Wikipedia

Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archive 9

< Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Oberonfitch in topic Label of "Pirate" and "Terrorist"
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 13

In use/remodeling template

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Just because things got screwy, thought we might want to touch base here.

  • 220.101.28.25 said on my talk that he had some work undone
  • Ingolfson has also been kicking ass and taking names as well
  • I adjusted the layout

I suspect that there were some copy and paste edits so I wanted to get everyone clear on what they were trying to do. I want to try a change of layout to see what people think. Ingolfson didn't mention the change in his edit summary (if it was meant to be reverted than that is completely OK, too) How about you guys?Cptnono (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was working in my own little corner of the universe (which for a moment intersected with this article ;-), so not sure in what way I can assist. What kind of layout change are you intending? Ingolfson (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all. My last major edit was adjusting the categorization layout into a chronological layout with this. I made another couple afterwords reverting "ecoterrorism" and another in the infobox. You did this with an edit summary of "Correcting to show first page of ref, and clarifying protest of who". 220.101.28.25 said on my page that he lost some work. Was your last edit a copy and paste from a previous version? I think that is what happened but am not sure. Cptnono (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my perhaps clumsy typing (or use of tense), it was NOT friend Ingolfson that 'deleted' my cite corrections (& other edits), it was another editor @ about 06:00 UTC. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I just assumed and couldn't tell from the history. No blame anywhere (unless it was me than I suck). Are you talking about 6:05 or 6:12? It should be a quick fix if so. Let me know which one of yours is to be in and we'll figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)6:05. Checked my edit list, and looks like I took about 2 hours to figure out what happened to the SSCS edits I made in the 2-3 hours before that. HERE seems to be the 'problem'. Done with Good Faith i'm sure, BUT everything (I did) back to 2:49 appears to be gone! Humble apologies to Ingolfson if I gave anyone the wrong impression. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I pointed a maybe finger at Ingolfson just because we were all editing the same time. You're fine. The edit before that was [1] which doesn't look major. I was going to just copy and paste from the difference screen. Are you sure all of the work is lost? If so, we can copy and paste it back in from the diffs.Cptnono (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it!. Yeh, figured we can copy and paste. Just should not be necessary. I also tend to edit off-line and often keep a copy of what I do. :) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Poo

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

An IP left a strongly worded comment on his opinion of this article. He didn't leave a mention as to what needs to be improved. I personally feel it is 1000x better than a mirror of the SSCS page with a focus on Whale Wars. That doesn't mean it is good. The article has tons of info but it should be organized. Any thoughts on the next step?Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does appear to be getting a bit messy. I've tagged the "Vessels" section for minor expansion. (a couple of sentences at most as per the tag) Information on the Bob Barker and sinking of the Ady Gil needs to be cleaned up. Another issue is date formats. With date unlinking, there are a lot of ISO dates in citations. {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}} and MOS state that these should be in the same, consistent format throughout the article which, for this article, should be US dates. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we use Australian spelling oddly enough. I don't really care either way. So go with it written out (Month DD, YYYY)? Big news with both the sinking and the Bob Barker. That should be easy enough to add (hopefully).Cptnono (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If we're using Oz spelling we should be using Oz dates as well. Like you I don't care either way, as long as it's consistent. We also need to look at splitting the article. At 88KB it's getting a bit large. I'd suggest splitting out operations. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the guideline, that is only readable text so we are well under the history's count. It is long and only going to get longer though over time though. I was thinking of a separate article in a timeline format some time ago instead of that section.Cptnono (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I have expanded "Vessels" section as per AussieLegends' tag with text swiped borrowed from Earthrace. My references & inserts are a bit rough, and it may have more text than necessary. Edit as you wish! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The layout could also be adjusted. Right now it is grouped by type but it might look better if it was 

5 Operations
* 5.1 1979–1989
* 5.2 1990–1999
* 5.3 2000–

Cptnono (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just changed it back to chronological prose instead of having it categorized by operational type. Also, it is at about 48k readable prose at the moment.Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Uhm Cptnono, I'm not automatically opposed to a remodel along the lines of chronology rather than campaigns and issues. However, as it stands, you have thrown together massively large subsections, which I consider too big and unwieldy. The operations 2000- section especially has no structure left at all (and I am not sure that putting in subheadings like "2008", "2009" etc... will do it either), and I am tempted to ask for a reversion felt that I should reverse, to be honest. If you would like to give this another try, can we do it in a subpage instead? I could see a hybrid working - i.e. sort by year chronology, with subheadings (or longer titles like "2010 - Waltzing Mathilda anti-whaling campaign") discussing the current campaigns for that year - Sea Shepherd seems to only do one or two different things a year. Ingolfson (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
There was enough negative feedback to the current layout that I thought I would try it out. I personally like the style you reverted to. If anyone wants to do a layout here (just list some subsections) we could take that and do a subpage pretty easily to hammer it out.Cptnono (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Tinkered with refs. Threw dates into ISO format (common enough on Wikipedia and takes the ENGVAR out of the equation). Marked a couple dead links. Marked a couple promotional links. Removed a primary source that was not needed. work v publish + links might still need to be addressed.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To Sink or Not to Sink

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Appears that there is now doubt the Ady Gill has Sunk! Quoting 86.139.39.189 "[2] appears to be a tacit admission of abandonment and perhaps assumption of sinking" .. "The most recent news I can find is from one hour ago, and again notes the vessel as abandoned but not sunk - [3]" --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

All sources in the last hour say it has sunk. [4]
Farewell Ady Gill ! Channel 9 News Sydney concurs that it HAS sunk! (& please sign your posts!) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey screw you IP! :) (oops)Cptnono (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It must be bobbing up and down as Earthrace currently says abandoned ie. still floating. What a problem! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Or abandoned as in beyond repair so they just left it so they could return to the whaling fleet and its current status is either unknown or inconsequential.--Terrillja talk 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article split

Latest comment: 14 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

Moved from another section--Terrillja talk 02:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC) So an editor just made a bold edit and I personally don't like it. If we are going to split it off we should split it off (ie, just mention the types of ops not specific ones). The new edit gives weight to certain aspects and not others. Several refs were left orphaned also. Any thoughts? I'm considering undoing it until we have consensus.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ops needed to be split off. It was huge and will only get bigger. As far as the types/examples, I wanted to include some detail and not split off everything so someone can get an idea what they have done, then follow the link and read the in depth descriptions if they want to. As for the refs, I'm waiting for AnomieBot to fix the refs, it will go and find the orphaned refs. Look at what it did on the ops article. Vessels will be split soon as well and an article on Neptune's navy will be created. It took me a while to do, I hope you discuss before you revert it.--Terrillja talk 00:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Well the refs already suck so it isn't that bad! I just can't see detailing some instances and not others. Instead of having a bloated article it is now not thorough. To remedy that, I suggest removing all of the individual ops (some of them will still get mention in other sections) and have the operations section be the first paragraph of the previous subsections (overviews of whaling, seals, fish, and Galapagos). It will look clean, too. It is too choppy as is and I can't get over only highlighting half the ops.Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
And what makes a "top" point. I thin we are asking for WP:RECENTISM and bickering over weight sometime down the line.Cptnono (talk)00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
As promised: [5] The only section that had any sort of summary was whaling. the others had no overview, so I'm not sure what "first paragraph" you are referring to. They would have to be created. I'd be fine with merging some of the sections together but I think we do need to address recent operations in one way or another. Let's leave this for a few days and see what others say/do.--Terrillja talk 01:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You are a little mistaken there. A couple main section has a summarizing paragraph. This was shows in this version of the page. It would be really easy to expand off of that. regardless, I don't see how your recent change can work. Good idea but just not enough ripped out.

Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored it. A couple orphaned refs from the recent work. Your other edits were kept. Not trying to edit war. Just trying to get it right since several people have thoughts on how to do this.Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
So you feel that we should ignore Russia, the Makah, Iceland and Norway? As I said, only whaling has any sort of summary (which does not mention the whaling other than Japan's), fishing focuses on the Galapagos and sealing does not have any sort of summary. So back to where we were, there are no current summaries which address all the operations.--Terrillja talk 02:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
My other edits were not kept. You undid the work I had just done to expand the references. The ones you were just complaining about because they were all bare. Complain about how they are an issue and then undo my work at fixing them. How does that make sense?--Terrillja talk 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Chill out. Stop being angry about a layout change. I copy and pasted the OPs section so yes anything there was lost. Your work to Vessels and stuff wasn't touched.
I think it should all be in or it should all be split. Who are we to say what is important. We give a good summary in the ops section and split everything out is a decent option. Cherry picking what to keep won't work. Not trying to hurt your feelings so don't turn this into some fight.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It has to be split in one way or another, it's too long as is and will only get longer. The logical thing to do would have been to keep discussing how to write the ops section of the article as was happening. Why you all of a sudden decided to stop working at that and revert everything is a mystery. Either way I won't be touching anything else on this article that needs to be fixed (multiple instances of the same ref, cleanup, etc) until this circus is over. Love getting a kick in the pants when I take initiative.--Terrillja talk 03:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You are taking the revert completely the wrong way. I echoed exactly what you are saying up above. I feel that if we are going to split it we need to split more. You mentioned knee jerk, that is how you are coming across. Your initiative is awesome. I just think the edit sucked. Look at the history. I made a major change. It was reverted by another editor. I appreciate that since if he thought it sucked then we should try another option. If you want to go away for now then fine. No sweat of my back. You shouldn't feel obligated to. Make your proposal and we'll see what is up.Cptnono (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the split - As I noted, I am in favour of a split, though for now I have actually gone and reverted another editor who placed a link to what User:Terrillja had created. Mainly because I had since done more work (including better chronology) on the main article space' operations section, so the Terrillja separate ops article would actually be a little older as iteration in some regards.

Are you guys happy to let me have a go at another split, or does Terrillja or you, Cptnono, want to do it? As before, I think we can really remove pretty much 90% from the main article, and then readd SMALL bits until we all are happy. But in the end, the main article should just have a quick summaries, I find. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If the changed page is not live yet, can you direct me to where it is ?
If there is not another non live page, how about creating a subpage of the main and then we can see how it looks there ?
Chaosdruid (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
It was just created before everything was sorted out. It is in the mainspace already.
In regards to the scope, I think we should keep only a summarizing paragraph of each type of action. Certain things could work there way back in. For example, response to a particular event could be readded to the controversy or support sections.
The ToC is much better in my opinion. We were under the threshold of readable text last time I checked the numbers. Although it is long, we don't have to make the change. I do lean towards it, though. Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I found it, it was at the bottom of the page as a "see also" - SSCS operations I believe
I agree that it doesnt need to be done, yet similarly I believe it could do with it.
Also, I changed section on vessels to include the smaller boats
two ships, the MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker as well as smaller vessels such as Delta RHIB and Zodiac [[Inflatable_boat|inflatables]. The
Chaosdruid (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
And I have cleaned that up, a Zodiac is a brand of RHIB and "Delta" was what SSCS called their boat, it's not a brand and was confusing as written.--Terrillja talk 05:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but you are mistaken, the DELTA is a make DELTA manufacturers of RHIB used by many armed forces and rescue services - the one in use is prob a SOLAS class. The odiac is a RIB and not an RHIB as it only has a hard bottom, not hull. You can check that out here Chaosdruid (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I could have sworn that I read something somewhere else about the RHIB/RIBs used and it was manufactured by a different company. Looking online it looks like it may be a delta surveillance boat, I'll have to figure out where that small craft article I read was. And really, you should know better than to cite wikipedia in terms of the zodiac. clearly a rigid hulled zodiac brand RHIB.--Terrillja talk 08:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Cont on your discussion page..Chaosdruid (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Split take 2

I have split the article again and left a clean slate on this article, add back as needed. Any comments on the ops article should be posted on that talkpage, I will work at getting the archivebot setup and converting bare references soon.--Terrillja talk 05:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Public support section reinstated but Criticism Not??

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

This article has once again drifted into pro-SSCS territory. Any critism on this page has been removed or followed with a quick uncited counter-argument (as in the intro). Back when the critisism/support sections were removed we took great pains to make sure all the info was contained in the main body of the text. Now I see the "support" section is reinstated but not the critism section. Either we go neutral all the way by not presenting punch/counter punch sections or we go all the way and present both sides. I'm adding NPOV tag until this is explored and resolved. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure most of that is in "Controversial tactics".--Terrillja talk 02:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. For every fluffy comment of support by celebrities, you can find opposing comments from experts in the fields of sea research, international politics, etc.. We used to have the opposing sections but it was really lame so we integrated the important parts into the article.. now, hald of the really lame section is back. What do you propose we do? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well if you go back and find a revision that covers what you feel was better, that might help. From what I see, the last time you edited the article, it had the same format except operations was in the article, it has now been split. So was it fine then or are you looking to go a year back?--Terrillja talk 02:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is not pro-SSCS, it is very neutral. I think the tag should be removed, there is plenty about the bad side in controversial tactics.
There is no consensus that the article is non-neutral as far as I can see..Chaosdruid (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Plus the article is pretty similar to the WWF and Greenpeace articles, if anyting the controversy section is much bigger in SSCS Chaosdruid (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I just checked the two articles you quoted (former WWF and Greenpeace) and both DO have a critisism section, so I agree with your premise that we should take up simmilar endeavors and have on here as well. Also, if there is a major problem with an artile, there does not need be consensus to call it out. I don't think any seasoned wiki editor could call the "public reception" section neutral or encyclopedicly balanced.
The Ops section was removed (decent idea in my opinion). The next step is reinstating certain lines in the tactics section. It actually shouldn't be that big of a project.Cptnono (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no problem with the ops being on a separate page. It makes sense. But to say get all the positive info here and all the negative info elsewhere doesn't fly here. :) Thanks for understanding.
So I see two possible solutions (perhaps both should be done) one, come up with some sort of importance test to prevent the "public support" section from taking over the entire article. 2, reinstate a "public critisism" section. Also, I changed the name of "public support" to "public reception reaction" or something like that so that we can easily put the opinions (both positive and negative) into that section based on whatever criteria of notabillity this community decides. THe only thing I think that would be irresponsible would be to create a section for all the positive things we can dig up from every corner of the internet without applying the same effort to the negatie opinion. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC) edit: Tj came up with the word reception. Kudos. It's better than reaction.

So far, the way you all have been treating the "public" section is that any celebrity with a favorable opinion of SSCS gets a line in that section. So I'm asking each of you that commented above if you believe that's a good way to handle that suggstion. Is that what we as a community want for that section? That fame + opinion of SSCS needs a line there? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. That was the other editor from a couple months ago. It looked to me like it was a response to the negative aspects detailed in the Ops section and th e contraversey section. I actually tagged some of it for link spam since he was putting in sales based pages.Cptnono (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should do these simple steps ?
Delete the header "Public reception" to make those paras part of "Public relations" - as most of them refer to successful public relations including the celebs etc.
I have done a quick version here - see what you think...
Chaosdruid (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Then you go into WP:UNDUE. I think the better way to go is to pare down the reception section to relevant entities, broadly interpreted to be people who are notable and have made deals or actions that the media covered. Things like Bob Barker, the Quiksilver partnership, LUSH, thinks of that relevance.--Terrillja talk 01:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the example if you wouldnt mind having a look...here
As for entering undue - i dont see how that would be.Chaosdruid (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about undue. I think the citations tagged with linkspam need to go but part of making a good article is making it thorough. I personally don't think a few of the people in the support section are worth mentioning. However, if someone said that about some of the mentions in the controversy section I think I would be against it. I guess I am trying to look at it from both angles and would hate to set a precedent of trimming out information others may find interesting. Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see why that was tagged with linkspam. If many bands did that, I would understand, but it seems that only these two bands raised money for Sea Shepherd. I think that's worthy of mention. Pikolas (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I tagged it as link spam based on "Place Spam link after an external link that seems to be spam (i.e., which appears to promote a website, product or individual)."Cptnono (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Public Support / Criticism sections work well as balance points for articles, and so if the overall tone of this article is overly positive, maybe it should contain a Criticism section, and if the overall tone is overly negative, maybe it should contain a Public Support section. — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

POV tags

Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

I have removed the two tags which were placed in the body of the article. It only needs one pov tag per article, the others are unecessary, and should have been section pov tags if needed at all.

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a whiz with tags. Please replace the POV tag with the appropriate section tag. If you notice, the public reception section is nothing but positives despite many pretty and famous people who have choice words against the SSCS. This is the main problem with the articles POV. So plz, replace them until we get this sorted out.--68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
THe POV tag is for the article - all of it. You will need to place section tags if you feel they are appropriate. The only thing to bear in mind is that you could help by showing what "negatives" you feel should be in. Maybe you can also put them in the article ? At the moment all we have is that you don't like they way it is and feel there should be more criticism included.
Alternatively you could start the criticism section
Chaosdruid (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Criticism sections are frowned upon. It was tagged and removed awhile ago.Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah - p**h - k - criticism section removed from my exampl...Chaosdruid (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
@chaos the section specific POV issue is in the public opinion section where we link every positive opinion supplied by a celebrity to the article while not including negative opinions. Would you mind replacing the tag you removed? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Swapped themCptnono (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone found the correct tags :¬)
If something negative isn't written I suppose we will remove the tags after an amount of time ?
Consensus seems to be that there is not that much negative to write, but that the sections could be reduced. I personally cannot justify all the names of people and bands being included under public response, but I could see most of them under public relations as they demonstrate the aim of SSCG in fund raising. Also they are not really the "public".
THe "Governmental response" section is not really about response either ?!?! (unless under the contraversial tactics section, which is in fact what they are responses to)
I feel that it is possible that the editor who is placing the neutrality tags is not contributing to solutions. You really must provide us with some negatives to include. (and please do not include comments from "pretty" people (your prev message "many pretty and famous people"), they are usually blonde and not that intelligible notable)
Chaosdruid (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're funny. :) I contributed tons allready before you got here. I also helped work some of the negative opinion back into the article so we could remove the critisism and support sections. But then alot of the negative info got removed and the support section reappeared. I might do the work again.. or I might just sit on the side line and complain about the article until someone else does. :) I nominate you. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is what you get for sticking with the IP, Everyone assumes you are just a schmuck! :) Cptnono (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Lol - before i got here ... my first reading was in December 2007. I believe your first edit was in July 2009 ? AFter that series of edits, from 3rd July on by a couple of editors, was when I started watching the page more intently. I watched all the goings-on with some amazement - mostly on how well you all seemed to discuss without fighting.
AS for my serious points in my previous post though - yes I would love to do that work for you neutrality, but some clues as to the location of these negativities would be so much more helpful...I have spent a couple of hours looking through google searches only to find three main negatives - the IWC, Greenpeace and the Japanese all of which are already mentioned in the article
Chaosdruid (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
@Cpt, lol I know, I know. @ Chaos, how could you know when my first edit was? I'm a person who almost never logs in and travels frequently. Regardless, I didn't mean to start a pissing match and I appologize for the bits where I got snarky, thanks for reponding positively. One conundrum I've been pondering is as follows.. if I do my own research I can easily quantify public reaction to the SSCS by perusing blogs and forums. One can plainly see an out pouring of both extreme devotion and condemnation. The blogosphere is full of folks who'd like to get their hands on Mr.Watson for a number of reason. Now, my own research, we all know, has little to no value on the face of the page but we all do our own reseach to be able to speak of an issue intelligently, right? Anyway because we all know what's out there and want it presented encyclopedically, the task is finding it documented in some official capacity. So far I've found lot's of web pages of varying officiality/notabillity that note the phenomenon of people reacting negatively. One such page is Waton's own blog where he notes a great deal of negative reaction in forums and even blames it on the japanese government. :) (he says you can tell because us folks with horrendous english skills must be japs.) While blogs are usually non-notable I think his blog may qualify for notabillity within this context. I'm sure other news sources SOMEWHERE must make mention of it but google searches of "Sea Shepard Blog" usually don't produce newsworthy hits. ;) They're out there though.
OK, I think we can use [[6]] it's a CSMonitor review of the south park episode that critisize the SSCS for their violence, media manipulation and dishonesty. CSMonitor is notable. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's some commentary from FOX news displaying some notable common negative public opinion of him. [[7]]
Here's a fourth one we could use, it's notable and demonstrates negative public opinion. [[8]]
Some notable public critisism about SSCS finances: [[9]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

On the governmental side, I think summarizing or listing a few key official stances and statements would be pertinent. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we restate the issue? Why do people feel a POV tag is (still) required? Personally, I can see the tag on "Public relations", that sounds a bit gushing. But on "Public reception"? Notable people expressing their support? How is that POV? Not SSCS (or Wikipedia's) fault, if no celebrities have said "I really hate their guts, they should all be imprisoned."

In short, my opinion would be to rewrite (or remove and distribute into governance ect... where applicable) the "Public relations" section, but remove the POV tab on the "public reception". Ingolfson (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably the most obvious problem with the section is that only positive public reception has been included by editors despite a wealth of negative reception out there. This demonstrates our collective POV bias toward. I would not mind a rewrite or reorganization of any of the sections as long as it included notable material from all sides rather than the side we're most representing, and as long as the categories were organized in a logical fashion (I kinda like the organization of it right now, I just think we shouldn't isolate positive or negative POVs to unique subsections). Peace & Happy editing. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed POV tag for media section

I do not think there was any issue with this section, did anyone find our presentation of info to be biased? I think it shows the notable expert opinions on the matter well. I've removed the tag. Please correct me if I'm wrong and we can toss it back up. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Hmm.. did I screw that up? The public reception section still needs help to neutralise. It's still just all praise. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

? You said there was not an issue, now you are saying there is ? I think you should toss it back down :¬)
I do not know what your issue with this is, apart from changing your mind on something that hasnt changed since you removed the tag
Chaosdruid (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

History Section

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Does the history section need expansion or would a redirection to the operations article with a summary here do? I forsee duplication if we get carried away with history. Thoughts? --199.178.222.252 (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe we need to summarize the Ops article here ASAP. I have been holding back because I am lazy, don't want to screw it up, and am curious to see what others come up with. My thoughts are a basic paragraph for each style of ops (anti seal hunting, anit whaling, anti whatever else). It should be sparse enough that the reader needs to click on the link to the sub article. I believe we will fall into the pit of WP:RECENTISM if we handle it differently. We could always bring back the ops section but I understand that it was bloated (full of awesome information not found anywhere else so easily on the internet by the way :) ). Cptnono (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
No, lets not bring back the ops section - it is ong, but it is very useful ON ITS OWN. We should keep this article history section short and succinct, concentrating on the broad actions, not on whoever protested what when with which ship. Otherwise, we will soon have a bastard twin of the ops article here again. Ingolfson (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Should summarize the scope of their actions though. Three or so line paragraphs for seals, fish, and whales? Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be the thrust of their activities. Though we don't need to split it in the same way as in "operations". I think the history section should try to follow chronology (they haven't been much active against sealing recently, for example, so any discussion of them in the 2000s for example should concentrate on that etc...) Ingolfson (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It gets less press, but they were active against the Canadians as recently as 2008 (when there ship was commandeered). Their dolphin stuff in Japan was as recent as '06. They also have ongoing media campaigns. It is hard to do chronologically since they are busy with different stuff throughout the year. Any thoughts on how to address it? We could try: "Since 19xx, SSCS has blank." in each paragraph to give it some sort of chronological flow.Cptnono (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Balance of the article

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

AS it stands now it seems to me that 20-25% of the text of the body of the article is the sub-section "controversy"

It is perhaps important to remember that once the article is taken to other sites and published it mnay not contain any of the links to main articles.

I suggest either a slight expansion of the summary of operations or a reduction of controversy by including it in the same main article and a smaller summary left in this.

I also comment you all on reaching an agreement on the lede - you have all spent many days on it and probably need some rest ! :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that WAY more of 20-25% of the notable expert opinion and media coverage is focused on the controversy. So for us to focus less on it than the rest of humanity by reducing the ammount of controversy may be undo wieght. Still adding more, well sourced info on any of it would be beneficial. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Over 200 lines of text have been removed from the section to a new article. This is summarised into two sentences.
It is my opinion that more of the operations article should be summarised to re-balance that section.
I do not mind that the controversy is so big, but if you are right, there should be 3 times more on the operations summary than there is in the controversy...
Chaosdruid (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this is an issue of having moved the operations section that still needs to be resolved. It might also be an issue with how we are naming the sections. BTW, Check the news today. More drama. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you are right on. The Ops section needs a summary and the headings could be tinkered with. Speaking of Ops, the last news before todays incident was their upcoming trip to the Mediterranean to stop fishing. It is more than just whales for them. Hopefully we can keep our cool with this second "ramming". Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Collision

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This page is not news. The recent collision is better at the Ops article or integrated in some other way. It also should be clear that only SSCS calls it a ramming for now. Neutral wording is required.Cptnono (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"collided with" is probably the most clear and neutral wording. It simply states the two bodies met and implies no blame. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It's important to go with neutral wording despite the attitude of some the media. The media is largely biased in Sea Shepherd's favour thanks to Sea Shepherd's well-oiled propaganda machine, celebrity support and presumed moral high ground, and the Japanese's relative inability to even communicate in English. Well-researched, neutral reports are usually available when you look hard enough. — NRen2k5(TALK), 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This write up is good[10]. Again, we need to watch how much weight this is given. WP:RECENTISM.Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: Ady Gil captain: I have been adding to the ops page as information becomes available regarding the boarding/detainment and possible charges of piracy to be filed in Japan. Oberonfitch (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Treaties

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not in the source as fact. Disputed and complicated legalities. Line removed for good reason.Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Neutrality of Lead & Other Small Matters

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I am primarily concerned about the 3rd paragraph, which focuses on the activities without balancing in any manner whatever the harvesting of endangered species, waste of shark carcasses, etc. Nor with a nod towards educational aspects of the organization.

Following this, we have an article which lists by name 20 or so prominent supporters, including the Dalai Lama. This essentially links these people, by insinuation, to criminal activity. Which to some it certainly is, but to others, these actions appear essential to prevent catastrophic environmental changes. At this point, I don't think that the article balances these aspects sufficiently.

I think the lead could be fixed (knowing that this is a controversial subject) by reordering the sentences and adding a statement regarding education and illegal harvesting. It might also be of value to tie this article to deep ecology. However, as a new editor to this subject, I will wait for responses. Oberonfitch (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about the legalities of fishing. Some would argue that it is too forgiving to the group considering thay they brag about ramming and sinking vessels.Cptnono (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I know, after working on the Polanski article, that it is very difficult to remain neutral about something which is personally offensive. I do not condone violence on the open waters (I am a sailor); however, it would be implausible to state that SSCS is not motivated by what they perceive to be abusive corporate actions against dwindling resources. Familiarity with Environmental Ethics and specifically the Deep Ecology movement will make it easier to correct this article so that it reflects both their actions, and the reasons for those actions. Nothing is lost--regarding the dangers to themselves and others inherent in their methods--by remaining neutral and aiming for accuracy. I suggest that you look at my edits to Pentti Linkola; everything I added is cited; although I do not consider the article to be complete. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Your editing history is not really important here. This article is about SSCS. We can present their reasoning but weight needs to be watched. We also do not need to go into long detail of what we might consider their reasoning since it isn't an essay. Cptnono (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Pointing to my editing history was a courtesy. I looked at yours.  :-) I don't suggest we go into long detail; I have stated my objections to the 3rd paragraph of the lead. Absolutely agreed that balance is essential. I think a sentence or two (one linking the group to Deep Ecology, another perhaps to a statement about illegal harvesting) would cover it. In the meantime, I will continue to work on the Ops article, which appears to have been split off. Thanks for your reply. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey we'll see what happens. A couple links or new lines is completely reasonable. Cptnono (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
it does not link them to criminal activitys. sea shepherd does what it does inside of the U.N. charter of nature. it says NON-GOV ORGANIZATIONS CAN ENFORCE ENVIORENMENTAL LAWS!!! there fore, NOTHING THEY DO IS ILEGAL!!! furthermore NO ONE HAS CHARGED THEM WITH ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITYS AND THEY HAVE N-E-V-E-R BEEN SUED!!! they committed no crimes. if you still beleave they are breaking the law, then you are really hard headed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You need to chill out, not make personal attacks, and not type in all caps. You also need to sign your comments. SSCS has been accused of breaking the law before. This isn't only with the more media prevalent events but involves a long history involving arrests, court decisions, and criticism from various governments. It really doesn't matter if I think they have broken the law or if you think they haven't. This article does not label but instead relies on independent coverage and should present an unbiased summary.Cptnono (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

section on UN charter for nature.

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

what they do is all allowed under the rules made by the U.N. the laws say that non-govenmental groups can enforce the enviornmental laws. therefore, the organization is completly allowed to enforce the laws, which the commercial whalers and poachers are in complete violation of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could link to a reliable source so that the information can be incorporated into the article. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
if i had a source, i would have chaged the articel. becauese i dont, i posted this. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Puffery

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

As noted in the edit summary, I removed the following lines since it does not deserve prominence over other aspects not included in the article. It is an undue weight issue. It also relies on a primary source which we need to limit linking to as discussed multiple times.Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Sea Shepherd also investigates other sealife-related crimes, and offers rewards for information leading to the apprehension of people engaging in such activity. It has also offered a $25,000 bounty on any information leading to the capture of the murderer of Jane Tipson, a noted animal activist killed in 2003.[1]"

Seems a reasonable removal to me. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Why? This is outside of the "normal", "public" Sea Shepherd operations, but still relevant, because it shows Sea Shepherd's wider goal of "prosecuting" crimes against marine life (or in this case crime against marine life advocates). It is also relevant because Sea Shepherd constantly faces similar threats or actual violence themselves from some of their opponents. So clearly relevant - why remove it in WP:NOTPAPER? Ingolfson (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I also think it is pretty strong statement to say that two lines in a long article are "undue weight" (in byte terms, the section we are discussing is 0.1 % (!!!) of the total article size) just because there are other relevant things not covered yet! That could describe 90% of all Wikipedia articles. Ingolfson (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
As for the primary source argument - a blanket statement of "less primary source use" shouldn't be made in SPECIFIC cases. After all, all that this section claims is that Sea Shepherd is offering a reward for information (who better than to reference that than they themselves) for information about a murder (very well referenced at the article about the murder). Ingolfson (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
In summary, this should stay. However, I am happy to expand it to talk more generically about threats of violence made against Sea Shepherd and similar organisations, and provide some third-party refs for that. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Primary source is a huge deal. They are typically a challenge to use appropriately and need to be used with care. SSCS's site has tons of unreliable information and it is unduly self serving. We obviously have and will continue to use it to some extent. See various policies and guidelines or ask if you need some links.
Direct action is their main tactic and using this to show that they are interested in the prosecuting who they view as criminals is undue weight. If the section was a more complete overview it would not be given extensive prominence and would be less of a problem. Cptnono (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Public reception

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Whoever tagged this section as POV, could you please comment - what is the problem here? Because it is all positives? Do you feel that we should add people like Glenn Beck here who hate the group? Otherwise, the "public perception" seems to be reasonably positive or "meh, don't care" in the public.

Especially since we have a separate section about governmental response, and whaling-related organisations (both of who are logically more likely to oppose them). But those don't really go into the "public perception" section, do they?

In short, I'd like this sorted, so we can remove the tag. I have little respect for tags where nothing happens after the tagging... Ingolfson (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does this section begin with negative coverage? I'm not saying it should be removed, but leading with it seems POV pushing since there's already a section for controversy.PrBeacon (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I just did it. It doesn't need top billing but made more sense chronologically since the sources in the widely negative response section were earlier. Also, the only line that makes SSCS look bad is the Japanese one. It can be moved to the end of the seciton if people want.Cptnono (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Deep Ecology (DE)

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Citations linking SSCS to DE:

  • "Paul Watson: I joined the Board of the Sierra Club in 2003 and my purpose in being on this Board is to rock the boat and to represent the deep ecology side of the diversity in this movement. I did not join the Board to make friends, instead to make people think about the real threats to their future."
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-050908-2.html
  • Money given by Foundation for Deep Ecology to SSCS (link but unusable as WP:SYN):
http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm?did=104

* Mother Jones article 2008, Deep Ecology: An Open Sea Experiment

http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/deep-ecology-open-sea-experiment
  • Homo Sapiens, Get Lost.., Wesley Smith, National Review
http://article.nationalreview.com/391929/homo-sapiens-get-lost/wesley-j-smith
Thus, Paul Watson, the fanatical head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society:
'The planet’s ecosystem is a collective living organism and operates very much like the human body. . . . Humans are presently acting upon this body in the same manner as an invasive virus with the result that we are eroding the ecological immune system. A virus kills its host and that is exactly what we are doing with our planet’s support system. . . . Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.'
Smith goes on to say:
'Deep Ecologists push radical depopulation, perhaps to as few as 500 million people worldwide, as the best medicine to cure the human infection and again permit nature — as opposed to us — to flourish.'

I would like to include a short paragraph on SSCS and DE. I think that it will clarify issues, and problems between opposing sides (those who see what SSCS does as noble and right, and those who, well...don't), can be resolved if we have context. Oberonfitch (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed worthless link. Oberonfitch (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • After spending a couple of hours on research, I concede that there is little information available to claim SSCS is DE, even though the philosophical bent is definitely towards DE. It appears that SSCS is careful not to align itself with DE, choosing to avoid the use of those specific words to describe its mission, (possibly because one vocal advocate of that movement has proposed targeting large population areas with nukes, which might be a turn off to potential donors). Regardless, I found this article, from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature[2] which is comprehensive in describing the motivations of Paul Watson. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

yea, sea shepherd isnt really about that stuff, but paul thinks the population shoud be decreased to around a billion. though not by nukes(which would defeat the purpose of helping the enviernment. duh) he just says people should have less kids. which, decreasing the pop is probally a good idea, because theres like 3 billion people starving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Label of "Pirate" and "Terrorist"

Latest comment: 14 years ago47 comments8 people in discussion

Someone felt it important to note in the opening that various agencies have referred to the SSCS as "pirates" and "terrorist". I think it's important to note that at various times, the SSCS have embraced these titles, referring to themselves using the same words. As always, I've supplied citations showing where and when. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There, I've added additional citations to boost the statements, including Foxnews, academic journals & official SSCS comments. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
They have not "embraced" these titles. Please read the references you originally provided yourself - they have lampooned it in one reference ("the kids love it"), and at the same time discussed the difference between a privateer / pirate hunter - as which they consider themselves - and a real pirate or terrorist. And in the other reference you gave, Watson made philosophical observations regarding what some people call terrorism may be what others may consider honorable. That is NOT the same as saying "I am a terrorist!" in the sense that we understand the term. Please do not re-insert your claim with such arguments. Ingolfson (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
In regards to "pirate": Yes, it has been embraced. Read the sources. The argument over terrorist was "I know you are but what am I" essentially. Regardless: Lets not piss all over each other on this one. What is the best way to present the info?Cptnono (talk)
If you read the articles I thinkk it's clear that they take both sides, "How dare you call us that" and "Yes we are". Pul even blatently claims that they are like the pirates hired by the Brittish at one spot. (They fly the Jolly roger for Pete's sake!) Regarding terrorism, he's claimed that title several times that they are terrorists starting at a Rally in 2002 and recently qualifying the comment claiming the freedom fighter comparison. It's documented so lets cite it not hide it. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ingo.. I know you've read this from the other article because you commented on it: At an animal rights convention in 2002, Paul Watson was also quoted as saying, "There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history." ... [and later] "One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” So what's the issue with it being represented here? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to it as written because it makes it sound like SSCS has referred to themselves as terrorists, which they certainly haven't. Either way, the sentence is rubbish now anyways with someone and someone and someone said this. Horrific grammar. MY opinion- move the sentence to controversy as info in the intro should be expanded upon in the article, remove the fox ref as is shows the commentator is out of touch with reality, split up the sentence into one sentence from the outside and one from the society.--Terrillja talk 23:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the FOX citation entirely then. Go simply with the journal reference and the SSCS website. Both demonstrate that they referred to themselves as "terrorist". Granted, on the SSCS site they appear to take both stances that they are and that they aren't. The label "terroist" is so very central to the discussion on SSCS that there needs to be a summary of it in the opening. The main thing that I find controversial would be if editor opinion were taken as notable and notable opinion should not be included. So the real question is, how can the notable opinion be included without contention? --199.178.222.252 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Undid. Refs and sentenced make no sense, just POV pushing by an anti-sea shepherd activist. Ref 1 in the article has the following refs for pirate (there nis not one) and terrorist: 'The Japanese accuse Sea Shepherd of being "hostile eco-terrorists".'Watson is adamant that he is no terrorist. "In 31 years harassing and confronting whalers, sealers and illegal fishers, we have never injured a single person, never been convicted of a felony, or been sued. Sea Shepherd does not condone, nor do we practise, violence," he says."We agree with the assessment by Martin Luther King that violence cannot be committed against a non-sentient object. Sea Shepherd sometimes damages equipment used for illegal activities, but we have an unblemished record.'

Ref 2: And remember those whale protestors who actually attacked and rammed into a Japanese whaling ship? (ADD moment, your honor: Whales? I mean, they're great and everything, but when you are risking life and limb to stop someone from catching a whale — wow. Who's daddy didn't love them?) Anyway, the boat that sunk the Japanese ship is from Paul Watson's organization. Watson's a great guy — a progressive. He's the guy who was featured in that "Whale Wars" reality show, where he routinely resorts to physical violence against humans to save an animal. He has reportedly said that if you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then... make it up on the spot. And "there's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history." Attacking a civilian boat, ramming a bill through, voting 10 times in Massachusetts — they can spin it in the history books. They saved the whales. They achieved health care for all. They fundamentally transformed America.

Ref 3:Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

A few years ago I made an observation that in the modern media, politicians and corporations demonstrated that if you don’t know a fact, a statistic, then make it up on the spot. I was actually citing former President Ronald Reagan as an example of this approach. Now my observation has been twisted and spun to suggest that it was myself who invented this approach to media.

Ironically I was accused of this, this very week by the biggest right wing bullethead presently polluting the airwaves - Glenn Beck. Ironic because to underscore his condemnation of me he made up a couple of fabricated facts.

“And remember those whale protestors who actually attacked and rammed into a Japanese whaling ship? (ADD moment, your honor) Whales? I mean, they're great and everything, but when you are risking life and limb to stop someone from catching a whale, wow. Who's daddy didn't love them? Anyway, the boat that sunk the Japanese ship is from Paul Watson's organization.” - Glenn Beck

Amazing! The man spun the actual incident around completely. Although the Sea Shepherd ship Ady Gil was deliberately rammed by the Japanese whaling vessel Shonan Maru #2 and later sank, Beck managed to accuse Sea Shepherd of ramming and sinking the Japanese whaling ship.

Beck went on to say;

“Watson's a great guy, a progressive. He's the guy who was featured in that "Whale Wars" reality show, where he routinely resorts to physical violence against humans to save an animal. He has reportedly said that if you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then... make it up on the spot. And "there's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history." - Glenn Beck

The fact is that neither Sea Shepherd or I have ever injured a single human being, we have never been convicted of a felony nor we have never even been sued. Yet he makes an accusation that I routinely resort to “physical violence” against humans to save an animal. As it happens our campaigns are not designed to “save an animal.” The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is an anti-poaching organization and our objective is to uphold international conservation law against illegal activities. We don’t protest, we intervene.

Beck then adds that I made the statement that “there’s nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history.” I did say this but in quite a different context than Beck would have Americans believe. I said in a lecture that history is not to be trusted because the winners write the history and their version does not favor the losers. Thus Sir Winston Churchill would have been condemned as a terrorist if Hitler had won the war and “terrorists” are not “terrorists” is we agree with them. "One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” It’s a valid observation and does not mean that I have ever advocated terrorism.

“Attacking a civilian boat, ramming a bill through, voting 10 times in Massachusetts they can spin it in the history books. They saved the whales. They achieved health care for all. They fundamentally transformed America.” - Glenn Beck

Beck goes on to make the accusation again that we attacked a civilian boat when the evidence demonstrates just the opposite, the most damning piece of evidence being that it is a Sea Shepherd ship on the bottom of the ocean and not a Japanese vessel. The bizarre thing is that he mixes our campaign to defend whales from poachers in Antarctica with the Massachusetts Gubernatorial elections and health care in America as a spin for the history books suggesting there is some sort of weird left wing conspiracy to protect whales and to provide health care for Americans. Beck, a reformed alcoholic, is probably having psychotic flashbacks to the good old days when he saw pink elephants tap dancing on the rim of his whiskey glass.

Beck, the self appointed super American patriot, goes on to say;

“Americans are starting to wake up to it, even Democrats, even Democrats in Kennedyville. They know something isn't right. And that something is the uber-left. The Van Jones, communist-loving radicals. The Chairman Mao admirers in the White House, like the Ron Blooms of the world, who says he agrees with Mao about power coming from the barrel of a gun.”

“I don't believe the majority of Americans think like these people do. But they don't care. If you don't believe these radicals think they are superior to you, that they will run you over if you get in the way of their do-gooding for greater good, then you don't understand history.” - Glenn Beck

I’m actually not a left-winger. I’m a conservationist and that automatically makes me a conservative. Sea Shepherd’s objectives are simply to uphold existing international conservation laws. Suddenly according to Glenn Beck, defending whales against Japanese poachers is now part of the “communist conspiracy”. I’ve always held the view that Chairman Mao was a mass-murdering tyrant. History has proven however that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Ask the original Native Americans. The one fact that has never changed throughout history is that “might makes right.”

The problem with people like Glenn Beck is that he does not like people who make observations about psychology, history, science or anything else. To Beck, making an observation means that the observer is now advocating that which was observed. He would have us choose to simply not observe or think at all.

And many of his mindless minions will now believe a Japanese whaling ship lies on the bottom of the Southern Ocean because a Sea Shepherd ship rammed and sank them. There is no reason for them to look up the facts. Glenn Beck made up some facts for them. No need to You Tube the video of the ramming and sinking because Glenn Beck has made it clear that the “violent commie whale huggers are not to be trusted.”

Maybe a little enticement may be in order to motivate a few couch potato Beck bums to look up the “facts” for themselves. Towards this end I will personally award one million U.S. dollars to any person who can back up Glenn Beck’s absurd claim that Sea Shepherd rammed and sank a Japanese whaling vessel in the Southern Ocean during this campaign.

Ref 4: This is portrayed by 68.41 as a 'journal reference' when in fact it is not. It is a regular Op-Ed column form a conservative lawyer. It is not a peer-reviewed article is a one-page (p.332) opinion piece. In it the author says; 'Paul Watson is considered by many to be the originator of environmental terrorism,...'

'Considered by many' is a fallacy called 'generalised appeal to authority', and in the Wikipedia world as 'weasel words'. It means nothing.

So, 68.41 sentence is incorrect and biased, it makes no reference to Sea Shepherd calling themselves 'pirates' and the claim made in the sentence by 68.41 that Sea Shepherd call themsleves 'terrorists' is at odds with the statement by Paul Watson that Watson is adamant that he is no terrorist.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Placerdome (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Placerdome. I apologize since I might have templated you prematurely (use an edit summary and sign your posts next time will ya). I completely disagree with your assessment of the sources. Watson has embraced "pirate". It allows him to say "Oh yeah.. well you!" If you don't like the current text fix it. Don't delete sources. If anything you should have deleted the text (I probably would have reverted in some form though). If you don't believe the cuurent sources are enough let me know. We have a complete shit article on another page laying out all of SSCS's screw ups, victories, and anything else. I will try my best to narrow it down. As is, Glenn Beck is simply too annoying to mention here in my opinion. It is still easy to find sources discussing SSCS and Watson's views on the terrorist and pirate labels.Cptnono (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
"There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history." - Paul Watson at a 2002 rally. "I did say this.." Paul Watson's to Glen Beck, as he qualifies his reason for saying it. I don't care if you are the secret cheating lover of both Glenn Beck and Paul Watson at the same time. They both agree that Paul Watson said that. Our opinions on whether or not either should have discussed it or in what manner are irrelevant. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have again removed the statement in the lede which blithely asserts or implies that SSCS accepts itself being a priate and even a terrorist organisation. NO, this is NOT acceptable. Not in the lede, and NOT in this form. This is a classical case of misrepresentation, or using an out-of-context soundbite to turn a statement upside down. The lede is the article equivalent to a summary, to a headline. You cannot simply broad-brush take a multi-layered statement by Watson where he discusses what he/SSCS is considered as and how he/they consider himself, and then dump this here as if that is all cut and dried and sorted now.
In short, this has NOTHING to do in the lede. There is no "smoking gun" where a leading SSCS member has admitted "Oh yeah, actually, we are all terrorists, really!". All there are are several statements that are AMBIGIOUS as to what they mean, and how they were meant. And it is not up to us to make that call.
The NOTABLE part is that other governments and organisations have called them terrorists and pirates and actually MEAN it. THAT is notable, and relevant for the lede, and well-referenced. Not this word-splitting argument. If you want that in - by all means discuss it within the article, and remember WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Ingolfson (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you're wrong on that because both Watson and Beck disagree with you in the sources citing both Watson and Beck (both Watson's and Beck's sources actually quote both Watson and Beck). They are both notable and they both verify that the comments came from one another. It's a very difficult thing for a supporter of Watson to read, but the supporter of Watson must realise that Waton has stated many times that he will twist the words to get his desired affect.
Without placing judgment on him, these words of his have caused some affect and media attention. I'm not calling him a terrorist for that, just noting that he called himself one, and also noting that others have noted that he called himself one. An also noting that Watson noted that Beck noted that he called himself one. The references very clearly demonstrate that. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted you again (and will continue to do so, until you either provide references to prove your point or stop). The Glenn Beck reference is irrelvant, because Glenn Beck is NOT a member of SSCS, but just repeats what he claims others have said. More to the point, the Glenn Beck references repeats what Paul Watson HAS said. I do not dispute that. Both Glenn Beck and Watson kind of agree. What I accuse you of is doing exactly what Glenn Beck is doing: You take a statement which is more complex than a soundbite, and then turn it own its head (see Paul Watson):

"Now my observation has been twisted and spun to suggest that it was myself who invented this approach to media."

and (Paul Watson again, same reference)

"One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” It’s a valid observation and does not mean that I have ever advocated terrorism.

Yet you keep reinserting with these SAME references because you claim they contain a magical sentence that says "PAUL WATSON SAID HE'S A TERRORIST!!!".
No. You don't get to twist his public statements like that. Ingolfson (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not denying that he recanted what he said. You've demonstrated clearly that Watson claims he never meant it, never the less, Beck notes and Watson agrees that he did in fact say it, regardless of whether he now wishes he did or not. Just because Watson has the right to change his mind or meanings doesn't mean we don't document whats allready been said. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Here, have a read: http://spectator.org/archives/2003/01/29/eco-terrorist-academic-chic Beck-free for your convenience. Assuming that in good faith your are simply trying to verify the quote and not push an agenda. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
That says nothing of Watson claiming he is a trrorist, simply him stating an opinion, one that does not necessarily have anything to do with him. We do have a policy on synthesis and original research, perhaps you should check that out before using your own interpretation of what a source means. Not proving your point at all.--Terrillja talk 06:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It's in reference to himself being accused of terrorism that he made the remark. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
And you know that because? It isn't in the linked article, so you are synthesizing references and conducting original research. All it says is his opinion, not what prompted it.--Terrillja talk 07:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No, you're right. There is not notable material that demonstrates he was specifically referring to himself or the SSCS. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Relax guys. No need to edit war over it. Is the only line in question "and even members of the society itself"? It is clear that they have. However, it could be read a few different ways. It is easy for us to understand it because we have read the sources. I think the pirate mention is just fine. However, the terrorist one is a little stickier.
They have been referred to as pirates and terrorists. This has been done by writers, government officials, academics, their enemies and so on. Is it necessary to make a list like that in the lead? I personally am happy just having it mentioned there. Is there an alternative way to work the line to show that SSCS has embraced the terms at certain times or with different spins? Is there a way to leave it out of the lead but expand it in the main body? We have several options here and reverting over and over shouldn't be one of them. And any more instances of reverting are asking for a 3rr based request for a block. Lets figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the main contention from Ing is that Watson did not intend to refer to himself as terrorist, yet he did. And regarding pirates, they refer to themselves as that all the time. Maybe if we remove terrorist from that line and reword it a little. The terms need to be in the opening though as that terminology is central to most of the discussion on them. I'd like to find a way to note it, keeping our own POV out of the way. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no issue with the words terrorism and pirates being in the lede. If I remember right, I placed them there when I rewrote the lede! What I oppose is the statement that by making a hypothetical or tongue-in-cheek statement "admitting" terrorism, you are then forever on record as having "admitted" yourself as a terrorist. I would even accept a discussion of this whole shebang in the article itself. But not without context in the lede. And because the lede is a SUMMARY, and not the place to do long discussions on the matter, I am of the opinion that the CORE message (many consider him terroristic) should be there. Any further distinctions we are fighting about here should be discussed elsewhere in the article instead. In the form of the lede that I disagree with, it reads like they are confessing to it!Ingolfson (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
A toungue-in-cheek, wordplay type reference is still that. None of Watson's statements hold much validity, but the fact that he says them does. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Do you consider thier statements that they are pirates not to be valid as well? The statement "refer" doesn't imply guilt, simply "refer".
You still ignore the real thrust of my disagreement with you. Mention Watson's comments in as much detail as the references give you (well, as long as they don't take over the article)!!! But WITH context, and with appropriate weight (i.e. don't make a "wordplay" comment a core part of the lede, where someone who stops after reading that is left with a "Oh yeah, they admitted that themselves, didn't they? I read that somewhere."). Ingolfson (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Instead of using the line in such a brief manner that can lead the reader to look at it as a confession, we can add another line to clarify it. We can keep it concise while still presenting the info as factual as possible. examples: In response, SSCS has flown a variant of the Jolly Roger, and Watson has said blank" or "SSCS embraces these labels by x" or "SSCS responds to these charges with y". Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps in the body of the article, but in the lead we should not be getting into a protracted argument (per undue and lede). As I have said before, this should be in controversy where it can be fully explained with sources which actually support the arguments. --Terrillja talk 07:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Howbout we split "Pirate" from "Terrorist", leaving a small non-controversial blurb in the lede and more info in the body. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, current wording is akward but I think it encompasses what some of us thought should be there while elimintating the main source of disagreement. Can it be worded better? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
[Reboot in terms of indent] Not sure I follow. Are you proposing to mention only one of both in the lede? I think both are appropriate (and anyone not having followed our word-flinging here will not understand the split...). Most who call them pirates OR terrorists call them the other thing in the same sentence, don't they? Ingolfson (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
They are separate. I agree with you that they should both be in there. We disagree on the terrorist one, no prob, leave the pirate one as it was and we'll back down on the terorist one.--68.41.80.161 (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree much more with you on the "pirate" one, if for no other reason that they clearly flirt with the term (use of "Jolly Roger" flag etc...) but terrorist - well, can a word get more loaded in the 2000s? But as I have been harping on about - the distinction of how THEY feel about these words is something that is hard to press into half a sentence in the lede without removing needed context, and should thus be discussed within the article where we have the space for doing it. Sorry if I keep repeating myself. I won't touch the main article for a day or two, to cool myself off - maybe others can try to find a good middle ground? Ingolfson (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I hear you. The "terrorist" claim of Watson's was unclear at best. It's all good now. Except that admin you wrote to got confised thinking the pirate term was one of the issues we were arguing about. I think I cleared it up for him. Ah well. :) I look forward to working with you more. Gnight and well done. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hope I am not restarting anything - I took a breather from this because I was still cooling down (though 68.41.80.161 and I buried our hatchet), and also because of work pressures. However, I am proposing (have made) a slight change to the article. Seeing that the "they refer to themselves as pirates" statement is still only based on one reference, which includes sentences like "We did it to embrace the accusation in a positive manner, and well, kids love the pirate image." I think a bit more context is still good. Therefore, I rephrased it as
"Various governments and organisations (and even members of the society, in a semi-serious vein) have referred to the group as pirates."
Is that acceptable to everyone, or do people feel this is now swinging towards downplaying it too much? I feel it now expresses that their own statement is not a "confession", or a "recantation" by some former member - but also that the "semi-SERIOUS" hints at the fact that they flirt with the "edgyness" of their image, as some reporters have correctly remarked on. Ingolfson (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
In a related matter, should we rephrase "and even members of the society" to "and even the society's founder"? The reference we have only gives him as saying it, and the fact that the founder has stated it is also relevant. Ingolfson (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I like it all except the insertion of semi-serious. If you read the quote by watson explaining how the brittish hired pirates to defeat pirates he appeared to very seriously consider himself to be the modern incarnation of those privateers, Jolly Roger and everything. That's why it's no suprise to me when they ram other ships, lie about tacticts, blatently manipulate media, heck even condone dealy things like tree spiking to maim or kill those who disagree (didn't watson claim to invent that) regardless, they claim to be quite serious. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Qualify pejoratives

I think that the terms pirates and terrorists in the introduction should have quote marks or some other qualification -- I've reviewed the comments above but I don't see this mentioned (although an earlier version of the intro had them in quote marks, i believe). As WP:Terrorist says, "These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article."   PrBeacon (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Those can be viewed as scare quotes. Please rework the line to put it in a quote if you want but it is well paraphrased from fine sources. We have bent over backwards to make sure those words do not appear as labels. Cptnono (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
They're loaded words and thus can be easily read as pejorative labels, despite efforts against that. Yes, quotes can be misleading too, but I still think the tradeoff is worth it. Granted, "pirates" is much less contentious. But SSCS are not terrorists in the primary sense of the term as it refers to Al-Qaeda, suicide bombers et al, or even to other extremists in the environmental movement like ELF. Perhaps "eco-terrorist" is a possibility for compromise, especially in the introduction. PrBeacon (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Cptnono, the only appropriate way to include the term piracy is to have it as a direct quote; then there is no confusion about how the word is used or whether the editors were somehow biased. As far as eco-terrorist, that would have to be explained in the context of Deep Ecology movement, which might be worthwhile. It would allow for an explanation of the underlying beliefs of members of SSCS, and clarify the labels which are sticky issues. PrBeacon is right, in that terrorist is used primarily in association with direct actions involving bombs and/or planes and innocent people, and is probably not appropriate here. My preference would be to limit the labels to direct quotes and let the actors speak for themselves. Oberonfitch (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I actually think you agree with a hybrid of what the both of us are saying. I am OK with it not being in a quote if it is properly worded. scare quotes (putting quotes on a word and a word only) are not OK. Terrorism and pirate have multiple sources. I would prefer to not list every quote that says it. We can do that but it would only serve to make my point. Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, putting a single word in quotes is not a good idea. Not suggesting that we list every quote that says it. Sorry if I wasn't clear. (Brain not awake yet.) How about a compromise, one label each from a) SSCS, b) a government, c) a supporter, and d) critic, and then add the Deep Ecology section? I don't see that DE would need more than three sentences. Oberonfitch (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
People have tried adding it to the infobox and lead as a label. To prevent this from happening we need to give the details. Currently, it summarizes it well without going overboard (no pun intended) which is surprisingly tight and accurate at the same time. I'm worried about both cherry picking certain sources and leaving some good ones out. We can add Deep Ecology somewhere if the sources go into it. It is a separate issue that should continued to be discussed separately.Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I added a section below on Deep Ecology; my assessment is that there is not enough to directly link the group to the movement. However, the article from the Encyclopedia of Religion & Nature cited is helpful and worth a read. Cptnono, I don't understand what you are referring to specifically, with regards to cherry picking sources (on the subject of pejorative words or DE or both?). Would you explain further? Thanks. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Terrorist and pirate. I am concerned that we will only give a small portion of the coverage credit if we limit it to one of each as suggested. Basically, I think we have done a god job as it is and don't see a change needed. Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • A better balance of paragraph 2 may be obtained by moving the last sentence. This would mean in paragraph 2: support/criticism, paragraph 3 actions: support/criticism.

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. Some governments and organizations have referred to them as terrorists.[4][5][6][7]


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,[8][4] throwing bottles of foul-smelling butyric acid onto vessels at sea,[4] 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. [9]Various governments and organizations (and even members of the society) have referred to the group as pirates. Some governments and organizations have referred to them as terrorists.[4][5][6][7]

Oberonfitch (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It makes OK sense. Go for it. We might want to consider merging the paragraphs in the future since they cover similar stuff. Basically have the first line of its founding in the first paragraph and merge the rest. No reason not to make your edit now though.Cptnono (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed that paragraphs could be merged, but who needs an edit war? It can wait.  :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Sea Shepherd Posts Reward in St. Lucia Jane Tipson Murder Case (from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society website. Accessed 2010-01-13.)
  2. ^ http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:XDUKDurxZ3IJ:www.religionandnature.com/ern/sample/Best--Watson.pdf+sea+shepherd+conservation+society+philosophy&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi8N-CaS6GWGDtd05tHABvAQ6bSXleMaADzETgxrF3a2uWGIqZIH2PShRjC8HJQklIFNuY7s-JkHyFRAcoO8cvIWbIVE_9jy4QuNf1oh0FO7TnVnrAWkFoX3uIxAYQZRA5UrC2Q&sig=AHIEtbSdLOqxpCaF2mi3D0dnpg2MfM0aeQ
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society/Archive_9&oldid=1136379466"