Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

butyric acid= rotten butter

this should be mentioned. pro-whalers always call it butyric acid to make it sound worse, buts its just rotten butter. i put this in the article a few times but it is always deleted. that is very biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Butyric acid is one of the toxic compounds found in rotten butter, but the stuff Sea Shepherd uses is not "just rotten butter", it's lab-grade (read: concentrated) butyric acid, which is really nasty stuff. Don't believe me? See the MSDS for yourself. I can find you some pictures of Sea Shepherd crewers with the marked bottles in hand, if you really need me to do all your research for you. This is not "pro-whaler" bias, it's plain fact. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No one has any clue of the concentration, and an MSDS means nothing without knowing the concentration. Stating that it is the component in rotten butter that makes it smell bad is fine, saying they are throwing rotten butter is not, saying they are throwing concentrated acid is not either as both are wither inaccurate or unknown.--Terrillja _talk 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "butter" should probably be avoided here alltogether as it appears to be used soley by proponents of SSCS to make acid throwing sound harmless.. accoring to the sources, they are throwing glass bottles of a specifically manufactured acid. It comes concentrated in dark glass bottles with very specific warning labels on it. It may not sound as nice as "throwing butter" because it is most certainly not as nice as throwing butter.. but good thing we can figure this out fairly easily. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

this should be mentioned. anti-whalers always equate it rotten butter to make it sound worse, but it is not just rotten butter.Cptnono (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ, which is why I think the best compromise is to just plainly state that they throw butyric acid, and try to keep most of the talk about it being "just rotten butter"/"harmless" or "harmful" out of it. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I was being tongue in cheek. Sorry about that.Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the acid that makes the smell of rotten butter so the word butter has to stay, it isnt that we are trying to dumb it down or that we are pro whaling, its just that that is the smell it makes.

Saying that the article is misleading people into thinking they are throwing butter is a bit of a ridiculous claim.

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We could also equate it to BO (from what I understand from the acid's Wikipedia entry). It smells really really bad. We don't need to use SSCS PR spin here.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As I had said above, it is the component in rotten butter that makes it small bad, just like how acetic acid is the component in vinegar that adds the biting acidity and smell. So I think that it should be noted that it is the smelly component in butter as it makes the reader understand it is being used for its smell and not to melt peoples' faces.--Terrillja _talk 04:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

SSCS WILL MELT YOUR FACE! We could clarify it with "foul odor" and leave the like butter stuff out.Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So like.. "There is a component in this acid that smells bad. Also, rotten butter smells bad. This acid can make you go blind (according to the warning label) but it will not melt your face. Butter will likewise not melt your face, nor will it make you go blind." Something like that? I say yes. All but the butter and melt your face part. No seriously I don't think we need to clarify what Butyric Acid is anymore than wiki linking to it's page. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

it can make you go blind in the same sense that lemons and catus jucie can. if you leave it in your eye for a few days, sure. you wash it out, it's not going too hurt you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No sir, read the links. BA is a toxic chemical, complete with it's own governmental warning label. Lemon juice holds niether distincion. Cats however are just stinky and I agree with you that they should be tossed at the whalers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

the problemis it's less acidic then lemon, and even beer yet theres no mention of that. hell, cacti are more acidic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits

I reverted an edit this evening that included the word "militant". I didn't think I saw that particular word in the (improperly formatted) reference in the article so I removed it. I did take a second look and saw that the word was actually present in the MSNBC article. Although the word is there some care should be taken as to how this is presented in the article if at all. Dawnseeker2000 06:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen more than one that say "militant". It should not be a label applied in the first line though.Cptnono (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

it shouldnt be included at all. theyve never killed or hurt anyone, therefore are not militaints —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Does an organization have to kill or hurt anyone to be called "militant"? I don't think so. The New York Times called them "militant" in a headline: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/10/world/militants-sink-2-of-iceland-s-whaling-vessels.html Jim Heaphy (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That cite is from 1986, (over 23 years ago). See if you can find something more recent. Oberonfitch (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey now. A reliable source is a reliable source. They might have evolved as a group but they have injured people and have even been called militant as recently as Feb 19 2010.[1] Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey what? Please don't attempt to guess where I stand on this issue. I don't think that using a 23-year-old source is reasonable. (What hasn't changed in the intervening two decades?) If you want to call them militant on the basis of recent articles (any one of which you can pull from that Google search), you have no problem with me. My concern, regardless of prevailing attitudes towards controversial subjects, is for neutrality through balance. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing an edit but just commenting on the word, which a major newspaper applied in a headline. I most certainly do not consider "militant" to be a synonym for "terrorist" and would have been happy to be called a militant in my radical youth. I often use much older sources in Wikipedia articles. In all honesty, I don't see why a 23 year old source is less credible, unless the organization has changed its strategy in a way that would make the term no longer applicable. I am not saying it belongs in the article now because I haven't studied the subject in enough depth. I just favor the neutral point of view, which to me includes varying opinions and judgments about a notable organization, as long as they are balanced and properly referenced. My goal in coming to this talk is to learn more about notable directors and former directors of the Sierra Club, which is one of my personal Wikipedia projects. That's all. Jim Heaphy (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem using the word or even the citation from 1986 IF there are more current citations that support it. This is a controversial subject, (please see the ever-expanding text below on "pirate," and "terrorist"), or "butyric acid tastes like butter". My comment was made in view of the need to avoid a full block on an article which needs improvement. RE: Directors, I was reading about them last night. Interesting collection of notables from the scientific and animal rights community. Oberonfitch (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Conservation? Really?

Given the scope of the actions taken by this organization that are described in this article, I think we really need to examine the statement that this focus of this group is "Marine Conservation". Most of the actions described in this article seem to be the actions of pirates and/or terrorists, not actions taken by a conservation group. Given that this group now has a television series, I'm left wondering if the focus of this group isnt really profiteering. Could we consider changing the stated focus of this group from "Marine Conservation" to something else as marine conservation does not involve the destruction of property, the violation of Maritime Law, throwing toxic/caustic compounds into the sea or sinking/scuttling ships? I'm left wondering how much damage to the marine environment they've caused with each ship that they've scuttled as described in this article. Perhaps at the very least their focus should be changed to "debated". 24.188.207.20 (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment would make a bit of sense if you could point out any similar activities that they are directing against people who cannot reasonably be perceived as doing severe damage to the environment. As it is you are arguing like someone who says that the police can't be described as keeping up order because they use violence. Hans Adler 13:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

They don't have the mandate that police have. Regardless of their tactics, their goal is protecting marine wildlife. Radical environmentalism might work in addition to marine conservation. I can't see any reason to remove it altogether though. Cptnono (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Pirates steal for money (which does not apply), terrorists terrorise for political goals. The latter could, in some views, be attributed to Sea Shepherd, and this is noted in the article. There is also the "vigilante" assessment. Even if/where they are considered a terrorist group, their goal is not activism itself, it is marine conservation. Ingolfson (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The description that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a ‘marine conservation’ seems debatable and should be noted accordingly. Although the SSCS describe themselves as a conservation society, there is evidence to suggest they are not primarily a ‘marine conservation’ group. This can be illustrated in 2 points. 1) The Sea SSCS aims to permanently end whaling in ANY form. Hunting and harvesting of wild creatures in a sustainable manner is not in contrast to conservation and is actually often incorporated into conservation and management of wild resources. In this aspect the SSCS distinguishes it self from a ‘marine conservation’ group in that its primary driver is a moral one, in which it is believed it is immoral to ever hunt whales. The SSCS re-enforces this point by numerous statements made with its desire to “see a permanent end to whaling”. This goes much further than conservation which has room for wild harvesting hunting as along as it does not stop the essential aspect of marine conservation described by wiki as the “protection and preservation of ecosystems in oceans and seas.” Labeling the SSCS group as a ‘marine conservation’ when its main driver is not essentially limited to marine conservation seems at the very least debatable 2) The Whale Wars reality series featuring the SSCS brings a level of financial incentive through the production of entertainment which in itself not marine conservation. This promotes the SSCS financially which then also carries out non-conservation activities with the support.

The SSCS activities clearly stretch beyond strictly conservation to both areas of the groups moral opinion and the field of entertainment. At what stage is the society more of a morality group of like minded people making entertainment than a marine conservation group. To give an example Royal Dutch Shell does a conservation internship. Does that make them also classified as a conservation organization?

---

SSCS "efforts have become an entertainment vehicle, not conservation," http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/sea-shepherd-resumes-pursuit-illegal-whalers/5/34976 "Reality television shows are not conservation," http://sharkdivers.blogspot.com/2009/10/sea-shepherd-popular-culture-and-south.html "is the protection and preservation of ecosystems in oceans and seas" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_conservation "Shell Conservation Interns" http://www.conservationinterns.ca/ "permanent end to whaling." http://www.seashepherd.com.au/forum/archive/index.php/t-3496.html "permanent end to whaling." also numerously stated by SSCS members on camera during Whale Wars series Scarfie20 (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Working definition for marine conservation...

Marine conservation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Marine conservation, also known as marine resources conservation, is the protection and preservation of ecosystems in oceans and seas. Marine conservation focuses on limiting human-caused damage to marine ecosystems, and on restoring damaged marine ecosystems. Marine conservation also focuses on preserving vulnerable marine species."

Based upon the information above the description of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in relation to 'marine conservation' appears consistent. One must also be careful not to confuse method and outcome or fact and opinion.

• 21:53, 8 March 2010 User:Georgiepieman (→Conservation? Really?) :[2] note- this comment^ was originally added above the section header, thus appearing as though posted in previous section. moved by PrBeacon (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead: First Paragraph

Proposed edit to balance "direct action sabotage tactics." Answer is in SSCS Mission Statement. Please note that this is just a starting point for improving the article.

• The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a non-profit marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States that uses direct action sabotage tactics to curtail oceanic environmental destruction and loss of wildlife from harvesting. to protect wildlife. http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/Sea Shepherd currently operates the vessels MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker.

Oberonfitch (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We already use "non-profit marine conservation" and "direct action" instead of "terrorist" :) . What about trimming it to read "...to protect wildlife". Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that works. Feel free, :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh oops. Do we need the additional "sabotage"? I ask because it is stronger than just "direct action" but could see edit warring removing it or turning it into terrorist or militant. It could be just strong enough but am not sure if keeping it or losing it would be better.Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sabotage was already in there. In my opinion, "non-profit marine conservation organization" is neutral, since non-profits can be involved in a wide spectrum of activities, some of which will be offensive to some people. So we are balancing "direct action sabotage" with "to protect wildlife." That seems equitable to me. We can wait to see how other editors feel before making the edit. Oberonfitch (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Timing. I just did it. "Sabotage" is in for now but I don't care too much either way. Cptnono (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there can be any dispute by either camp on the subject of sabotage. Oberonfitch (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Only for readability; I dont mean to throw a wet blanket, but the two lead sentences seem overly clumsy with compound phrasing, especially the first running on so. I gave it a shot here:

• The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a marine conservation, non-profit organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States. The group uses radical direct action to protect wildlife, currently operating the vessels MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker.

I've shuffled a few words, incorporated the 'radical' discussed below. I also thought that 'tactics' is redundant with direct action. Alternatively we could drop the names of the boats from this part. Perhaps sabotage can be worked in later. (It is the first form of violent direct action on that linked page, afterall) PrBeacon (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Boats or mention of their fleet needs to be in the lead somewhere per WP:LEAD. Could be relegated to the last line if needed so where it is placed isn't a huge deal.Cptnono (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually strike what I said about tactics, it doesnt read much better for the tradeoff. Trying again:

• The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a non-profit, marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States. The group uses radical, direct action tactics to protect sealife. SSCS currently operates the vessels MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker.

I realize this is more of a style issue, and somewhat subjective. But expanding the lead like this to three sentences has the added benefit of extra room (i.e. 'breathing room,' a copywriter might say) for adding in other words discussed above, perhaps even another clause. PrBeacon (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that your rewrite is good and has nice flow. I've edited the paragraph to show the various forms of the revised lead para 1. Oberonfitch (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I've applied formatting to the second and replaced wildlife with sealife, another suggestion. Even more nitty-gritty: if we refrain from linking radical (disambiguation), that comma can be dropped since the link after it acts as soft punctuation. Or we could link the term as radical or radical both of which are from that disamb, though the former one could seem too sneaky. idk. PrBeacon (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm specifically looking for Radical environmentalism to be added as a whole somewhere in the lead. I just don't know how to work it in. It could easily replace "marine conservation" but I would prefer to use both somehow.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• 2nd sentence. The group, which is linked to the Radical environmentalism movement, uses direct action tactics to protect sealife.

Of course, with appropriate cites. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with "direct action sabotage", though I have modified it as "direct action sabotage and media tactics", because that very much encapsulates what they do - make the whaler's lives difficult, and then tell everybody about it in as loud a way they can (whether you think that is great or not ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a non-profit, marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States. The group uses radical, direct action sabotage and media tactics to protect sealife. SSCS currently operates the vessels MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker.

Is this at (semi, like anything is) final? Oberonfitch (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the second line suggested. "The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a non-profit, marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States. The group, which is often linked to the radical environmentalism movement,[3] uses direct action tactics to protect sealife." Take your pick for the source. And "media" was just added in. Not sure where that should go but it should be in the lead for sure.Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, let's put media in a separate sentence, because that really isn't protecting animals except through public awareness. Cptnono, if you or someone else feels like doing it, that would be great. I think I'm cooked for the day. I added a new section below for working on paragraphs 2 & 3, and a possible combine. Oberonfitch (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a non-profit, marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States. The group, which is often linked to the radical environmentalism movement, uses direct action tactics to protect sealife. Sea Shepherd currently operates the vessels MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker, and most of the group's activities take place on the open seas. The group has a strong focus on public relations to spread their message via the media.

Doesn't this need citation(s)?
Especially before someone tags a phrase like "often linked to the radical environmentalism movement" ...
Also, I know the last line was added quickly but it seems abrupt or somehow/ otherwise out of place, perhaps even a bit redundant (media, PR) and generalized ("the media"). I'll try to rework it soon.. PrBeacon (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, PRB, I lifted the text without the citations because I felt that the citations needed going over and that instead of trying to move them around with sentences that were shifting, rework the paragraph and then add the citations back in. My concern being that if we did it the other way that we would then have citations that didn't match the material. (That's just my personal preference, but wanted to explain why we don't have cites now.) So, we could work from the wiki version, but I find that harder to read. Please, yes, do as you see fit. (Obviously it needs documentation.) Oberonfitch (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Radical (I miss the '80s)

Any thoughts on Radical environmentalism in the lead and/or the infobox? Marine conservation is not disputed at all so it should not be replaced. But radical environmentalism is not necessarily terrorism and I assume both critics and supporters would embrace the term. Sources are available.[4] Cptnono (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a third sentence in the first paragraph would round it out. As it stands now, we have a statement on what SSCS is, followed by two boats. Putting a sentence in that links the organization to a movement would be a good idea. (I don't even remember the '80s. lol) Oberonfitch (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Radical's fine, i'm sure they embrace it in a rugged, romantic sense much like "pirates." (Edit: by embrace i mean a secondary connotation, adopt as your own.) PrBeacon (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Succinct and neutral but still makes it clear that these guys are not quite sane or saintly. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 18:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Graphics

Illegal use of Norwegian flag

When they recently rammed the Japanese boat they were sailing under Norwegian flag--which they have absolutely no permission to use, and it is very illegal. The Norwegian government was not happy at all about this. Sea Shepherd deliberately used the Norwegian flag in order to gain the Japanese's trust. The ministry of foreign affairs sent a letter to Sea Shepherd to make them aware that it is illegal.

"The conductor of a ship which unjustifiably use a Norwegian flag or other Norwegian national badge, or in Norwegian oceans use any flag or nationality badge which he is not entitled to use, will be penalized in form of fines or prison up to one year" (Paragraph 423 of Norwegian penalty law) This applies to all waters.

The Norwegian government, however, will not prosecute.

Sources: [5] [6] [7]

I strongly suggest this is added to the article. 84.211.16.175 (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that this probably belongs in the Ops article under Operation Mathilda. The links you gave are from SSCS and the other two Norwegian. Oberonfitch (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jolly Roger logo

I think the white-on-black "Jolly Roger" Sea Shepherd logo should be added back into the infobox. Between it and the blue-on-white logo, the Jolly Roger seems to be much more often and prevalently used. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who actually swapped them. The logo used seems "official" per the header on the website. They do seem to show off the flag and are identified by it more and more. It also is used on the website/ I won't stand in the way if consensus is to go back to the Jolly Roger one. Cptnono (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I agree, the one currently used is best as it's the official one, but I think the flag should be there too. Actually I put it that way a while ago, and then somebody else removed it a little while later. As far as I recall, there wasn't really any discussion either time, let alone consensus. It didn't seem all that important to anybody. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought doing both was obnoxious but I think that is personal preference since I have seen so many done like that recently. I also was a little quick on it so revert my ass per BRD :) .Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

how about put the Jolly Roger one further down near current events. doh, there's already a JR flag flying down near the bottom in Vessels section. ok, how about moving the blue-white one to the history section and putting the JRlogo up top? PrBeacon (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

First, hi, this is NRen2k5 again. I've had a name change.

Second, I guess the way I see it is that the logo represents the PR side of the organization and the flag represents the activism side of it, and to relegate either of them to a place or photo lower down in the article doesn't really do the subject complete justice. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 08:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agre with you but hate the asthetics of stacking. It really looks like I am wrong in that after looking around other articles so feel free to add it back in. If others don't like it we can then discuss which one to give top billing to.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had my own reservations too. I don't find the "stacking" aesthetically displeasing, but think it tends to push the text too far down. The solution, I suppose, would be to find a size to reduce the logos to, which will make them small enough that they won't crowd all of the text off of most screens, but won't be too small to see any detail. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 08:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Before while it was stacked, I think the killer for me is when my house mate said "that looks like shit" without knowing that I had been screwing with it. Find the size and try it. We undue it worse comes to worse.Cptnono (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

True. How about bringing the flag photo currently in the Vessels section up to the History section, then? And maybe putting something like File:Steve_Irwin_docked_in_Hobart.JPG in the Vessels section while we're at it. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 10:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is enough room for now that you should be able to move them around. A picture of the vessel is good somewhere but feel free to move the Jolly Roger up if it appears buried.

I personally would only be concerned if the ships attacked image was removed. There is a new one showing Japanese vessels rammed (even though PR says they rammed SSCS) that I would like included somewhere but it needs to be properly licensed. So anyone in Hobart over the next couple of days should snap one.Cptnono (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we have someone in Hobart? lol Oberonfitch (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive issues

small issue - the archives index above is out of order. anyone know how to fix that? i tried to look it up but lost patience.
bigger concern - since we've started going over the page with a fine tooth comb, i think we could use a nutshell summary of archives, at least some of the more contentious issues of wording. I can help a little, starting with a list of the section topics. I just know it's easy to forget or even skim through despite the warning above - "please carefully check the discussion-page dialogue (including archives) to see if the issue has been raised before" - because I've been lax before, too. PrBeacon (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's what i've got so far for list of topics from SSCS-Talk archives. I'm now wondering about a simple search tool we might be able to add like in the Admin archives. Off to look.. PrBeacon (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(trial box removed from this section)   Turns out there's an easy way to include a search function in the archive box, so now it's up there .. though from a few quick searches it still seems incomplete -- someone said that may be due to problems with the Archive bot. PrBeacon (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This page is currently >130kB long. Does anybody object to adjusting the bot settings to archive every month instead of every 2 months? — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry HG, the page is so long I didn't notice this until today. I'd say archive every couple of weeks. Seriously. Oberonfitch (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated to 30 days.--Terrillja _talk 05:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Paragraphs 2 and 3

"The society was founded in 1977 under the name Earth Force Society, by Paul Watson, an early member of Greenpeace, after a dispute with that organization over its lack of more aggressive intervention.[1] It has received support for its tactics against fishing, whaling, and seal hunting from quarters such as media personalities and the Dalai Lama, while critics have condemned the violent nature of the actions.[2][3] Various governments and organizations (and even members of the society) have referred to the group as pirates.

Operations have included scuttling and disabling whaling vessels at harbor, intervening in Canadian seal hunts, ramming other vessels, trying to temporarily blind or disorient whalers with a laser device,[4][5] throwing bottles of foul-smelling butyric acid onto vessels at sea,[5] boarding of whaling vessels while at sea, and seizure and destruction of drift nets at sea. Sea Shepherd claims that their aggressive actions are necessary as the international community has shown itself unwilling or unable to stop species-endangering whaling and fishing practices.[6] Some governments and organizations have referred to them as terrorists.[5][7][8][9]"

I am proposing working on both paragraphs simultaneously. There is obvious redundancy that can be cleaned up, and although SSCS's crews are (arguably) the aggressors, it would be appropriate to balance the direct action sabotage methods with retaliatory actions by whalers. With some reworking, Support and Condemnation can be put together, as well as Sabotage and Retaliatory actions, which will free up some room. Also suggest that we look at all the links to make sure that we have conformity in cites and that they all work. (I'd like SSCS to get GA status)  :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend rewording the initial sentence to something like this - "The organization was founded in 1977 under the name Earth Force Society by Paul Watson, an early member of Greenpeace, after a dispute with that organization over what Watson saw as its lack of more aggressive intervention." It seems to me that the current wording accepts Watson's argument regarding Greenpeace's alleged shortcomings. This may be a minor point but I think what I propose would be more accurate, more neutral and fair to both parties in the dispute. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, thats much clearer. I'm gonna go ahead & fix the next paragraph under History since it still says he was booted from Greenpeace. The Paul Watson page says it clear enough: Watson argued for a strategy of direct action which conflicted with the Greenpeace interpretation of nonviolence, was ousted from the board in 1977, and subsequently left the organization. (mentioning here for continuity) -PrBeacon (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the word "ousted" in both articles as it seems less neutral than the previous "voted out". What do other editors think? This definitely needs a reference. Jim Heaphy (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence of this paragraph as I had proposed earlier and as supported above by PrBeacon. Jim Heaphy (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question, I hadn't really thought much about it but you may be right. Do you mean "voted off of" to replace "ousted from"? ("voted out of" is misleading, imo) ..Personally I think "ousted from" flows better but if you want to change it, no problem. We might be splitting hairs. As a side note, I can see how the "ousted from" plays into the SSCS's rebel creed. PrBeacon (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My concern is about semantics and the neutral point of view. To me, the word "ousted" has a judgmental and negative connotation. If we say that he was "voted off of" or "voted out of" the leadership body, that is clearly factual - we just need to add a high quality reference. Do you (and other editors) agree that the word "ousted" is a loaded term? Also, the article needs to be edited for consistent spelling. We've got both "organization" and "organisation" in the text. Since the group is headquartered in the USA, I favor common US spelling. Jim Heaphy (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I replaced "organisation" with "organization" throughout. Agreed with Cullen328 that we should use the phrase or verb most commonly used in published commentary. Oberonfitch (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Organization/organisation

Since the rest of the world spells it wrong (just kidding). Lets settle this just for overall improvement and consistency. The group was founded and is based in the US. Although recent coverage has focused on Australian ops they have done much much more. I leadn towards American spelling all around but it isn't a big deal. Any thoughts on what we want to use? WP:ENGVAR. Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I did change it to the American spelling (as well as companion Ops piece which had the same problem). I really don't care as long as we choose ONE spelling and stick to it. (Silly, I know!) I figured since the group is primarily based here, to use organization. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Let's keep an eye out and edit consistently. Some people get really bent out of shape with ENGVAR bt this isn't a huge concern in my eyes.Cptnono (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh heck, I just outed myself as an American. lol Oberonfitch (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bummer. We really are hated! Just don't call it soccer or admit to eating McDonald's and you should be fine. What are we doing for dates?

I'm cool with ISO 8601 dates in the refs. Any thoughts on Month DD or DD Month going forward in the body?Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be most common to use the relevant local format for dates in articles and references, but to use ISO-8601 for the accessdate field in references. That's my personal observation, anyway. And it's what I would go with for lack of any better idea. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen articles get screwed for that at GA and FA. I also would hate to be the one to adjust them all. ISO for all is OK and used often (but not solely) in highly assessed articles. I am under he impression that it has been left vague in the guidelines on purpose to prevent the need for mass changes to existing articles.

Stay American when writing it out in the body though?Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would behoove us to make a decision on these points before we go much further. And, when we get to a cite, check it and change the format, paragraph by paragraph. (If we do it a paragraph at a time, it won't seem quite so odious.) The references look as though they have been tumbled a bit. (And I am the FIRST to admit that I didn't help that at all.) Oberonfitch (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sometime in the last year or so I had gone through the references to clean them up, but when an article gets edited as frequently as this one, they can get pretty messy again pretty quick. I'll put some more work into it tonight. As for the references looking a bit "tumbled", that's also pretty much unavoidable, when there's an assortment of newspaper, academic, book and other media citations. I use templates so they're at least consistent among types, and I'm happy with that much. I wonder if it would be possible to categorize the references so that they’re more consistent at a glance.… — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally reverted one of your (2 or three) edits new name :(. Plurals do not need pipelinks and ]]s is OK. National Geographic actually printed the story so work is better than publisher since it needs italics. The SSCS/Glenn Beck thing was actually correct on your part but I removed it altogether since it didn't appear to be needed and I personally still think we need to limit pointing to their site. I'm also not a fan of the ISO to normal for date (not accessed) since I got nailed at Qwest Field for trying the same thing.Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. That was my mistake. I should have used the magazine field rather than publisher.

Anyway, the references are going to need a lot of work. Admittedly, a fair amount of that work will be to undo what I did months ago - accessdate attributes where they aren't needed (i.m.o. they should only be used with the {{cite web}} template). What I'd like to do is use the various templates (e.g. {{cite magazine}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}) in a pretty straightforward manner (trying to remember to use the proper fields like magazine, publisher and newspaper) and trust the software to order and italicize things properly. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 09:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

note- comments above^ moved from the section below. Original posts: [8] to [9] PrBeacon (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

---

<> Friendly reminder: tricky spots ^pirates/terrorists and ^butryic acid have been discussed before, above and in archived discussions. PrBeacon (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder PrBeacon. I think we just work with what we have, since at the moment there is no edit war. So the actual descriptive words should stay the same, but paragraphs balanced for flow and neutrality. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, my intent was to provide those links (&mention the archives) for any late-comers. PrBeacon (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we use bullets for copy so we can keep track of revisions.

• The organization was founded in 1977 under the name Earth Force Society by Paul Watson, an early member of Greenpeace. He left after a dispute with Greenpeace over what he saw as its lack of more aggressive intervention. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama and SSCS

2nd sentence:

"It has received support for its tactics against fishing, whaling, and seal hunting from quarters such as media personalities and the Dalai Lama, while critics have condemned the violent nature of the actions."

I have some reservations about the phrase "such as media personalities and the Dalai Lama,..." Oberonfitch (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I share your reservations about that phrase and intend to read the Dalai Lama references carefully in days to come. The time I can devote to this article is limited, but I want to compliment the other editors for collegial work of late on a potentially contentious topic. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The article now states "It has received support for its tactics against fishing, whaling, and seal hunting from quarters such as media personalities and the Dalai Lama . . ." Sometimes it is worthwhile to read the primary sources. The 9/29/1998 letter from the Dalai Lama posted on the SSCS website has four paragraphs, three of which are generally pro-environmentalism. Here's the specific SSCS reference: "I am happy to lend my support to those who, like the volunteers of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, seek to protect our oceans and our fellow creatures like the whales who live in them". I think that it's fair to say that the Dalai Lama chooses his words very carefully, as should we. I find his use of the phrase "those who, like the volunteers . . ." interesting and can't help noticing that he did not express support for SSCS staff or for their specific tactics, and did not specifically mention issues of fishing and seal hunting. Do other editors believe that the current article language accurately represents the level of support that the Dalai Lama offered SSCS? In addition, I share another editor's concerns about the phrase "media personalities". Is that appropriate encyclopedic language? Jim Heaphy (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think putting "media personalities and the Dalai Lama" (who has been successful at garnering media attention, but is among other things, a spiritual leader), is probably a bit iffy. And concur, after reading several of his books, that he is thoughtful about his speech. Tomorrow, as it is late here, I'll see if there is anything to bolster the claim. Oberonfitch (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

note- two comments above^ moved from the section below (and subsection header added a bit further above) [10] [11] for continuity PrBeacon (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added wording clarifying that the Dalai Lama expressed support for the volunteers, as opposed to the tactics. Cullen328 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

moving forward..

I'm restoring the subsection start from 3/14, moving subsequent discussion accordingly, and adjusting formatting as appropriate. Please see below for follow-up comments -PrBeacon

Personally I think the lead as a whole is too long. In the interest of brevity (and moving this forward), I echo what Ober said above about cutting down paragraphs 2+3 against redundancy. So we could just take out the "media personalities and Dalai Lama" since they're mentioned in the body text. A more particular point of contention seems to be how we phrase Watson's early involvement with Greenpeace, since we're hashing that out over at Talk:Paul Watson. I'll try to work on something for here, later today.
      On a side note, this group-writing effort may be getting scattered/sidetracked by additional threads/sections below and between. Any suggestions for working around that? if even necessary, maybe i'm overthinking it. (i've changed some sections into subsections and folded back into relevant sections, but idk yet if this works better. this whole talkpage is overly long and thus can be discouraging). PrBeacon (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What I would like to see (and what I started) was moving paragraph by paragraph through the article. Perhaps we could keep the current dialog/working paragraph at the top (novel, yes?). OR We could outline the article and put talk notes (for example the Norwegian flag discussion, the media personality discussions) under the paragraph where they fall within the article. I think bullets for the paragraph changes worked well. But, yes, difficult with people stopping in to add a word or two and then leaving, though we do seem to have a small core group. Regardless, PR, you seem to have skill with regard to organizing, and I have appreciated the work you have done to streamline things. (But won't be leaving a nice tray of whale sushi on your page as a thank you. (Still a little sick from that story. lol)) Yeah, and I concur, chop the part re: media personalities and HHDL. Oberonfitch (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, since no one else is stepping up to rewrite, I'll give it a shot -- here's my first pass at combining paragraphs 2,3 and 4, while moving the sentence about media from the lead to 2nd paragraph. At the moment I'm unable to come up with a satisfactory transition, as noted:

• The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a non-profit, marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States. The group, which is often linked to the radical environmentalism movement, uses direct action tactics to protect sealife. Sea Shepherd currently operates the vessels MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker, and most of the group's activities take place on the open seas.
• Paul Watson founded the organization in 1977 after leaving the environmental group Greenpeace. <transition here, pref. summary of history>   Sea Shepherd garners both support and criticism for its controversial activism against commercial whaling, sealing and fishing. The group also focuses on raising public awareness through media campaigns. In 2008, Animal Planet began filming the weekly series Whale Wars based on the group's encounters with the Japanese whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean. While some governments and organizations have referred to them as eco-terrorists, Sea Shepherd claims that their aggressive actions are necessary to protect endangered species.

Imo, this new second paragraph accomplishes a few things, most notably making the intro more compact and readable. I know some editors will have issues with phrasing and inclusion but, as I said, this is a rough draft. Yet we need to be careful about trying to include too much in the introduction. I would also call attention to additional discussion and past consensus (or lack thereof) on the most contentious part, accusations of terrorism: Talk:PW, Talk:PW/Archive a, and Talk:PW/Archive b as well as numerous threads in this Talk page, above and in archives. PrBeacon (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the second paragraph. It reads better, and takes care of the Dalai Lama reference, which was too specific to be in the lead. Oberonfitch (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed open seas to international waters in the article. As well as making a couple of small additions to the 2nd working paragraph above.Oberonfitch (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of it. It isn't terrible or anything but I think 2 and 3 need to be merged somehow. And the Dalai Lama thing is already a big question mark so having it in the lead seems weird. All of the Hollywood support should be mentioned though. Sourced more often and there are more details available in those sources.Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(As noted on Cptnono's talk, we have removed reference to DL and will be inserting that below.) Oberonfitch (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]
I have moved the working paragraphs to the beginning of this section because there seems to be some confusion. I think that the first two, which PrBeacon did a lot of work on, read nicely and are balanced. The third paragraph, to which I appended the "pirate" statement, (and which has caused so much consternation), needs to be cleaned up. Then I think the whole thing can replace the lead in the article, (assuming that everyone concurs). Thanks everyone who has helped with this. Oberonfitch (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• (1) The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a non-profit, marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States. The group, which is often linked to the radical environmentalism movement, uses direct action tactics to protect sealife. Sea Shepherd currently operates the vessels MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker, and most of the group's activities take place on the open seas in international waters.

• (2) Paul Watson founded the organization in 1977, initially naming it the Earth Force Society, after leaving the environmental group Greenpeace. Watson believed that more aggressive intervention was required to curtail exploitive commercial practices. Sea Shepherd garners both support and criticism for its controversial activism against commercial whaling, sealing and fishing. The group also focuses on raising raises public awareness through media campaigns. In 2008, Animal Planet began filming the weekly series Whale Wars based on the group's encounters with the Japanese whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean. While some governments and organizations have referred to them as eco-terrorists, Sea Shepherd claims that their aggressive actions are necessary to protect endangered species.

• (3) Various governments and organizations (and even members of the society) have referred to the group as pirates. Operations have included scuttling and disabling whaling vessels at harbor, intervening in Canadian seal hunts, ramming other vessels, trying to temporarily blind or disorient whalers with a laser device,[4][5] throwing bottles of foul-smelling butyric acid onto vessels at sea,[5] boarding of whaling vessels while at sea, and seizure and destruction of drift nets at sea. Sea Shepherd claims that their aggressive actions are necessary as the international community has shown itself unwilling or unable to stop species-endangering whaling and fishing practices.[6] Some governments and organizations have referred to them as terrorists.[5][7][8]

-Oberonfitch

@Ober - I liked your changes before adding the new 3rd paragraph which re-inserts some redundancy & details too minor for lead, imo. But there is still a transition issue (in paragraph 2) -- I think it too abruptly switches to general support/criticism clause. In regards to this talkpage thread, I think the format you used is too confusing for others, we had multiple edits and posts out of order chronologically. I know the alternative (to re-post each time) would mean an extra long section here, but i'd rather trust folks to just simply navigate to the end and put forth a new rewrite each time (as we did with paragraph 1). Besides, talkpage activity has been rather slow lately. Either way is a trade off, so returning to standard format may be best, afterall. Also keeping track of edits may be important down the line. You could simply make a 4th subsection here if that might help.
      @Cptnono - I dont understand your comments, on several points. We are merging 2 & 3. I chose to remove alot of the detailed stuff that seems to belong just in the body, not in the lead. One of those details was the Dalai Lama, since mentioning who supports them may not be easily agreed upon, and thus only open up more debate. Same with Hollywood. Thats my 2c anyway. I'm not married to the paragraphs as I presented them. I would like to hear more opinions. PrBeacon (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how we can make this easier to follow. Last night, I asked Cptnono to look at the revised proposed paragraph leads 1 & 2. I thought they were good. But, the last paragraph, which we had not touched, which involves the boarding of vessels, etc., was omitted, and caused some discord with him because he thought we were eliminating it. (I assure everyone that no piracy was involved. :-) By moving the paragraphs up, I was trying to facilitate people reading the section. We still have editors working on the actual article, and that is likely to cause problems when we move this section over; the longer this takes, the more problems will arise (looking into crystal ball on this one. lol). As I mentioned to Cptnono, I'm about at the end of my allotted time for this project (busy season coming up), and I'd like to see the lead finished. I agree with the changes you have made, Pr, and I thought that the 3rd paragraph (as labeled above), needs work, but not an unduly large amount. The detail about supporters, alluded to, rightly belongs in the body. Are we all in agreement? In which case, fine tuning of paragraph 3 and then transfer? Oberonfitch (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 3, on closer examination, is a mess. I think the problem with the "pirate" statement is that it is not contextualized. Clearly, these are not Somali pirates. Nor Johnny Depp. Starting the paragraph (which remember, I just lumped that first sentence in because it was orphaned) with pirates, and closing with terrorists, is probably not NPOV. Someone who got some sleep last night is welcome to take a stab at it. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is as simple as removing "While some governments and organizations have referred to them as eco-terrorists, Sea Shepherd claims that their aggressive actions are necessary to protect endangered species." from 2 and keeping the line in 3. Basically the first is a general intro and brushes on the vessels. Two is PR and Whale Wars. Three tactics and reception. The only change I would consider is swapping 2 and 3 but adding the foundation line in 1. I would add a 2 lines discussing other documentaries and journalist tag alongs and celebrity support in the PR section. Celebrity suprt could go in reception instead though. I would also consider reverting "intl waters". They historically have crossed into waters belonging to nations and I believe they have asserted that parts of the Southern Ocean are under Australian control. I would also change" claim" to "says" "believes" or "asserts" per WP:AVOID. It is just about good enough to go live now but jumps around a bit and might need tinkering with where certain lines go.Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My draft:

• The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a non-profit, marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States. The group, which is often linked to the radical environmentalism movement, uses direct action tactics to protect sealife. Paul Watson founded the organization in 1977, initially naming it the Earth Force Society, after leaving the environmental group Greenpeace. Watson believed that more aggressive intervention was required to curtail exploitive commercial practices. Sea Shepherd currently operates the vessels MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker, and most of the group's activities take place on the open seas.

• Sea Shepherd garners both support and criticism for its controversial activism against commercial whaling, sealing and fishing. Various governments and organizations (and even members of the society) have referred to the group as pirates. Operations have included scuttling and disabling whaling vessels at harbor, intervening in Canadian seal hunts, ramming other vessels, trying to temporarily blind or disorient whalers with a laser device,[4][5] throwing bottles of foul-smelling butyric acid onto vessels at sea,[5] boarding of whaling vessels while at sea, and seizure and destruction of drift nets at sea. Sea Shepherd asserts that their aggressive actions are necessary as the international community has shown itself unwilling or unable to stop species-endangering whaling and fishing practices.[6] Some governments and organizations have referred to them as terrorists.[5][7][8]

• The group also raises public awareness through media campaigns. [insert line about books, journalists joining them, and other docs here] [insert line about celebrity support here] In 2008, Animal Planet began filming the weekly series Whale Wars based on the group's encounters with the Japanese whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean.

<outdent Cptnono; Open seas, according to dictionary.com is the same as international waters, so reverting that will not fix the problem of activism in controlled waters, which is clearly an important component regarding the appeal to authority in the case of Australia and NZ operation. My feeling is that it will have to be reworded for accuracy. Oberonfitch (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Making some progress there but I still think we need to cut down, not expand. I see other similarly long articles with leads nearly half this size -- especially in featured articles. In this lead the second paragraph seems bloated with the list of operations (third sentence). Does it really need to be that detailed?

Suggested improvement (changes in bold):

• Sea Shepherd garners both support and criticism for their extreme activism against commercial whaling, sealing and fishing. Because of the group's extralegal methods of interference, various governments and organizations (and even its own members) have referred to the group as pirates or eco-terrorists. Their operations include ramming, disabling and scuttling ships as well as other forms of sabotage. Sea Shepherd asserts that these controversial actions are necessary as the international community has shown itself unwilling or unable to save endangered species.

I recognize that some of those phrases may be too heavy-handed or dense, time will tell. I removed the parts that seem awkward, clumsy, or redundant.

To resolve the issue of 'open seas' vs. 'int'l waters' -- we could leave out that clause altogether since the group has "Sea" in its name and many of actions described in p2 are all water based.

Stylistically we might want to avoid repeating some of the arguable adjectives. Since the first paragraph has radical, aggressive, intervention and exploitive, I've avoided those words in p2. Personally I think the terms aggressive, controversial, extreme, extralegal and radical are somewhat interchangeable. As are intervention, interference and sabotage, separately of course.

On an organizational note, should we make a new section below? ..something like "Finalizing lead section." PrBeacon (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think extreme can come out, since you cover it with "extralegal," and a list of tactics. I'm okay with taking out the comment on open waters, (the seal operation was on ice, right?) and is covered in the body. As for sections, how about a subheading with FINAL LEAD. Oberonfitch (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Open seas". D'oh. That makes sense that it is the same thing.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Final Lead

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a non-profit, marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States. The group, which is often linked to the radical environmentalism movement, uses direct action tactics to protect sealife. Paul Watson founded the organization in 1977, initially naming it the Earth Force Society, after leaving the environmental group Greenpeace. Watson believed that more aggressive intervention was required to curtail exploitive commercial practices. Sea Shepherd currently operates the vessels MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker, and most of the group's activities take place on the open seas.

Sea Shepherd garners both support and criticism for their extreme activism against commercial whaling, sealing and fishing. Because of the group's extralegal methods of interference, various governments and organizations (and even its own members) have referred to the group as pirates or eco-terrorists. Their operations include ramming, disabling and scuttling ships as well as other forms of sabotage. Sea Shepherd asserts that these controversial actions are necessary as the international community has shown itself unwilling or unable to save endangered species.

The group also raises public awareness through media campaigns. [insert line about books, journalists joining them, and other docs here] [insert line about celebrity support here] In 2008, Animal Planet began filming the weekly series Whale Wars based on the group's encounters with the Japanese whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean.

I think this is a huge improvement. Only the 3rd para needs some help, but could go in minus the insertions. Feelings, everyone? Oberonfitch (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I was waiting for others to weigh in, guess we're on slow cycle atm. As you suggested earlier, switching 'extreme' and 'controversial' in p2 is fine with me, and may even read better. We might be able to keep p3 short with a simple clause added to the first sentence about media. I think celebrity support is already covered indirectly with the ships' names in p1. PrBeacon (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would go ahead and make the change. It can be reverted if necessary; I think it is a huge improvement over what is there. I have no time to work on this at the moment. Back as work permits.  :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations

It has been suggested that Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Dkchana (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That content was too long so it was recently spun out. However, this articles summary of it in this article is still too short which is a big concern.Cptnono (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Supporter User Template

{{Sea Shepherd Support}}☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of the logo off of the article is more than likely infringement. You need another image that does not require a fair use rationale or the template needs to be speedily deleted. WP:LOGO and WP:IUP.Cptnono (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that since the banner basically serves as a link back to the article, and contains article information, it should be viewed as fair use. Not only that, but at the size that it is, it would be considered a "thumbnail" which is also fair use.☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 02:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Linking back to the article does not make it fair use. And WP:NFCC states: "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions" I don't see thumbnails mentioned as an exemption to this anywhere. Can you point me to it?Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Its fair use under US Law which is also represented in the wiki article on fair use: Thumb Nails are Fair Use, especially considering the circumstances in how this thumbnail was used, there should be no question that it is used properly. ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 03:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Questionable since "...under very strict and limited conditions. This interpretation of fair use, in regards to thumbnail images, applies when thumbnails are used in an indexing system." Regardless, uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Wikipedia policy on non-free content. I will open up something at Wikipedia:Non-free content review to double check.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.png Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I will also just write Sea Shepherd and have them grant wikipedia full access to their logo. I presume that this would be the best way of doing things? Or if you read their webpage it says that the copyright only applies to "commercial" use. Wikipedia is not commercial use. ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 04:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It still needs to be released for commercial use. Take a look at the links provided for you. There is the OTRS system so if they are willing to release it then sweet.Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have a chance. I think it's well established on Wikipedia that logos may never be used except on articles that are directly about the owner of the logo. I remember that an editor was blocked in the past for persistently ignoring this because he disagreed. Hans Adler 11:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

File:MV Steve Irwin Melbourne.jpg is kind of cool and might be a decent alternative.Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Could someone (who's better at wiki code than me) please fix this section so that the template graphic doesn't run over the archive box? And/or fix the archive box, it's overly long -- some way to list the archives more than one per line? -PrBeacon (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Did some things to it. Better or worse?--Terrillja _talk 22:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Better, thanks. I'd still like to see the archive list smaller or in 2 columns, but it's no big deal. I'll keep looking for the right code. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Could also put the template in a collapsible table, remove it since we have the wikilink, or wait for the thread to archive.Cptnono (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

POV tag removed

Hi all

I have hidden the POV tag in the "Organisation" section "media relations" and put the message:

"This section is about the organisation of the group and how it uses media relations. This POV tag is continuously placed here when it should perhaps simply point to the section "controversy" below where all negative media coverage (supported by facts) is MORE than welcome:"

There is plenty of negative comment in there already:-

it shows him making up truths "Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently"
it shows his disdain for the media "He also states that the "truth is irrelevant" due the nature of mass media."

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

SPOILER ALERTS NEEDED

Like the mention of the sinking of the Ady Gil. That episode has not aired yet (as of this post) and now it's spoiled. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER. --Terrillja _talk 21:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it was spoiled before we/WP discussed it. Major news coverage will do that occasionally. And isn't it in one of the teaser promos for this season, anyway? -PrBeacon (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Never seen any news, not in my area anyway, and no, none of the promotional footage showed the boat getting hit or sinking. either way a spoiler alert system would be nice for those people that may not have known (like this case.) I am sure I am not the only one that did not know. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I hear you. Sometimes it is annoying. Unfortunately, WP:SPOILER is clear. In this case, the Ady Gil getting smashed was shown in the intro to the first episode so it was already spoiled.Cptnono (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead change (thread revived)

I'm reviving this from archived discussions since no action was taken, yet.

Final Lead

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a non-profit, marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States. The group, which is often linked to the radical environmentalism movement, uses direct action tactics to protect sealife. Paul Watson founded the organization in 1977, initially naming it the Earth Force Society, after leaving the environmental group Greenpeace. Watson believed that more aggressive intervention was required to curtail exploitive commercial practices. Sea Shepherd currently operates the vessels MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker, and most of the group's activities take place on the open seas.
Sea Shepherd garners both support and criticism for their extreme activism against commercial whaling, sealing and fishing. Because of the group's extralegal methods of interference, various governments and organizations (and even its own members) have referred to the group as pirates or eco-terrorists. Their operations include ramming, disabling and scuttling ships as well as other forms of sabotage. Sea Shepherd asserts that these controversial actions are necessary as the international community has shown itself unwilling or unable to save endangered species.
The group also raises public awareness through media campaigns. [insert line about books, journalists joining them, and other docs here] [insert line about celebrity support here] In 2008, Animal Planet began filming the weekly series Whale Wars based on the group's encounters with the Japanese whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean.

I think this is a huge improvement. Only the 3rd para needs some help, but could go in minus the insertions. Feelings, everyone? Oberonfitch (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I was waiting for others to weigh in, guess we're on slow cycle atm. As you suggested earlier, switching 'extreme' and 'controversial' in p2 is fine with me, and may even read better. We might be able to keep p3 short with a simple clause added to the first sentence about media. I think celebrity support is already covered indirectly with the ships' names in p1. PrBeacon (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would go ahead and make the change. It can be reverted if necessary; I think it is a huge improvement over what is there. I have no time to work on this at the moment. Back as work permits.  :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

-PrBeacon (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Testimony before Congress - clarification

In the section "Activism" subheading "controversy," the article states. "In testimony on "The Threat of Eco-Terrorism" given to the US Congress in 2002, Sea Shepherd is the first group mentioned for having "attacked commercial fishing operations."" First, the sentence is clunky because it is written in passive voice (i.e. who said this?). The speaker was James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, who was testifying before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. Sea Shephard is mentioned only once, and simply states that it cut fishing nets. The context of the quotation does not match what is implied, and violates NPOV.

I suggest the following, if the statement is to be included at all: "In testimony on "The Threat of Eco-Terrorism" before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, FBI counterterrorism official James F. Jarboe mentioned Sea Shepherd's "cutting of drift nets" in 1977 as an "attack [on] commercial fishing operations" that was followed by an increasing number of acts of eco-terrorism." I think that gets closer to a NPOV, but would like input before changing the article. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.166.193 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It was more than a mention. He points to it being the first act of eco-terrorism. I do agree that ti should be clear that they were not bombing anything with that attack though.Cptnono (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually they HAD use bombs to sink ships. That's what got them the label. They had also used mines on several occasions as well. PLEASE restore the info. Looks like the articles been whitewashed in favor of eco-terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Characterization of SSCS

Terrorism (from meriam-webster.com): "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". Repeated attacks on whaling ships, including use of laser beams and acid harmful to their crews, satisfy this description. Furthermore, as stated in the 'Controversy' section, SSCS has been investigated and reported as 'Eco terrorism' and 'Single Issue Terrorism' by more than one government, citations 57-58.

Piracy (from meriam-webster.com): "an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery". Multiple paragraphs on the page cite seizure of drift nets, which matches the definition.

Vigilantes (from meriam-webster.com): "a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justic". Again, see contents of the 'Controversy' group, and citations 52-55.

If you feel that any of these three terms is inappropriately used to characterize SSCS, please explain why. From my perspective, they do not add or change the content of page, but merely use established and well-understood terms of the English language to describe actions performed by SSCS for which proper references have already been provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.210.18 (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that describe them as terrorists, pirates, or vigilantes? Recently, for instance, the use of the word "eco-terrorism" was added to the article because an FBI report included them in that category. However, for a contentious and highly emotional words like "terrorism," we need to rely only on what reliable sources say. It doesn't matter what you or I think about SSCS, it matters what we can verify others have said. For example, you say that "multiple paragraphs cite the seizure of drift nets;" do those citations use the word piracy? If they do, we can look for ways to work these terms into the article. But we can't just assign the labels ourselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Eco-terrorist has been a frequently used word to describe the actions of Paul Watson. I see that all references have been removed from "governmental respose" where governmental figures have described members as such. I hope someone restores that section to include all the that again. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

seeing as they dont take drift nets, they destroy them, that takes out your reasonin g for piracy. the onlythings theyve ever profitied from at sea, to my knowledge, is salvaging some stuff off a lost bouy, as mentioned on there website. the "acid" you refer to is rotten butter, and is less acidi than oragne juice so it cant really arm you, except it smells bad and maybe slight eye iratation, but you have to put it right in your eyes for that. vigalantes is somwhat appropriate, though it tends to conjur thoughs of old-west style law enforce ment so im not sure if thats apropriate. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

They refer to themselves as pirates. Others refer to themselves as terrorists. The group has sunk many ships of people they disagree with. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

dali lama mention in header incorrect

it says that he critisized them for there violent actions. he did NOT. he said he still suports there mission but "their (activities) should be non-violent". as they do, that needs to be fixed. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

er... The title of the article is Dalai Lama criticises anti-whaling protesters. Regardless, neither is needed in the lead and the quote "...their activities should be stopping" conflicts with Watson's attempt to make it look like he supports them. There is also a violation of WP:HOWEVER. And ramming other vessels is typically considered violent but we can keep our personal opinions out of this.Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

which makes that comment unesseary unless you wantyed to spark a flame war. im not even gonna get into that disagreement though 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 12:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

place all negative sounding info in "Controversy" please. Let's keep this positive!

Really? We can do better folks. This article sounding really POV as a whole. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

agreed. people are trying to slip in things to make them sound like terrorist left and right. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Right? LIke those pesky FBI reports, Japanese officials and Australian politicians... what do they know. Sailors should be able to blow up people's ships without having all this mudslinging. [/sarcasm] In seriousness, I don't see how they could not seem like terrorist after blowing up ships. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy surrounds the group. That is reflected. And no, keeping it positive would go against neutrality standards.Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It was sarcasm :) but I'm glad to see someone disagree. Actually, why is the FBI report tucked away with other things in the "controversy" section rather than in the governmental response section where it should be? Care to fix? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! I was wondering if your IP was compromised or something!Cptnono (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC) In the perfect world we wouldn't have that section at all and all of the info would be dispersed throughout but the Operations section was too large so not sure if it is possible.Cptnono (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You know.. we seasonally get rid of the pro/con sections and they always seem to creep back in don't they? :) I use the size of a pro/con section as a rough guide as to when I should step in agiain. ;) 68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)