. So anyway, chased is adequate as it is what the sources say, but the ship did not pursue Sea Shepherd toward the Shetlands.

It is in the words you choose and how you structure sentences that problems appear. It is easy for POV to creep in. I discuss my changes with colleagues adn also run what I consider to be bias in the article past them. They concur with my observations but also have said that they see no evidence of maliciousness in your edits. ias can be subtle.

Consider this current example, you have integrated the Monash Uni reserch work into the article. Yet you write that they say Sea Shepherd can be 'compared' with vigilantes. Yet the abstract of this reserach paper clearly has them writing that Sea Shepherd can be 'considered' a vigilante organisation.

Try this: A Corvette can be considered to be a car. A Corvette can be compared to a car.

Which is more accurate? The second sentence implies that a Corvette is not a car but can be compared to one. Very different. you also place this description of what Sea Shepherde is ans an organisation inside teh whaling section but it would seem to be more appropriate to place it in the 'Organisation' section rather that the 'Operations' section.

Again I have no real argument with what you have written or edited, Sea Shepherd has been around for 30 years and has had an enormous amount of criticism, they can look after themselves. But in a Misplaced Pages article about them, editing that misconstrues or has no place. Again as I have said, you have put a lot of work into this article, which is great, but the beauty of Misplaced Pages is that anyone can add or edit an article. If I edit to try and neutalise any bias or misleading wording don't take it to heart. Like I said, I don't think you have a malicious intent, though as I said because of the widespread nature of the bias I did dtart to get suspicious, but your above comments have gone a long way to allaying such suspicions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.67.50 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For the love of God I hope I haven't gotten that sucked into this article. I only wanted to fix a few things! I hear you, though. Incorrect wording, no matter how trivial it may initially seem, can really throw off the meaning. I'll keep a better eye out. Thanks for catching it and bringing it to my attention. That is exactly how I felt about "prove" while you considered "validated" a concern. I brought up "fled" to an outside person as well. He agreed that the article implied fleeing was involved but that "chased" was per the source and definitive while fled was an assumption. He was very adamant that you can chase without the other party fleeing so it makes sense. It may take a little extra patience but a word here and there should be easy enough to fix.

Speaking of Monash University, it could easily go into the org section (or whatever comes of it). I think that section is garbage and needs to be restructured (boats, flags, funding, whatever else before it becomes too bloated). It would easy to find a place for it. The primary reason I moved it to the talk page when it was first entered was that the lack of paraphrasing gave it undue weight. I was tinkering around with the recent re inclusion so by all means move it around.

How did you get a copy of the video anyways?Cptnono (talk)

I've put the Monash ref into the organisation section, which could use a tidy, everything after ORCA force is really operational, not descriptive of the organisation. So is he sentence about the 'recent injury report', which essentially restates the previous sentence and is describing an operational incident so probably belongs there. A organisation section is important, I think, as is describing for readers what the organisation is and how it is structured.

As for the video, it came in the mail one day with an overseas postmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.67.50 (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Whale War (book)

(section break added) I have a concern with the use of pg 58 of Whale War. After Watson's claim of not being involved, he goes into detail on the attacks. The pages that follow also read like the author believes Watson was somehow involved so we are skewing the context information that is already presented in an odd manner. We could follow-up the added line with "he later explained the details blah blah blah" but I think that would read like we as editors are allowing a debate to take page in the article. I don't believe we should use the line. Furthermore don't know how reliable the source shown before is. The magazine says he admitted it is a biased publication and the magazine isn't around anymore so it makes it even harder to verify their reliability. I think both lines need to go.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the book is pretty clear; it says,'So far as the sinking of the Sierra was concerned, Watson and the Sea Shepherd people had not in fact been involved.' The book then goes on to say tghat Watson heard the details when he was at IWC meeting. However, Day does write 'Watson claimed' which, as you say, may indicate that the author may suspect Watson was involved. Howeve he clearly states that Sea Shepherd was not involved, but qualifies it, so probably good to pull that line out. As for the magazine i do not see where the editor says it is biased - it is a magazine for a particlular audience, just as 'Trucker's Life' would be but the quote comes from a transcript of an interview and there is no reasonable reason to suspect that it is not a correct record of that interview. An interview written up in 'Surf Dude' is just as valid as the same interview in Harpers, which is a fashion magazine but famous for its hard hitting features. FYI the current affairs show '60 Minutes' did a piece on Sea Shepherd and in that the journalist asked Watson if the flags on the ship stood for ships that have been rammed and Watson replies that the flags represent ships Sea Shepherd has sunk. For me the quote is valid and worth including, but I agree, the counterpoint sentence sourcing Whale War could go. 59.167.67.50 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The whalers Susan and Theresa

I have read that Sea Shepherd assisted the ZA government in the sinking, Sea Shepherd did it, the ZA Navy did it.... Does anyone have a source for this? It is reported and claimed that they were involved in unverifiable sources but we need a good one.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The extent of Sea Shepherds involvement in these ships was that they advertised a US $25,000 reward for anyone who sank them, Then the South African govt seized the vessels. Sea Shepherd meerely acted as the trigger for the government to act as the vessels were known pirate whalers.

Is there a good source?

Who wrote that? No, there is no good source, I have a copy of the newspaper advert and associated documents but this happened before the internet and there is no www verifiable source taht I have found yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.84.148 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well what is it? Most stuff is out there on the internet if you plug in the keywords.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Media

I propose adding a "Media" section. It can be a subsection of the Org section. The Telegraph source had a great quote regarding media relations (). The organization has also used media in an attempt to achieve its goals plenty. The TV show would also fit great here. If editors are serious about scrapping the supporters/criticism sections (I'm on the fence) then maybe some of the support info could fit in sometime in the future.Cptnono (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Eco-terrorist category

Should this article be added to Category:Eco-terrorism? I lean towards no since they do not fit the general profile of organizations listed. It can be argued that they are vigilantes, simple vandals, just plain hippies, or a few other terms that are less inflammatory and potentially more descriptive. The word is thrown around plenty for the organizations and it will come up on both malicious and sourced edits in the history, though.Cptnono (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this categorisation would be improper. There is an arbcom decision saying that the pseudoscience category may only be applied to clear cases, but e.g. not to psychoanalysis. The psychoanalysis article has a long discussion of the pseudoscience question because it obviously is one and is often called one. Yet it's POV to call it one without comment, and you can't attach a comment to a category inclusion.

There is no established definition of terrorism. Sea Shepherd lacks what I personally consider the most important factor of terrorism: Using, or trying to use, terror. If you destroy your neighbour's lawnmower to get a quiet afternoon it's not terrorism. Some terrorism definitions are too inclusive (probably for political reasons), and definitions of eco-terrorism usually depend on them. Often the same government that is very careful with the definition of terrorism to make sure that their own regular army and the freedom fighters they are supporting don't fall under the term will support a definition in which the lawnmower example technically is eco-terrorism, at least if you do it jointly with your partner and do it twice. Hans Adler 09:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Some good common sense right there with the lawnmower. Apologies for accidentally included it in the category for a few seconds while making the talk page edit by the way. (D'oh... was trying to wikilink!)Cptnono (talk)

Two points to that. Since the inception of Sea Shepherds they have been sinking ships. The threat of loosing your livelyhood and entire family business to a bomb attack or to an intentional ramming counts in my book. Also in recent years we are looking at throwing slippery substances onto the decks of antarctic ships along with chemicals that burn your eyes? If i'm in the antarctic nothing is more terrifying than stumbling on the deck and falling into the water where only seconds can mean certain death. Besides which, the FBI clearly defines the actions for us as violent and terrorism so for the purpose of this article our opinions don't really matter that much. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I’d call their direct actions against the Japanese whalers “nuisanceism” since they don’t have a big enough ship or crew to be considered a serious threat. The Faroes and Makah episodes, where it sounds like they were going after the little guys… — NRen2k5, 02:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The FBI considers them eco-terrorists. Whether we like them or not should be irrelevant. The article seems to be take quite a clean pro POV. Not a good idea. I say prominantly include the opinion of law enforcement agencies. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that’s not entirely accurate. The FBI does not classify them as eco-terrorists. Rather, one of their top authorities on terrorism classifies them as eco-terrorists. — NRen2k5, 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

From how I interperet that, because it's a report published by the FBI, it retains FBI endorsement. As a division of the United States Government that also means it's an official report sanctioned by the federal governement. I mean, it's common sense that intentional damage to property is violence but it's nice to have a governmental agency clarify it for us. Money well spent. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that the POV comment about ecoterrorism has been removed, which is good as it was blatantly wrong, a lie. Not something that should be in a Misplaced Pages article. However the comment it was based on remains in the 'Criticism' section. I think it should remain there for the moment. As it presently appears in the article it is NPOV. The question is where should it go? It is not direct or indirect criticism, Jarboe is making a historical comment, 'Since 1977... acts of...'. He is not making a criticism, and he is incorrect in both date and in Sea Shepherds actions. It is also a POV, however, possibly valid as his position indicates an expert status, but does this still meet Misplaced Pages standards? Tranquillity Base (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I would contend that all of our sources contain POV but that's where it should stay. Try to remember your POV and mine are not important. It would be a mistake to filter the facts (which is us reporting what has been reported) through our own POV (which is cleaning out anything we don't like about the people we do). If you find that all the sources are lieing about a subject you care for, consider editing in an article on which you have less strong feelings. Peace and happy editing. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This thread is supposed to be about whether or not Category:Eco-terrorism should be added to this article. I am not clear what this means and what the rationale is. Is it that some editors think that Sea Shepherds are terrorists for trying to hinder the Japanese from killing whales? Or is it that some editors think that the Japanese whalers are terrorists against the marine ecology? "Eco-terrorism", to me, would imply the latter. "Terrorism" is a loaded and fraught word these days, used in highly manipulative and dishonest ways. It is, at best, emotive name calling. I suggest that in pursuit of clarity in this article, that the term be avoided altogether, and the focus be placed on accurate and dispassionate reporting of events. It is up to the reader if they want to get emotive and use immoderate language. That's not our job here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It is because editors were putting in eco-terrorism info and I wanted to see if there were any thoughts on adding it to the wikipedia category regarding eco-terrorism. Some people obviously believe they are so it is appropriate to convey that information. I still do not think the category addition is needed or appropriate but wanted to have a discussion available so that people can express their views on the evolution of the article instead of edit warring. And I disagree on limiting any inclusion of the term. If people called them bunny humpers I would argue for its inclusion as well. It has nothing to do with what they are it has to do with how they are viewed. We just need to be cautious and follow WP:EXTREMIST. We do not need to soften blows or decide what valid info is presented to the reader even if it against our opinions. Follow common sense and present it factually and neutrally. I believe the discussion is closed on the category (no additional wikipedia category link required)but we can switch gears to use of the term itself anywhere in the article if needed.Cptnono (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even realize someone had actually thrown this in. I am under the impression that consensus was "no" for the category listing so I removed it.Cptnono (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Vessels

Does anyone know of a good source to review and pull info from regarding the different ships? If so, what information is noteworthy enough to include? Should this info be in a table or prose?Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a section on vessels is a good idea. Sea Shepherd calls itself Neptune's navy so a section on ships makes sense. An itegrated prose and list makes sense, maybe look to the international shipping sites which give a description and activities along with a list (status; active/scrapped; LOA, displacement, speed, etc). For a made up example:

Whales Forever Formerly the seismic research vessel XX, used in the Norewegian whaling campaign of 1994, damaged in this campaign and sold for scrap in xxxx. LOA xx, Ice class xx, LLoyds registry xx, displacement xx, crew complement xx, cruising xx knots, maximum xx knots, Helicopter deck, bow thrusters, etc. etc. Tranquillity Base (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We may not need to go into that much detail but we can probably squeeze plenty in a table after the prose if needed. Here is a list of what i have found from their site and throughout the sources ( / = rename):

Westella (at purchase) / Sea Shepherd

Sea Shepherd II

Bold Venture (turned over without action)

Gratitude (at purchase) / Divine Wind

Edward Abbey

Sirenian

Thomas Carleton (at purchase) / Cleveland Amory

Whales Forever

Skandi Ocean (at purchase) / Sea Shepherd III

Ocean Warrior / Farley Mowat

Westra (at purchase) / Robert Hunter / Steve Irwin

Earthrace Cptnono (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Due to recent edits, this info was removed. It should be reworked in: the MV Steve Irwin, and the RV Sirenian. The group also had the Ocean Warrior, later renamed the RV Farley Mowat, as its flagship. The vessel was seized by the Canadian government in May 2009.

When a guideline is pointed out it isn't because other editors are being jerks or stupid. The guideline mentions "Precise language" (your eye skipped down to the middle of the screen where it mentions time). The vessel section needs to get up and running especially if you are going to edit out sourced (ie the mention of zodiacs in various sources in the article which could be added but would look silly) info. It would be better to say "As of 2009" or something along those lines since "currently" is frowned upon.Cptnono (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Flags

The flag info (where and why it is impotant could be integrated into text in the Org section or added to info about the different vessels. One source is the New Yorker article cited: but more information is needed before inclusion. This has come up as a request form other editors previously and their is already a solitary line regarding it. It could be informative to the reader and fun to expand it.Cptnono (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Operations section overhauled poorly

What happened to the chronological "operations section" ? It was looking quite NPOV and factual last time I looked. Cptnono had done a fine job, as had others, of adding relevant info without POV pushing. Now the sections are all jumbled together with Seals at the top Fiji in the middle and Migaloo somewhere near the bottom. The section just looks random. I highly support the logical chronological history of opperations taking information from the Sea Shepherds website, the Whaling websites and major media when available. Right now it just looks like a jumbled mess. Lets go back to year to year. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the change since the timeline format led to single sentence subsections and it looked like breaking it into sections differently might work. It should go back if it backfired and reads worse. {D'oh! and apologies) Cptnono (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I say that it reads better. Lists are not an article, a Misplaced Pages article should read as prose, you don't see good articles in major media just being a list. An article is what Cptnono is working toward. As it read previously it was user-unfriendly. I agree that some chronological continuity would be good, however, some of those campaigns are closed as the campaign ended. Sea Shepherd is most active in whaling, sealing and the Galapagos so perhaps they should be prioritised en bloc, with past campaigns below them. THe current format is good but maybe put 'Whaling' first followed by 'Canadian Sealing' then 'Fisheries' and move the Taiji operation to fisheries as it is not really whaling per se. Tranquillity Base (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It reads pretty but all the information that forms the original basis of sea shepherds is missing. It is much easier to get a wholistic view of who they are when all the information is clearly and chronologically ordered. The way it is no makes it look like we are hiding the information. We don't want to appear to be hiding anything. I am speaking of course of the history of opperations not a crazy list of supporters and critics which I am glad is now half gone. A history on the other hand tells the story more fluidly than lists such as our current list of categories. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is because all of that info was just randomly thrown in without any consideration of proper layout, prose, style, or few dozen other standards we need to follow. It is all still in the article, though. Regardless on if we go back to a timeline or keep the current form (whatever everyone thinks is best) the Org section needs to be expanded and then broken up as needed. (Foundation, Philosophy, finance, Vessels, Media relations, etc) While we are at it, it might be time to integrate criticism and support throughout these new sections and the Ops subsections.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: if anyone wants to chime in please do so ASAP so we can come to a consensus on the layout. This is something that doesn't need to be controversial so lets get it done one way or the other.Cptnono (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-upx2: In an attempt to get the anti-fishing section up to snuff I came across dozens of sources. They are good and there is info. It got me to thinking even more. What do we want from his article? No one seems to care about the organization itself (I just added a great source on celebrity contributions which could be the first step in removing that info if not the whole section criticism/support sections by the way) but it would be easy to get funding, media, vessels and tons of other stuff up and running. We have a couple decades of direct action that can be documented. I am an inclusionist so think all the relevant and noteworthy info should be on wikipedia somewhere. Should we go with a timeline section to shorten it up? Should we go with a separate list of incidents as a sub article? What do people think? How do we want this to look? We have enough info to get this article to be a short and concise summary of the philosophy, an all encompassing work on the organization, or whatever else we deem appropriate and inline with guidelines. Seriously, we can bicker about this and that but a goal on what this is to be would help us from overreaching in one place while ignoring another potentially relevant section.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking of adding more to the fisheries section also. It has been a major operational focus for the organisation but that is not reflected in the article. As well i will add a subsection on the Galapagos work as that is a distinct subset of the organisations operations. Let me know what you think. Tranquillity Base (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I found literally dozens of sources last night which got me thinking about the layout again. google news "sea shepherd net" (or drift net or whatever) then drill down by date. Using the group's page then going through google news archives with their provided dates works the best probably. This is something that definitely needs more coverage in this article.Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you need assistance with sources or anything else on adding more info on anti-fishing ops?Cptnono (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FBI info at the top of page again missing

It seems impossible to keep the opening paragraph unbiased. Sea Shepherds have full block text but FBI info keeps getting removed. FBI calls the actions violent and places those actions in the "eco-terrorism" category. Traquillity Base, I'm glad you like to keep sources well cited but read the link before claiming the American Government doesn't consider them "violent" please. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Check out the line in the article right under criticism. Some editors were concerned with the previous wording so this one might need some cleanup. Also, I support paraphrasing or even removing info sourced from the SSCS web page. The quote's language obviousely is leading and there is a slight weight issue. Lets improve what is broken instead of attempting to balance it. Can we find a few neuteral sources that sum up the organization without relying on that quote?Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The FBI citation does not refer to the Sea Shepherds as "terrorists". It stated that since the formation of the Sea Shepherds, '...acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe.' You are reading into the statement something that was not said. It does not "balance" the article if you resort to such inflammatory terms. Instead, if you feel the article is not balanced, find properly sourced reasons why the behaviour of the Japanese whalers is something reasonable people would accept. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't in to balance the article. It is in because he brought up SSCS in his presentation to the subcommittee on "The Threat of Eco-terrorism". It is relevant. The wording is as seen at the source and the reader can let the facts speak for themselves that way.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's obviously a political statement. Like other, Bush-era, statements about topics such as global warming or terrorism it needs to be taken with several grams, not grains, of salt. I am pretty sure this guy has gone about as far as he could while still thinking of himself as a basically honest person and not risking a libel case. Giving the statement undue weight and trying to spin it even further is obviously not the way to go. If he didn't literally say they are eco-terrorist, but just used language suggesting it, and we have no other high-quality source saying they are eco-terrorist, don't you think there is a good reason? Hans Adler 07:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the statement. --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The quote is precisely worded per the source with the context simply and neutrally laid out. It does not matter if it was said during the Bush era, by the way. Things said during the reign of Nazi's in Germany can be directly quoted just like things said by the creator of My Little Ponies can be quoted. Some have called them eco-terrorists and it deserves some inclusion. Editors will continue to insert info regarding it. We might as well do it right instead of having it happen maliciously. It is not in the lead (and the citation is out now, as well) so there is not undue weight as a previous editor attempted.Cptnono (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Direct actions

I know it is nit picky but: Do we need to say that it is violent and non violent direct actions? It seems to me that they are all malicious or violent but don't see any reason to qulify it. Direct actions should be simple enough with a wikilinkingg and the facts speaking for themselves throughout the article. Agree with removal of "extralegal" (to clarify, it wasn't my inclusion). I would also like to remove the double use of international. "The Sea Shepherds garnered both criticism and praise for their direct actions."Cptnono (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that critisim is due to their actions being violent. They call themselves non-violent frequently and to the casual observer it should be easily readable that they have done violence. Perhaps noting that they use both peaceful and violent direct actions with appropriate citations would be useful. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

New reminders

Added a few boxes up top. I will full on admit to not always being the coolest of cucumbers (too much beer is not an excuse ever so I apologize for any transgressions) and it is easy to allow bias to come out even with effort to not do so. Keep it together and work on improving the article. Misplaced Pages is not about winning and it isn't about any of our opinions.Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Another "terrorism" statement

I have removed the uncited paragraph:

In 1994, International Whaling Commission Secretary Ray Gambell stated "the IWC and all its members ardently condemn Sea Shepherd's acts of terrorism".

This appears to have been originally sourced to a dubious article by some obscure person from the island of Saint Lucia . All other references to it on the web seem to be sourced from Misplaced Pages. If this assertion of terrorism is "ardently" endorsed by "the IWC and all its members", then it will most certainly be expressed formally somewhere by the IWC. If it is false, then it is scurrilous and defamatory of both the IWC and Sea Shepherd. The statement should not reinstated unless it can be shown that it is true, and is properly endorsed by the IWC. It may be that the IWC condemned violence, but that is a long way from terrorism. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The page is from the government of St Lucia. The whole page is less than neutral, though. I also am not sure of its accuracy from other research and don't know who the writer is or what they do in Castries. I agree that a non biased secondary source needs to be found. Several biased sources say something along those lines so it is probably out there somewhere.Cptnono (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: the writer is the Former Press Secretary to Prime Minister of Saint Lucia and a veteran Caribbean journalist. That lends him a little more credit than I originally thought. However, a direct quote that is that inflammatory should be taken from a cleaner and more verifiable source. I think that it is a shame that we have to question the official website but it spits in the face of common sense to give it too much credit for this quote. If the writer were to say in the course of service to the Prime Minister that "the government denounces Sea Shepherd" it would have been OK.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been concerned about this statement for a while and have been looking into it's provenance. It appears on the web in only two forms; the first in a statement from the High North Alliance and the second this article, which cites the High North Alliance.

Well almost the original link came from the source as noted by Cptnono, however if you look at this source the content is a direct cut and paste of text from the High North Alliance site. The original quote is said to come from ntb which is a private Norwegian news service and I cannot find anything from them on the web. It seems the only source for this quote is the High North Alliance. I agree with Geronimo20, I find the phrasing of the quote suspicious. Ray Gambell was an effective and very able Secretary to the IWC for many years. The quote as stated implies he is speaking for the IWC. He was too good to do that - if it was an official position of the IWC it goes through the meeting and appears as a resolution, then he would make a statement. No one person has the authority to speak as the IWC, if such a resolution was passed it would be on record. The quote is dubious as it is unlikely Gambell would make a statement of that strength without it having gone through the IWC meeting process.

I think it should be removed as the source is not verifiable, therefore quote is unverifiable and dubious in its nature

Tranquillity Base (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. What the two of you found is exactly what I found when I looked into this matter. Government source, so formally very reliable, but then it's a government of such a small place that I would rather trust the city government of a big city. And the passage was obviously copied from a site that is, formally, much less reliable. Etc. I agree it should be removed until a better source is found, if it is even true. And the formulation seems to be very poor, as it suggests that acts of terrorism is the language used by the IWC, which I am almost sure was not the case. This is the kind of language that some of our commentators here would then further "improve" to the IWC condemned Sea Shepherd's actions as "acts of terrorism". We shouldn't take part in this telephone game. Hans Adler 05:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Telephone game says it perfectly. I wish they would have offered an opinion but it seems like someone in office had one but didn't have the assertiveness to say it. Instead we have an unverifiable list to similar to those seen in obviously biased sources. It is exactly how I feel about the Sea Shepherd timeline on their site: Excellent material to use when googling for sources but the info needs to be verifiable or it is nothing to this project.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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.... ' (citation)

If you go to Greenpeace in Misplaced Pages 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... ' (citation)

If you go to the FBI page on Misplaced Pages 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.

If you go to citation 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."

If you follow the link in ref 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to include such quotes and they are common across Misplaced Pages. It is valid information for the reader about the group. As far as Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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: , biased commentary from Watson: . 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages: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 () 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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’.

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". 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:. 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. The local Sea Shepherd representative, Sean O’Hearn-Giminez, was arrested and threatened with deportation.

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 Misplaced Pages 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!

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)

Eco terrorism category

Sea Shepherds is a part of the discussion on eco-terrorism in the media, as noted by the references in the article. Can we stop removing the category from the bottom of the page? This smells like pro-SS vandalism. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article eco-terrorism suffers from problems. Would anyone you energetic editors who worked on the section here like to duplicate the wording for the other article? The eco-terrorism article feels a bit anti-SS in it's wording and I like how non-POV this article reads. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is a tall word for adding the category. The problem is that being in a category or not cannot be qualified or explained. We just don't have the technical means to do that. There is a past Arbcom ruling about the analogous situation of Category:Pseudoscience. It said that Time Cube and astrology may be put into this category (as "obvious pseudoscience" and "generally considered pseudoscience", respectively), but psychoanalysis (as "questionable science") may not be characterised as pseudoscience. The argument about Sea Shepherd being part of the eco-terrorism discussion makes perfect sense. In the same way that psychoanalysis is part of the pseudoscience discussion. It's the subject that made Popper first treat the pseudoscience demarcation problem in a rigorous way, it's the test question whenever a new definition of pseudoscience comes up, and most authors who are not themselves psychoanalysts but write about the question seem to agree that it is a pseudoscience. But we can't characterise it as such since it would be read as Misplaced Pages's position being that it's neutral to say that it is a pseudoscience.

— Mdlawmba , — (continues after insertion below.)Thankfully eco-terrorism is more easily defined than pseudoscience. As the consensus on the eco-terrorism article indicates, eco-terrorism includes destruction of property, which this group clearly promotes. The only point of contention is whether they jeopardize life in the process, which is above and beyond the standard to be considered eco-terrorism on Misplaced Pages.Mdlawmba (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The eco-terrorism category on this article would be misunderstood in the same way. Therefore I must remove it. It could actually do real damage if an immigration officer of a small country looks up Paul Watson and comes to the conclusion that according to Misplaced Pages he leads an eco-terrorist organisation.

— Mdlawmba , — (continues after insertion below.)Paul Watson is only a member of the organization, and whether some fictional immigration officer determines his association with the organization affects his immigration status should not affect this organization's placement in this category. I'm sure there are many good people who do not like having Enron on their resume, but I'm sure Enron being in the "corporate crimes" category isn't affecting their job prospects. SSCS is not a living person and that standard should not be applied even if certain living persons choose to associate with it. I will only discuss this in the context of the other points I recently made, but felt I had to address this point you raised separately.Mdlawmba (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the eco-terrorism article. We had a problem with an extreme anti-Sea-Shepherd warrior recently, and it seems the other article hasn't been cleaned up yet. Hans Adler 08:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo, the second discussion. The one up above looks like consensus was to not include but it looks like that might be changing. I'm changing my thoughts on it anyway. It is mentioned plenty so I lean towards yes and Hans brings up some points that lead me to no. An editor just changed it again. I reverted since consensus is needed due to how contentious it is and to find consensus.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely. The issue is not about Sea Shepherd, it is about Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages standards, as Hans explained quite clearly above. It is not a popularity contest. Tranquillity Base (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So you aren't lobbying that people stop using the word in the Media. You are lobbying that ALL of wikipedia not repeat the word in it's articles. So my question would be how many notable experts would it take for you to agree that Wiki should be allowed to use the term? Or are you more like Hans who seems to be suggesting that English speakers should not use the term. And to bring it back to policy, my opinion is that we should not when the notable experts use the term. And not try to hide that fact. Hiding the fact that notable experts use this term or arguing that notable experts SHOULDN'T use this term as it seems HANS is doing has nothing to do being a wiki editor. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hans as well. WP:Terrorist is a very charged word, and we have to be very careful, especially in the context of something as official-sounding as a "categorizing the article". Sea Shepherd throws rotten butter, gets in the way of whaling ships and tries to temporarily foul propellers. Painting them with the same brush as those who bomb animal research labs seems flat out inaccurate. MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

edit: why sweeten the words? Why say rotten butter instead of Beuteric Acid? They throw glass bottles of toxic chemicals. Not old groceries. Can you see how changing the words in such a way makes it appear untruthfully POV? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The same wordwashing used when people ram and sink ships, if you call it ship cuddleing, no one takes it serious. The experts call it terrorism, the article should reflect that without us trying to change the wording to make it sound better. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So intentionally sinking ships is not the same as intentionally destroying buildings? If there is an issue with the term, discuss it at eco-terrorism. SSCS clearly fits the category on the basis of reputable source opinion. OUR opinion on whether or not they are naughty or nice is really irrelevant. In the discussion of the category, there are very few consistant organizations that are frequently mentioned. SSCS is clearly one of them and should be noted on that basis. Who are we to disagree with the sources? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

For refference notable experts in US, Japan, Canada, and Greenpeace all consider the SSCS eco-terrorists (or single issue terrorists), so OUR opinion is kind of irrelivant. Let the source documentation speak for itself.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm74-eng.asp http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/5166346/Paul-Watson-Sea-Shepherd-eco-warrior-fighting-to-stop-whaling-and-seal-hunts.html

--68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a reuters article referring to the SSCS as eco-terrorist. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS187688+29-Oct-2008+PRN20081029 --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional notable opnion that SSCS are eco-terrorist: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-spilman/whale-wars---eco-terroris_b_211993.html So I've noticed that at least 4 editors have agreed that this should be included or have edited the article to reflect it's inclusion. Here is alll the sources. What's the problem now? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The situation is as Hans has outlined it. Consider what Hoffman wrote about the use of the word 'terrorism'.

'On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, `'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.'Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.'

Hoffman is a world-leading scholar and expert on terrorism, If you consider the definitions of terrorism (for example in Vanderhieden's work), Sea Shepherd does not qualify. Eco-terrorism is an American word and is not in wide use elsewhere in the world, except by groups affiliated with resource industries and their lobby groups. If you consider what Jenkins wrote in the above quote, along with what Hans pointed out, categorising Sea Shepherd as putative 'eco-terrorists' is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages.

Here's another use of terrorism for you to consider in light of Hoffman's writings:

Joseph Drick, who has quit as Joliet fire chief, and his wife committed "financial terrorism" by defrauding an elderly widow of at least $200,000, Will County authorities said Wednesday as they announced felony charges against the pair.

Tranquillity Base (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Watch the WP:3RR guys. Like I said, I don't care either way on this one. Find a way to find consensus even if that means asking the community. They have been called eco-terrorists. Are way protraying that or that they are with the catagory. I honestly don't know if they are or not but think if the charges were laid per the governments at List of designated terrorist organizations it would be a lock. Also, the edits are not malicious so don't throw vandal around. Opinion is divided on this so it is not common sense. Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hoffman's feelings are important but not to whether or not SSCS are to be included in a category or orgs that notable experts call "Eco-Terrorists". Simiilarly, Hans has some feelings that are valid but they do not affect the fact that there is a wiki category for groups known as Eco-Terrorists and that notable experts place them in this category. I have no knowledge of a wiki-category for "financial terrorism" nor do I see any notable experts placing them in that category. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In light of the fact that there is a wiki category for "eco-terrorist" and that we are following the wiki policy for maintaining good ciations on this page and the fact that the notable experts include SSCS in the category of "eco-terrosist" I think it would be nothing but POV pushing to try to hide that. Also, consensus means how do we as a whole fit this in to the policies, not "let's vote and majority rules". I see several people agreeing for this inclusion and no legitimate policy reason why it should not, other than "The SSCS are great people and shouldn't be called terrorist" type personal opinion. Peace and Happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Watson describes SSCS as ecoterrorist in his books (cited in the article) and specifically endorsed the use of monkeywrench tactics espoused by Dave Foreman in his book on the subject (also cited in the article), and Foreman has been prosecuted as an ecoterrorist, so what is the beef? Seems to me SSCS can legitimately be categorized as an ecoterrorist organization. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A consensus has already been reached on the eco terrorism website that eco terrorism for purposes of that article means destruction of property. It doesn't exactly make sense for this meaning to change for each group being evaluated. We have already reached the "destruction of property" standard and are only arguing whether they jeopardize life as well, which is above and beyond the minimum. This isn't a moral judgment, frankly the SS people seem quite proud except when being evaluated objectively as we are attempting to do here. Mdlawmba (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not particularly interested in the local consensus at the eco-terrorism article. If things are going in an odd direction there, I will get involved there once my internet access improves again. I don't think that a local consensus can invalidate an influential and frequently cited Arbcom decision like the pseudoscience categorisation decision that I base my main argument on; it can certainly not invalidate the obvious BLP concerns. (Remember that BLP has a special status, and that it applies everywhere, not just in biographical articles.) Hans Adler 08:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe there are any "obvious BLP" concerns. If this article references a person, then, yes, I can assume living person standards may apply to that particular comment, but please do not mention "obvious BLP" without addressing my comments to you regarding the same. A comment about an organization as a separate entity is obviously not a comment about any individual, no matter how involved that person may be. Placing an organization in a Misplaced Pages "category", which inherently cannot be connected to a single person, is about as un-BLP as you can get. If you feel you can provide some source stating otherwise, please do. Mdlawmba (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the pseudoscience decision, I feel I must include a copy here so we are not relying upon third-party interpretations:

Things which generally should be classified as pseudoscience—for instance, for categorization purposes—include

• Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labelled and categorized as such without more justification.
• Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Some things require a bit more care:

• Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

Other things usually should not be called pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages:

• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics as opposed to dark matter, are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift had quite a lot of evidence, but was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move, and thus such evidence was dismissed. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics.

To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence which it is difficult to explain away, in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in basic scientific laws or reality in order to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology and homeopathy.

Obviously, this is not a science so some aspects of defining eco-terrorism will be in dispute. But, as such, we should be able to rely upon such things as FBI definitions of eco-terrorism and more importantly, what is "generally considered" eco terrorism here on Misplaced Pages. Destruction of property is "generally considered" eco-terrorism both in that article and by most authoritative sources, and, hence, you should care what the local consensus on eco terrorism is if you intend to continue relying upon the pseudoscience decision as your main argument. We should not have to redefine the term for each organization to be considered, but merely apply it using an analysis similar to that used for pseudoscience. Further, the eco terrorism article has included destruction of property for quite some time, and it will not deviate into an odd direction unless someone takes it upon himself to do such. Regardless, that will change neither the FBI nor the American Heritage dictionary's definitions which include destruction of property. Should you not feel eco-terrorism includes destruction of property, there is considerable argument the group at issue has threatened and caused the endangerment of human life, which unquestionably would be considered eco terrorism. If we need to build consensus then let's start. This group should be included in the eco terrorism category. Mdlawmba (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that HANS is saying that his reseach in Pseudo science and categorization leads him to believe that we should never use that term ever. I will have to disagree with that. We have notable expert citation calling the SSCS eco-terrorist and wiki policy says that's what's needed. So HANS's opinion doesn't really matter. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mervyn, you say "Paul Watson describes SSCS as ecoterrorist in his books". I am not familiar with Paul Watson's books, and I am sorry to say that while I would trust you with a direct quotation from a Watson book, I won't simply take your word that this apparently vague paraphrase is an adequate rendering of what Watson tried to express rather than a malicious, out-of-context interpretation of what he wrote. The Sea Shepherd website has many statements similar to (I made this one up) "If being serious about protecting the environment is eco-terrorism, then Sea Shepherd is of course an eco-terrorist organisation" and free admission that Sea Shepherd uses certain methods which are interpreted by others as eco-terrorism. Hans Adler 08:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If governments and government officials start calling them terrorists I think people views of them as simply vigilantes is incorrect. Japan has assigned the label and it looks like they have put them on some sort of list. We are essentially taking Sea Shepherd's side over the Japanese now. Is that OK?

Also, a limited number of Dutch, Australian, American, and Canadian officials have all mentioned it. Some members also won't be going back to certain countries for fear of arrest. At what point is inclusion necessary?Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! I made a mistake. In my revert of HANS I said, don't remove content without reason. His reason was clearly due to the categorization being viewed by HANS as pejorative. To be clear though, it isn't a nice sounding word, but it's the word the notable experts ahve used to describe them and should stand as such. There isn't a more cuddly term that works to categorize ELF, ALF and SSCS. This is the word the experts use, we shouldn't rewrite it. Regardless, this article Should be included in the eco-terrorism category as there is no wiki policy against it and the experts all include them in that category allready. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

All the experts do not use the term, 68.41... and anyone working in the field knows this. What you call 'notabe sources' aren't and do not call Sea Shepherd eco-terrorists, which is a political word pecuiar to the USA and not used elsewhere. Inside the US, Sea Shepherd shares none of the characteristics of what sections of the American population call 'eco-terrorism'. Inside the US, Sea Shepherd is a legal charity and environmental organisation and is not considered as anything else. It is your opinion that they are, what is called in the US, 'eco-terrorists'. As I have written previously, this is not a popularity contest. This is about Misplaced Pages, not Sea Shepherd. The categories label what the Misplaced Pages article is. Including Sea Shepherd in the 'eco-terrorist' category is Misplaced Pages saying they are 'eco-terrorists'. This would be lovely for anti-Sea Shepherd people who want to slant the article against the organisation, but not good for Misplaced Pages's credibility. This is the point of Hans' reasoning and actions; like the pseudoscience category there is no professional, academic, legal, or policy agreement on Sea Shepherd as 'eco-terrorists' (whatever that word means). It is not for Misplaced Pages to be arbiter of international belief. By continually putting this category in you are pushing your own opinion and not acting as an editor of Misplaced Pages, that is, maintaining a critical distance and detachment and working to provide readers with the best and most neutral information about a topic. You are pushing your point of view, your opinion. This may be shared by others but is not the opinion of many. Therefore, labelling the group with your opinion is contrary to Misplaced Pages standards as determined by the pseudoscience decision which, by the way, constitutes binding policy on all Misplaced Pages articles, as Hans has explained. Therefore I am reverting your inclusion af this category (again).Tranquillity Base (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So the position of the Japanese government does not matter? They have issued arrest warrants through Interpol. Iceland and Norway have done this previousley as well. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be US centric. What "field" are you referring to anyways? Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The position of the Japanese Govt does not matter. After 54 years in power (give or take 10 months) they have been removed by a new govt that is not supportive of whaling. Interpol notices were issued by a local police department, the Tokyo police, for interfering with a vessel at sea. Iceland issued a notice but declined to pursue it. Norway convicted Watson in absentia and the extradition notice was not enacted. Misplaced Pages is US-centric, check the error in the spelling of my name; it is correct according to NASA but is Americanised in the article, go figure. The field to which I am referring is international environmental law and policy, which is where I work. Tranquillity Base (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Japanese calling them eco-terrorists and issuing a warrant does not matter? I don't care who is in power it is still noteworthy. You are also skewing your reading of the sources it looks like. The blue notices were for collecting information for ramming vessels not interfering. The US was also willing to cooperate if red notices were filed. The blue notice through Interpol is significant enough as the coverage suggests.

News reports regarding the Icelandic government said or alluded to terrorism. Again, pursuing is not always possible so the issuing is enough. The Norwegian one led to arrests in two separate countries. The failure of the extradition process does not mean they are not at least considered violent extremists by the government. You really read the sources as you wanted to there.

Wikipeida is not supposed to be US centric. As I have said before, failure of other editors to be diligent does not preclude us from doing the the job correctly. You really need to look into the guidelines on that and should mention it at WP:FOOTY and see the response you get. Here's an assist for you, NASA is US related so it uses US spelling.Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, NASA follows the International Astronomical Union's direction. The name of Tranquillity Base follows the Latin. See NASA's 'Apollo Chronicles . Misplaced Pages seems to follow Readers Digest or the American Heritage dictionary. As for your other comments, they do not bear up to scrutiny. Tranquillity Base (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the category, many reporters and editors disagree so maybe your scrutiny is flawed. I also think disregarding the Japanese government might border on being offensive to other editors and against Misplaced Pages policies. Step back and look at it for a second to be on the safe side.

In regards to English and Misplaced Pages being US centric, you are starting to look like you are just trying to win (see WP:PRIDE) since the US government is obviously deeply involved in a US government agency. Here is some wiki info that might help in the future: Misplaced Pages standard of no preference on variations of the English language at WP:ENGVAR and the project created to counter systemic bias at WP:WORLDVIEW.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tranquillity Base, which source are you saying isn't notable? There are many on the page that use the word "Terroist", major news sources quoting green peace & Japan, official documents from terrorism experts, etc. You seem to have two arguments you are pursuing (correct me if I'm wrong) 1. You claim the sources are not notable, therefore the label shouldn't stand. (You should easily be able to check notabillity to solve that argument really quick). and 2. You consider the term "Eco-Terroist" to be a psudo-science and therefore in violation of wiki policy, in which case I ask you to provide two things before removing content again. 1. Provide Wiki policy that says Psuedo-Scientific categories do not belong and 2. Provide a wiki description that calls eco-terrorism Pseudo science. We've allready answered the arguments that state "They are not nice people we shouldn't call them terrorist" by saying we are just quoting the sources and the arguments that claim BLP because this isn't about an LP. So you have only two more options left. 1. The sources are not notable (which a check will show you they are. and 2. The notion about Pseudo-science. Good luck on those. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comment reminds me of Plimer's Homework Assignment at Realclimate.org. Your comment also makes me think you do not understand the meaning of the pseudoscience decision. On it's face the decision is about what is pseudoscience. At the heart of the matter is how Misplaced Pages categorises articles. When an article is categorised, Wikipdia is saying that an article belongs in this category, there are no ifs, buts or maybes. Including the category is a way of defining Sea Shepherd as eco-terrorists, without qualification, and with the authority of Misplaced Pages saying that they are ecoterrorists.

The pseudoscience decision says that an article cannot be categorised into a category if there is debate about if the subject of an article fit that category. There is debate about Sea Shepherd as eco-terrorists. This is a debatable topic and thus Misplaced Pages should not categorise them as such. My opinion doesn't matter, your opinon does not matter, the opinion of the Japanese whaling industry does not matter. What matters is the issue is debatable and unresolved, not ony amongst Wikepedia editors but among the wider community. For instance, one of the sources you like presenting as notable and (almost but not quite) calling Sea Shepherd 'ecoterrorists' is the FBI agent Jarboe giving evidence before Congress. A recent peer-reviewed research paper has this to say:

Chief Jarboe’s definition refers to domestic groups and does not apply to the Sea Shepherds which act on the high seas, generally outside of state jurisdiction. In such a context, the Sea Shepherds would not constitute ecoterrorists. (Nagtzaam,G. Lenti,P. (2008). 'Vigilantes on the High Seas?: The Sea Shepherds and Political Violence'. Terrorism and Political Violence 20:1 pp. 110-33)

The word 'eco-terrorism' is highly charged and often used in a perjorative way. It is a way of lining the morally outrageous actions of terrorism with the actions of environmental groups as Steve Vanderheiden explains:

The term ‘eco-terrorism’ has entered the public lexicon at a convenient time for those brandishing it as a legal and rhetorical weapon against their adversaries, but at a most inconvenient one for those against whom it is used. Coined and championed by anti-environmental activists with a keen sense for the propagandistic power of language and fervently received by legislators sympathetic to their deregulatory agenda, the term invites an association between terrorism and radical environmentalism, planting the spectre of another group of fanatics and mass murderers out to destroy ‘our’ way of life in the public mind.

In obscuring the moral distinctions between ecologically motivated sabotage (‘ecotage’) and genuine terrorism, opponents of environmental objectives have successfully directed the legal and normative force of antiterrorism against a tactic and, by extension, the cause with which it is associated, illustrating the perils of having such a powerful concept remain so poorly understood and ambiguously defined that it can be wielded with such indiscreet discretion by demagogues against those over whom they seek unfair legal, political, and social advantages. (Vanderheiden, S. (2009). 'Radical environmentalism in an age of antiterrorism'. Environmental Politics. 17:2 pp. 299-318)

As I have pointed out previously, Hoffman and others have stressed that the use of the word 'terrorism' is often used to demonise opponents:

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. Inside Terrorism by Bruce Hoffman, 2006

Linking terrorism to environmental activism is used in the same way. Categories in Misplaced Pages must be very NPOV in their use. The word 'eco-terrorism' is inherently not NPOV and, especially as the term is debatable in the case of Sea Shepherd, should not be used as a category.

I have removed this category again for these reasons and the reasons given by Hans Adler. I have also removed a non-existent category that you have put in. Tranquillity Base (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make sense that 'eco-terrorism' is inherently not NPOV. If you have an issue with any organization being considered an 'eco-terrorist' organization, then please say so. This should not be argued on a case-by-case basis. We are only dealing with this organization and should be applying the qualities of the organization, some of which no one here would disagree with, against what it takes to fit into a certain category. That's it. We still are not in agreement as to whether this group's actions are "Generally considered" eco-terrorism. I say it is, as I believe I outlined extensively above. But 'eco terrorism' is hardly a forbidden label when applied accurately. In the comment to the article revision today you cited Misplaced Pages policy, but that policy alone without being applied to a well-reasoned analysis provides an inadequate reason to alter the article. Of course, a revision comment cannot be too involved, but there clearly is no Misplaced Pages policy stating 'eco terrorism' cannot be applied to organizations. I've never edited ELF (Not to equate ELF with SSCS), but I'm sure there are people arguing 'eco terrorism' wouldn't apply to that group either. I'm not saying you would be one of those people, but my point is SSCS is still out for discussion.Mdlawmba (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We are in full compliance here. WP:TERRORIST: "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". Are we not doing that? Also, the quote TBASE uses above further demonstrates that SSCS are part of the discussion on Eco-Terrorism. We wiki editors are not calling them terrorists. We are including AN ARTICLE in a category that demonstrates this article is part of that discussion, which clearly the sources (even the ones just shown by T-Base) indicate. On the other hand WP:Pseudoscience Categorization I'm still having a hard time finding this one. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mdlawmba, you wrote, 'but my point is SSCS is still out for discussion'. That is precisely my point, the issue is debatable. The issue is not that Sea Shepherd is/isn't an 'eco-terrorist' organisation but about Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia. To go back to the pseudoscience issue, if Misplaced Pages categorised psychoanalysis as 'pseudoscience' that would be taking sides, Misplaced Pages being partisan. There is considerable debate about psychoanalysis as a therepeutic science and if Misplaced Pages took the position that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience by categorising it as such, then Misplaced Pages itself is saying the debate is over and deciding on the outcome.

The same situation occurs here. Whether or not Sea Shepherd is an eco-terrorist organisation is an open question, particularly as the word 'eco-terrorism' is peculiar to America and American law. Particularly as the word is commonly used as a perjorative. Particularly as there is debate and dissension as to whether or not Sea Sheperd are 'eco-terrorists'. Misplaced Pages having that word as a category is unencyclopaedic as it indicates a position that Misplaced Pages has taken on a topic that is contentious and undecided in the wider community, a community that relies on Misplaced Pages being unbiased and neutral in its information.

I think there is some confusion here. In the article it can be noted that Sea Shepherd has been called, or considered, an eco-terrorist group by some sectors of the community. This can be referenced and contrasted against opposing viewpoints. What we are discussing is the category, which is what Misplaced Pages says an article is. For instance, the article is categorised as an organisation formed in 1977. That is beyond dispute. Sea Shepherd is also categorised as radical environmentalists, that is also beyond dispute. As for 'eco-terrorism' that is disputed in Misplaced Pages and in the wider community and for that reason should not be included or Misplaced Pages will be seen to be partisan. Categories say what an article is and have no references or qualifications. There is no category: 'Ecoterrorsm - some people think they are; some people think they aren't'.

It is a black and white situation, Misplaced Pages categorisiing Sea Shepherd as eco-terrorists is saying that they are. A partisan position in an open debate.

To say that the categories simply point to topics that form part of the discussion about the article topic is wrong, if you think about it. To say that, as an example, the category 'sea turtle' in the article on leatherback turtles simply points to further discussion on that topic is wrong. Leatherback turtles are sea turtles so that is how they are categorised. Please read Hans' reason for removal at the top of this thread as he puts it better than I.

To sum up, I am not actually taking a position on if Sea Shepherd is/isn't an eco-terrorist group. I am taking a position on Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia and how it says what something is. This issue is not really about Sea Shepherd or eco-terrorism, it is about how an article is categorised. Since eco-terrorism is a contentious word, since there is no agreement in the wider community (UK, France, Germany, Australia, US, etc.), that Sea Shepherd is an eco-terrorist organisation it is not proper position for Misplaced Pages to take by categorising them as such since there is no agreement on the application of the term to Sea Shepherd.

Finally, 68.41... You have threatened to block me, that is both incorrect and unfair see WP:BRD. Your repeated inclusion of this category while is is debated is POV-pushing and a subversion of Misplaced Pages for you own ends.

Tranquillity Base (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned it being an American thing again. The government of Japan calls them eco-terrorists. A Norwegian and Icelandic whaling group also has an interesting take on it here. Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams called Watson a terrorist after some Sea Shepherd stuff in '08 {http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/414380]} and the Icelandic Minister of Fisheries called their acts terrorism. It isn't just the US that matters. I think it would be interesting to see how they were classified by other governments and international organizations but I still have a hard time completely disregard the Japanese classification of the group.Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, according to WP:TERRORIST we ARE following wiki proceedure in documenting the opinion of multiple notable sources that claim SSCS are eco-terrorists, making this article (according to the sources and by extension Wiki Policy) relevant to the discussion on Eco-Terrorism. Our inclusion therein does not imply agreement with the sources, only ackowledgment that that is what some experts believe. I don't want to fight, it just seems that strong feelings for the SSCS are interfering with the plain following of policy. So no spin, no POV of our own, what do those sources say and what does wiki policy say we should do with those sources? It appears we must include them and be careful not to make it sound any worse or better. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also to be clear, the agreement that some notable experts call the SSCS eco-terrosits doesn't even imply that we cannot find other experts who disagree. I am glad you are seeing this now not as a debate whether they are or are not but simply wiki policy. Thank you for that. On the note of what to do with that policy, some notable experts see them as noble environmentalists, some notable experts see them as eco-terrorists. I think you will find that there are enough notable people with both opinions that both opinions should be noted. Same goes for categorization. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As I explained again below, the SCCS/eco-terrorism situation is exactly analogous to the psychoanalysis/pseudoscience situation. Experts disagree whether SCCS is eco-terrorist / whether psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, not because they disagree about the character of SCCS / of psychoanalysis, but because they disagree about the correct definition of eco-terrorism / of pseudoscience. Psychoanalysis is generally the first test when someone comes up with a new definition of pseudoscience, and SCCS may well be one of the first organisations that come into mind in the context of the (eco-)terrorism demarcation question. It makes no sense to attack the applicability of the ArbCom decision in this case by mentioning facts that were equally true in the context of the decision. Anyway, the simple facts are that all the sources which call SCCS eco-terrorist are obviously partisan because they are SCCS opponents. The situation with the FBI guy is much less clear-cut, but apparently he was asking for money against eco-terrorism, so he needed examples. So he gave the impression of giving examples. But the FBI have shown themselves perfectly willing and able to pursue actual eco-terrorists; isn't it a bit odd that they are not even trying this with SCCS? Hans Adler 13:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The experts have differing opinions. It is a POV push on behalf of editors to only include the POV they happen to agree with. Please stop removing the half of the notable POV that you disagree with. This is against WP:NPOV. Including it the way we are is in compliance with WP:Terrorist. Please quit pushing your view. Include all the notable expert opinion. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The reasons why Sea Shepherd should not be categorised as 'eco-terrorists' are clear:

1.Categories are labels. Without qualification or citation. Categorising Sea Shepherd is labeling them 'eco-terrorists', is calling them 'eco-terrorists'. This is not something Misplaced Pages should do as there is no agreement in the wider community on this label and this would mean that Misplaced Pages is taking sides, setting the agenda, and deciding an issue. This is not Misplaced Pages's role and is the same as calling psychoanalysis 'pseudoscience'. The reasons for not calling psychoanalysis 'pseudoscience' apply across all articles and apply in this case.

2.Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid; 2.4 Words that label; WP: TERRORIST. The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are often particularly contentious labels that carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. The rules around using the term 'terrorist' in Misplaced Pages are clear. The word 'eco-terrorism' derives from 'ecological terrorism' and people and groups accused of this are called 'eco-terrorists'. It is a word to avoid. When it is used in an article, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. This cannot be done in a category, categories cannot be qualified or cited or attributed to a source. Categories label unconditionally, no ifs or buts. There is no agreement on the term being applied to Sea Shepherd and as a word to avoid it is not appropriate or correct for Misplaced Pages to use it.

3.WP:BLP; Sea Shepherd is a group comprised of thousands of supporters, volunteer crew, volunteer shore-based workers, and paid staff. For Misplaced Pages to categorise, to label, Sea Shepherd as an 'eco-terrorist' organisation is to label these people as terrorists. It is not for Misplaced Pages to label people with such a negative, perjorative, term when that term is not accepted as a term to describe Sea Shepherd in the wider community.

For these reasons, 68.41..., I am again reverting your repeated, POV-pushing addition of this term. You are not acting as an editor by your continued re-adding of this label. Tranquillity Base (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, the category is eco terrorism not eco terrorists. This is a huge difference, and the reason why "eco terrorism in fiction" fits perfectly fine within the category.

Categories are of two basic types:

• topic categories – these contain articles on a particular topic; for example, Category:Music contains articles on subjects related to music.
• list categories – these contain articles whose subjects are members of a particular set; for example, Category:Musicians contains articles on musicians.

• Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Misplaced Pages article. Examples: "Law", "Civilization", "George W. Bush".
• Names of list categories should be plural. Examples: "Writers", "Villages in Poland".

Please see Misplaced Pages:Categorization & Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(categories). From the beginning I believed this group could fit into the category because I never really saw the category as a list. Of course, most editors agree this group should fit in the category regardless of whether the topic category or a list, but it is possible everyone is working under an incorrect assumption that it is a list, when its actually supposed to be a more benign topical category, which even the IWC and other groups completely in disagreement with SSCS would qualify because it is relevant to a discussion on the topic of eco terrorism. Now, if someone wants to also start of list of eco terrorists I'll be right there with you on listing SSCS, but, frankly, I am going back to my original argument as well, that this is a nonargument. Mdlawmba (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Mdlwamba you are correct. Anyone who looks at the Eco-terrorism category can see that it is not a list of eco-terrorists. It is a list of articles that discuss the topic. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And T-Base, Eco-Terrorist is in the Terrorist category and covered in the WP:Terrorist nicely. I can't help you if you don't read it but your concerns of Pejorative terms and also BLP are covered therein. We are following the policy at WP:Terrorist just fine. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm a proponent of keeping all notable POV in the article. You keep removing the notbale POV you disagree with. Why are you calling me a POV pusher when I am trying to include both sides? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Mdlawnba, you write, 'Everyone, the category is eco terrorism not eco terrorists.' So members of a group whose activities are labelled bank robbery are... bank robbery-er-ists, just as the members of a group whose activities are labelled 'eco-terrorism' are called 'eco-terrorism-ery-ists'. People in groups accused of engaging in 'eco-terrorism' are called 'eco-terrorists'. Categories label.Tranquillity Base (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Link farming kind of

I propose an alternative to the extended use of links to the Sea Shepherd official website in the Org sections. It is easily perceived as an advertisement with so much name dropping as is and this is exasperated by the amount of links to the site. We need alternative sources or should be relying on the external link. As a fix, I am removing all but the link to the about us page which has the menu for the different boards.Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph looks tighter with less blue numbers. The link at the end is all that is needed in this instance, as you point out. Tranquillity Base (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good folks. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving beyond the edit warring

Per WP:BRD it was OK to add the eco-terrorism category to this article once, under the assumption that there might be a consensus for it. By now it is clear that there is no consensus and that the discussion isn't going anywhere. In the absence of a compromise the traditional solution is to preserve the long-standing version. (Note that "BRD" means be bold, revert, discuss, not be bold, revert, be bold again, discuss.) Also, if one version is claimed by some to do actual damage while the other is merely argued to to be more complete, then it makes sense to preserve the harmless, incomplete version. According to both arguments the categorisation must stay out until dispute resolution has been successful.

I have given two reasons above why the categorisation is not appropriate:

• The term eco-terrorism has definitional problems similar to the term pseudoscience. It is also similarly pejorative. If one of these terms is applied to an article about a subject that is sometimes argued to fall under the definition, the majority of our readers will read this as a statement that the subject does, according to Misplaced Pages's assessment, fall under the definition. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in the analogous case of psychoanalysis/pseudoscience that we do not categorise in this situation in order to prevent this misunderstanding.
• There are WP:BLP concerns. The BLP policy is in effect in all articles, whenever we say something about living people. Many members, activists and supporters of SCCS are living people, and some are mentioned in this article. It is highly problematic if we imply here that Paul Watson leads, and the Dalai Lama supports, an eco-terrorist organisation.

— Anonymous , — (continues after insertion below.)So far I have not seen a single valid argument against these two points. (they are both adressed in WP:Terrorist as has been said before)

• The argument that the Japanese government calls SCCS eco-terrorist is irrelevant. Karl Popper and many other leading experts on pseudoscience also call(ed) psychoanalysis a pseudoscience. And this was even outside a political context with transparent immoral motives.
• Mervyn Emrys claimed "Paul Watson describes SSCS as ecoterrorist in his books". I challenged him to prove this by a direct, literal and complete quotation, but then my post was split in an unacceptable way (please familiarise yourselves with WP:TALK everybody) and hidden by a flood of subsequent comments. Hans Adler 08:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You could also look at that its removal is a concern. It takes more than 1 person to edit war. Consensus on a related page (whether you agree with it or not), a government of a country, and government officials from other countries is enough for inclusion for most editors commenting besides you and T-Base. You are going against consensus since you disagree with the definition. Also, I'm the one who removed it originally.Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the fourth time you have mentioned my editing error which I believe most would consider a minor error, but your manner of addressing it is neither minor nor in error. I have a pretty thick skin and don't mind personal attacks, but I hope you can treat other editors with more respect. In WP:TALK there is also a section regarding new topics stating "Never use headings to attack other users:". Further, your recent edits to was not only POV but bordered on vandalism in light of these ongoing discussions. If consensus across Misplaced Pages does not matter, then there should be no need to alter a major article to further SSCS's cause. I have addressed every point you have again raised in this new section in the prior and asked for any support that BLP applies to an article on an organization when not specifically addressing an individual. I assume this silence indicates it is unsupportable. Mdlawmba (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your post is formatted as a response to myself. After some thinking I guess that you are referring to splitting my post. While annoying, this was obviously not the point of this section, and in fact I had no idea who split my post. (Here is why it was so annoying: It happened while I was on dial-up. I couldn't find out who did it, and even fixing it was a big pain.) Hans Adler 13:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

After I finished the below response to Cptnono, I got an edit conflict with Mdlawmba. I am putting my response to Cptnono here, unindented, for improved readability.

Reality check:

• The category tag was never present in this article between 1 July and 10 August, and I am not aware that it was present at any earlier point, although this question was discussed earlier. I have searched for "terrorism" in the talk page archives, and there seems to be a rough consensus that it's inappropriate to describe SCCS as eco-terrorist since they are clearly not committing violence against uninvolved civilians in order to create terror.
• It takes more than one person to edit war. Unless there is a rough consensus and just one person is unwilling to accept it:
  • + 11 August 68.41.80.161
  • - 15 August Cptnono
  • + 20 August 68.41.80.161
  • - 20 August Hans Adler
  • + 24 August Mdlawmba
  • - 24 August Cptnono
  • + 31 August 68.41.80.161
  • - 31 August Tranquillity Base
  • + 31 August 68.41.80.161
  • - 31 August Tranquillity Base
  • + 31 August 68.41.80.161
  • - 1 September Hans Adler
  • + 2 September 68.41.80.161
  • - 2 September Tranquillity Base
  • + 2 September 68.41.80.161
  • - 3 September Tranquillity Base
  • + 3 September 68.41.80.161
  • - 4 September Hans Adler
• Government sources are not automatically NPOV. Otherwise all sorts of torture against "terrorist" bakers etc. would not have been torture last year, so long as they were committed by order and on account of the US government. I guess that when you say "government officials from other countries" you are referring to the FBI guy who was obviously desperate to find examples of "eco-terrorism" in order to justify the flow of money in that direction 5 months after the terrorist (not: "terrorist") attacks on New York City. And yet he did not even claim that SCCS is eco-terrorist; it would have been a bit silly in the complete absence of a US arrest warrant for Paul Watson, don't you think?
• As shown above, whether there is a consensus or not at the moment, it's certainly not me who is going against it. Concerning you half-sentence "since you disagree with the definition", I would appreciate it if you could stop worrying about my motives and concentrate on my arguments instead. Hans Adler 13:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• You consistently say it is not eco-terrorism and relate it to pseudoscience. I will concentrate on that if since your primary reasoning is that you obviously disagree with the definition of it being eco-terrorism. Wasn't meant to come across smarmy it is just the way it is.
• In regards to the cat getting listed. It was accidentally listed here on the talk page during a discussion since editors kept on sticking it in the article inappropriately. It was removed but #68 was adamant about it. I removed it until we received more feedback and that is what we got. Now you and T-Base revert it every time relying on a)comparing it to an unrelated pseudoscience ruling (I get the what you are getting at but disagree with its relevance) b)The government of Japan along with leaders in Canada, Iceland, and Norway official position does not matter. Read the complete discussion next time. If it meets the definition of eco-terrorist at the related article and is labeled as so by government officials it makes sense to include it.
• In regards to the FBI mention on the talk page, there is a fun essay here. I think the important thing to pull from it is that people will make changes when there is silence and that consensus can change. I for one have adjusted my position on inclusion. The FBI source has been used inappropriately in the article before but is important since it was used by an official to mark the start of eco-terrorism.Cptnono (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• The FBI source is great because it defines eco-terrorism in terms of it's actions and then it goes on to say that SSCS does those actions.
• Government sources are not NPOV. They don't need to be. WE EDITORS NEED TO BE. We report what all the notable experts say without adding our own POV.
• I am adamant only that half of the story isn't getting left out. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

After a bit of searching on Google News:

• "Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Earth First and Sea Shepherd Society are known for committing eco-terrorism."
• "The FBI dates the start of eco-terrorism - and the creation of the buzzword - to 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets."
• "The Sea Shepherds, infamous for aggressive "eco-terrorist" style tactics that include sinking whaling boats, sabotaging seal hunts and fishing operations to save marine animals around the globe, arrived in Cape Town in January."
• "But the group whose members have been labeled eco-terrorists won't have any backup this year"
• (On Paul Watson) "He's been jailed for eco-terrorism."

More importantly, there is quite a bit of video of Sea Shepherd attacking and attempting to disable ships in the southern ocean. (Two seasons of Whale Wars make it abundantly clear what's going on, to anyone who took even the most simple of seamanship courses.) The group openly brags about sinking multiple ships. If SS isn't an Eco-terrorist organization, than there aren't any, and Category:Eco-terrorism should be sent to CfD. As long as that doesn't happen, SS should be included. — PyTom (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant Wiki Policy in the argument

There have been lots of arguments about who is violating which wiki policy for what reasons. Everything from BLP to Pseudoscience is being called upon to try to block the word "eco-terrorism" from appearing on this page. We don't need all that. Get yourself reeaally familiar with WP:Terrorist. This wiki policy answers all the questions about whether or not we should include the term and we are in full compliance with WP:Terrorist. If you want to block the word from getting on this page, at least use the appropriate Wiki Policy. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding BLP Concerns and Concerns of including contentious words like "terrorist": "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, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears." From WP:Terrorist. It's all still there. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

POV issue in the article

OK, read this news article. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10363013 It basically says the SSCS intentionally used a "can opening device" affixed to thier hull and scored the side of a refueling vessel. Now read how we word it. "During the campaign, the Farley Mowat collided with a Japanese whaler supply ship called the Oriental Bluebird. No damage or injuries were reported."

Notice, intent to ram had been left out as had the fact that a large scrape damaged the hull. Anyone want to take a stab at fixing this? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what everyone's experience is with manufacturing but those boys welding can usually do some good stuff. I think that the "can opener device" has not received enough attention in this article. Plenty of sources cite it so maybe we should, too. I also think their pie cannon and electrified barbed wire should get a mention. We have been caught up on the Southern Ocean campaigns but they scared the hell out of the Indians in the Northwest, Russians, and plenty of others before Discovery paid them any mind. Metal welded on to the bow for the purpose of ripping apart the hull and/or defending the vessel is well documented (the New Yorker, National Geographic, English press, etc) so add it in.Cptnono (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention that T-Base's recent edits came across as pushing POV. I don't think it was intentional and am not trying to give too much of a hard time. Please be extra cautious when editing such contentious subject matter. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent talk page comments

A bunch of comments recently needed to be removed from this page. (see history for details) There are two reasons which we should all recognise.

• First, this is not a forum nor a soapbox. This isn't the place to shout "Sea Shepherds SUCK!" or "Whalers SUCK!". This is for disscussing the manner in which information should be present in the article, not your personal feelings about the issue for which the article was written. If it has nothing to do with how we process the information, (like a good faith conversation on how to handle the eco-terrorism allegations)then be bold and simply delete it please.
• Second, no personal attacks. If you see a comment that says "user so and so sucks, they are here only to cause trouble" please delete it per WP:NPA. We are here to discuss issue not one another. We all have an opinoin and we all think our opinion is pretty important. If you notice one individual not getting it, take it to their talk apge and have it out there. Personal grudges should stay far away from this page. Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To be clear "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." from Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Have a read. :) Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference TimesOnline was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Barker, Jeremy (31 March 2008). "Sea Shepherd, Coast Guard collide during seal hunt". National Post.
3. "Watson calls sealers 'baby killers'". The Canadian Press. 2 April 2008.
4. Summers, Chris (30 April 2002). "Spotlight on Greenpeace rebel". BBC News.
5. "Mowat officers convicted on seal-hunt charges". The Canadian Press. 4 July 2009.
6. ABC News http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/2189963.htm
7. Howard environment minister joins Sea Shepherd, Jan 10, 2008 http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/howard-environment-minister-joins-sea-shepherd/2008/01/10/1199554807455.html
8. Boycott Japan Olympics bid: ex-minister. July 15, 2009 http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/boycott-japan-olympics-bid-exminister-20090715-dkum.html
9. Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/australia-to-go-in-hard-at-meeting-on-whaling/2008/03/06/1204779968161.html Accessed 090806

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class Animal rights articles
• High-importance Animal rights articles
• WikiProject Animal rights articles
• C-Class Fishing articles
• Mid-importance Fishing articles
• WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing articles
• C-Class organization articles
• Mid-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics