Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Delicious Irony

So the Earthrace runs on BIOFUEL which is mainly animal fat. It also other things but several articles point out the fact that this boat runs MAINLY on animal fat. I think that is ironic but one author finds the fact offensive. Anyone else want to chime in on this to prevent a useless edit war? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earthrace+%22animal+fat%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= ... --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed?Cptnono (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicely, thank you. The controversial side of me wants to focus on the animal fat but the wikipedian in me says your edits are perfectly well balanced. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy about it either!Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I liked that one. I don't like the current one. Contents of biodiesel are notable in this context. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not maintaining a neutral point of view

Mentioning animal fat, rather than just linking to biodiesel is focusing on animal fat. Biodiesel doesn't just contain "animal fat and vegetable oil" so stating that the boat runs on it is misleading. The term "biodiesel" is accurate, "animal fat and vegetable oil" is not. There's no irony at all in biodiesel containing animal fats. Earthrace is being used in action against whale hunting. No whale products are used in biodiesel, so where is the irony? The "non eco-friendly" fuel oil that all of the ships run on isn't discussed so why focus on the content of biodiesel if it isn't trying to be controversial and unduly influencing readers. Edit summaries such as "now that's an odd twist of irony", "ref says animal fat. And that truth is just funny" and talk page headings such as "Delicious Irony" clearly indicate that editors are not maintaining a neutral point of view when editing this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

At least he is honest that he has a bias. As long as it doesn't creep into the mainspace (which it did slightly at first) it is fine. Press releases from the operator along with sources state "animal fat and vegetable oils". Yes it was added poorly at first but it isn't disputed and it shouldn't come across as POV to a reader who isn't looking at the edit summaries. Instead of continuing to look at it as a problem, you should except that the comment above "The controversial side of me wants to focus on the animal fat but the wikipedian in me says your edits are perfectly well balanced" by #68 is essentially an admission of screwing up and shows a willingness to continually improve his submissions to this project. We should be encouraging editors to admit to their mistakes instead oflaying in with additional criticism.Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote on your talk page Aussie, you are not neutral, I am not neutral, the world is not neutral. Wiki isn't some nazi thought police monitoring your brain for neutrality. Wiki does not care if you live an unopinionated life. It's your opinion of your little corner of Oz that propells you to edit in wiki, which is good. Our EDITS to ARTICLES however stay neutral. Our opinions go where ever you care for them to go. I'm open for discussion on the neutrality of my edits any time as long as you aren't trying to imagine what's in my head. Let's focus on the quality of the ARTICLE. We can have some fun comradery in talk while we accomplish that. Welcome to the article again btw. :) Also, thanks for linking Bidiesel. I think it adds to the irony when the reader can follow that article and learn that certain percentages of the fuel actually come from fish oil. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, just for clarification, the observation of the animal fat content was not mine. It was noted in several articles that presumably found the same irony, which is why they chose to focus on it. I would not just add random ironic tidbts into an article of my own accord, that would agreeably be lame. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Here ya go boss.

• "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." from WP:NPOV
• "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." from WP:NPA

I haven't taken offense at anything recently, I thought this would just be helpful to provide a clear framework for us all to work from. No harm, no foul, on with the edits! --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of my opinions on a subject I am neutral when I edit Wikipedia. So should you be and this includes in your edit summaries. That you consider irony in an encyclopaedia article to be a good thing is an indication that you aren't being neutral. Of course there is no irony in the fact that biodiesel may contain fish oil. If it contained whale oil there might be some irony but that's not the case. That there seems to be a focus on the content of biodiesel at all is giving undue weight to the fuel used by a boat. As I said earlier, we don't discuss the contents of the fuel used by other ships, so why should we be bothered here about the contents of biodiesel? As to where the idea to focus on it came from, whether or not other articles mention it is irrelevant. It was you who added it[1] and it simply isn't needed, or relevant to the article. Pushing to retain specific mention of animal fat, when animal fat isn't the only or even a mandatory component of biodiesel gives the impression that you have some other agenda here. It's certainly not being neutral. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, you seem to be arguing two things so lets take those two things separately.

• You seem to be arguing that including the "animal fat" comment is POV. As mentioned above, it was not my bias that was reflected in the article, it was that of the notable major news source authors. They found that animal fat was the largest component of bidiesel and they found that noting that in the context of Earthrace was important. It seems that you may not like their findings, which is fine as long as your opinion doesn't ruin the integrity of the article. The news sources say its a notable fact, I happen to agree because of the irony of it. (the fact that anti-fishers are using animal fat (and perhaps including fish-oil) powered boats (side note, if you read the article we all created you'll see there's more to SS than anti-whaling, they fight against fishing, sharking, sealing, dolphning and other human uses of sea fauna)). Your POV may tell you that the news people are stupid. You can have that opinion, just don't let it cause the removal of good, sourced material.

• You don't like my tone of voice in the talk pages or the way I write my comments. OK, too bad for you. I don't like the way you don't like my tone of voice. I may not like your pro-Aussie POV on everything either.. but that's not gonna make me want to revert your edits without at least trying to come to a good consensus on what should be in the article. And it's not like you've been given policing power over the POV content of my brain, my talk pages, or personal comment.(PS I don't actually mind your pro-aussie pov, I was just using that as an example.)--68.41.80.161 (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it back, you do have policing power over my talk pages, as I do yours, but not for POV reasons. Regardless, lets focus on the actual edits, not whether you think I as a person have opinions or not. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Animal fat" is not simply POV, it's misleading and irrelevant. Biodiesel doesn't have to contain animal fat or fish oil. It can be made from a number of sources so biodiesel is the correct term to use since it encompasses all of the different forms of biodiesel. Don't blame the authors of the sources for including it in the article. They didn't add it here, you did. The actual content of biodiesel is relevant to Biodiesel and Earthrace but not this article, any more than the content of the fuel oil that the ships use or the AVGAS used by the helicopter. The makeup of those fuels is not mentioned so why mention the makeup of biodiesel? --AussieLegend (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources say it. the New York Times, a whole article bragging about it here a couple dozen more in news hits alone. "assets.earthrace.net" even. What is the problem? The operator wants to talk about biostability and that is a big part of the ship. We can remove it altogether if this article isn't about Earthrace. Cptnono (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

While sources might say it, it's irrelevant to this article which is about SSCS, not Earthrace's engines. As I've already pointed out, we don't make a point of mentioning the content of the "non eco-friendly" fuel oil used by the ships or the AVGAS used by the helicopter so what exactly is the point of discussing the fuel a boat that, as of yet, hasn't actually been involved? By the way, the Earthrace website expands on the content of biodiesel significantly, explaining that it's made from lots of things, including fat from the body of Peter Bethune.[2] All we should be doing in regard to Earthrace is mentioning its involvement, possibly mentioning that it's a high speed boat, which is the reason it's being used. Let's stick to facts and not sensationalise. This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's notabillity is the precise reason why some people feel uncomfortable seeing it. The fact that SSCS is using ships powered in part by animal fat is ironic. The fact that you feel a certain fact presents a bias demonstrates it's importance. Remember, keeping an article neutral doesn't mean removing all offensive POV as you suggest we do. It means presenting both sides of the relevant POV as per WP:NPOV qupted above. Removing it because YOU find the fact to be an offensive POV would be the violation. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, how is it misleading for news agencies to mention that earthrace is powered by both animal fat and vegitable oil? I don't see the falacy in the news article that leads me to believe we're being misled in anyway. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not interested in the news agencies mentioning it. We're interested in how it's "mentioned" in an encyclopaedia. News articles are a combination of fact and fiction. Encyclopaedias stick to facts. I've already explained why it's misleading five times now.[3][4][5][6][7] How many more times do I have to explain it? Animal fat and fish oil are not the prime or mandatory components of biodiesel. The pdf that you added to the article as a citation here, doesn't even mention them in the section titled "What is biodiesel?" It's not until well down in the "What can you make biodiesel from?" section that it says that biodiesel can also be made from them. (Note use of the word "also"!) Stating that the boat runs on animal fat misleads the reader into believing that animal fat is a prime component of the fuel, which is not necessarily true. The boat runs on biodiesel which covers all of the sources used in the manufacture of biodiesel so biodiesel is the most accurate and neutral term to use. That's explanation number six.

That said, I still see no need to include the fuel at all unless you're going to also discuss the composition of the various other fuels used by both the Sea Shepherds and the whalers. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for laying out your opinion that "Animal fat and fish oil are not the prime or mandatory components of biodiesel". Two comments on that, 1. Our article does not claim that "fish oil" is a prime component. 2. Our article claims that animal fat and vegitable oil ARE the prime components. All the sources in the article say that.. so I guess if you feel those articles are misleading, do you have articles that would suggest Earthrace uses biodiesel NOT consisting of animal fat and vegitable oil? I'm pretty sure that if this is your main contention, this is easily solved simply by reading the sources.. or checking out the biodiesel or Earthrace articles. Both also use mutiple sources to demonstrate that animal fat and vegitable oil are the primary components. Once you verfy those sources, did you believe something else was misleading or is this issue cleared up now? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Vegetable" is not spelled "vegitable" but that mistake of yours doesn't stop me from understanding what you meant. Let's stick to just animal fats and drop the fish oil then if it makes it easier for you. The same arguments apply. Newspapers are sensationalist. They don't always print fact. Encyclopaedias do. Animal fat is not a prime or mandatory component of biodiesel, that's why the reference you added recently says "also" and why the sources don't say that it is. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that's why this is a team effort. :) Frequently others can see what one cannot. See your own talk page for a discussion on irony. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You might like to rephrase this, quoting what you were replying to. It's inappropriate to dump replies in the middle of somebody elses comments. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be the spelling police on a talk page. That is just condescending and not even necessary. The operator is proud of it. It is one of the most important aspects of the vessel. If you want to drop the line all together it is not as big of a deal but if biodiesel is to be mentioned then put it in as the primary and many independent secondary sources do.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read my post again. I was criticised for using "fish oil" instead of "vegitable oil"[sic] so I was comparing my mistake to his own as a method of demonstrating that despite mistakes, it's still possible to understand what others mean. If I really wanted to be the spelling police, there are some rippers on my talk page. Getting to the important point, I think, as I earlier indicated,[8] that there shouldn't be reference to the fuel component. It's more important to mention Earthrace's speed, since that's why it's being used.[9] --AussieLegend (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand.

More importantly (and less funny) a recent source I added to Earthrace says that the ship was running on B20 in '06 and can also run on pure, regular, and mixes. Although sources say "animal fat" quite alot (note the fun publicity stunt) I am now concerned that we are asserting that it will always run partially on animal fat. SSCS runs vegan ships so I'm curious to see if this makes news but the fuel might be adjusted and we can't assume.Cptnono (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Earthrace guys are going to be deploying a personal watercraft (Ski Doo or something) according to a blog I came across. This might be something to keep in mind if it is mentioned in RS for future inclusions.

I think it's important to leave in for precisely the reasons Aussie noted. We don't want to provide a misconception that it is a green "soybean only" kind of boat. I think it's responsible and acurate to virtually every source to include "animal fat and vegitable oil". I don't want to sound like it's responsible to say "animal fat" out of context though and on that note I agree with Aussie. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I misread above comments thinking that Aussie believed as long as "Fish oil" was not in the article then we were good. After giving a better reading I realise that he still doesn't want "Animal Fat" Mentioned in the article at all. I mistakenly wrote in my edit comments that we were coming to a consensus which we apparantly have not. My appologies for the incorrect edit description. It should read.. "It's notable according to the sources in this context and thus should stand in the article in the same context." --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

While I would have worded it slightly differently, I believe Cptnono's version[10] to be more appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

While the removal of the phrase "animal fat" is one way of ending this disagreement, I find that it has the unintended consequence of removing notable information from this discussion. So i've restored it. I don't mind if we have to word it in such a way as to make the article not take sides on whether it is or is not ironic, but removal of well cited material is not the way to balance an article. It IMBALNCES it. So let's leave it in and work on the wording if balance is what you think the issue is. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As a temporary bandaid, since editor POV is the question, I've simply put the whole phrase in quotes until we as mature adult editors can figure out how to word it in our own way without removing content. Sorry, CPTnono, direct quote is better than removal, but niether is ideal. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono has provided suitable wording for the article and explained why. I'm happy to accept that compromise. Please don't start edit-warring again. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Compromise would be including animal fat AND vegitable oil. You haven't commented on why the current edits are misleading. Do you feel that including animal fat AND vegitable oil is misleading? Or is there a new problem? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That is, by far, the most peculiar thing you've said because I've been talking about why commenting on the components of biodiesel, rather than just mentioning biodiesel, is misleading for this whole discussion and I've specifically explained why that is six times now, the last time being just yesterday in response to your very similar question about the same thing.[11]

You said that using animal fat "misleads the reader into believing that animal fat is a prime component of the fuel, which is not necessarily true." So I provided a DIRECT QUOTE that addresses your concern to demonstrate that it's not misleading. You are still reverting (REMOVING) the direct quote that addresses your concern why exactly? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

New Question - Is Earthrace's fuel composition notable enough for this article?

Becuase the conversation above ranges in too many different directions, lets narrow it down. How do the notable sources answer the above question? Yes and it's in, No and it's out. Agreed? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The following is a small sample of availabl sources discussing SSCS and Earthrace which include comments on the components of the fuel as a pertinent to the discussion. We should follow suite and do the same.

SSCS find it's relevant [12], ABC News in Australia finds it's relevance [13], a university in boston finds relevence [14], ABC sports reflects the same [15], Earthrace itself of course finds it's relevence [16], Countless internet blogs [17] These are just the articles that include SSCS, Earthrace and animal fat. There are tons more to verify that animal fat and vegitable oils are the MAIN ingredients [18] but do not discuss the SSCS. The above are meant to demonstrate that the terms are relevant to the discussion on the SSCS. Are there any problems with the findings above? Peace and Happy Editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Check it out! I'm no longer anon. My first official post will be to agree with what that great smelling anon poster above me wrote. Your logic on this is airtight. You are beautiful and you are a credit to your race. Peace and Happy Editing.--0nonanon0 (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

About time, 211 posts here on the discussion page along with 98 to the main article shows that you have been contributing more than most. Watch out, I just wanted to get a forum listed at the Newcastle United page (turns out I was wrong and had to remove it per ELNO) and now I find myself on the look out for hippie propaganda.

In regards to fuel, if we are going to add a line about Earthrace I don't have a problem with it being the fuel (big part of the ship and its PR) and/or the speed (another big part). We can delete the qualifier all together and just say "the Earthrace" w/ a wikilink but that seems like a cop out.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant to Earthrace, but it's not relevant to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Just because something is in a news article, doesn't automatically make it relevant to an article's page. For example, in this TV ratings article, the figures for SpongeBob SquarePants don't become relevant to Burn Notice or Wizards on Deck with Hannah Montana. I'm not denying the fuel is an important part of the boat, but it's not relevant here. It's a side issue at best. The relevant issue is the boat's speed, because that is why it is being used. However, provided the article isn't changed to concentrate on specific components of the fuel, as was your original intent, and remains "derived mainly from animal fat, soybeans or other forms of bio-diesel" I'm willing to compromise. The operative word here is "or" as it covers all of the elements of biodiesel and doesn't concentrate on one or two non-mandatory components. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You continuously are ignoring that Earthrace's operator goes out of his way to specify what type of low emission fuel is used. I am really leaning towards no inclusion on the fuel since they apparently were running on mix that was only 20% bio a few years ago.Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring that at all but, as I've indicated, it's not relevant to this article because this article is about SSCS, not Earthrace. The boat is being used because it is a high speed, highly manoeuvrable boat, which the Steve Irwin is not. It's not being used because it runs on biodiesel. While I'd certainly agree to no inclusion, I don't think your anon friend would. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources discuss its cleaner emissions and futuristic as much as the speed from what I have read when discussing its involvement with SSCS. Granted, record-holder comes up alot but so do the other two. Maneuverability is probably last on the list even though it is important(I haven't actually run any numbers, though).Cptnono (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The bio-friendly fuel is a good PR point, which it's why it's discussed so much, but I don't see the vessel being avoided if it ran on standard diesel. The manoeuvrability issue is more a case of being a hell of a lot more manoeuvrable than the Steve Irwin is. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the maneuverability is important but most sources I come across talk about it being green (then animal fat gets mentioned usually), the record, and styling when talking about Sea Shepherd. We cannot tout the Biodiesel and not mention the fact that it is a low mix or with fat. If we did we would be presenting information appropriate for a SSCS press release. #68/new name thinks it is important to mention the fat and noteworthiness is part of Wikipedia. However, I am perfectly fine saying "look the Earthrace article is over there!". Another thing to take into account is that there will more than likely be some coverage as things get going down there. If we have short line for now we have a short line. We have been needing to expand the vessel section so this is something that might be cute in there in a few months when sources come out (although we would need to make it clear that it is not an SSCS vessel).Cptnono (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As per the above articles, I believe I've demonstrated that in major media discussion on SSCS relationship with Earthrace, the content of the fuel is a notable fact. I have yet to hear a logical reason why that should NOT follow suit by incorperating the notable facts, other than other people's discussion about me. So, removing all discussion about me is there any big reason why NOT to include it? I find it to be relevant. If you do a standard google search of "Sea Sheperd Animal Fat" you will find chatter to indicate that others see it as notable as well, that along with all the notable sources that repeat it's interesting notabillty say Yes, include it. The simple fact that folks want the phrase "animal fat" banished so badly should have indicated it's relevance. --0nonanon0 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well no, you haven't demonstrated why the specific components of the fuel, or even the type of fuel itself, is relevant to the article. All information in an article should be relevant to the article. Notability doesn't immediately make something relevant to an article and this has been discussed at length, with examples. What you need to do is explain how the fuel is relevant to the article and you haven't done that. I've asked the question a number of times and it still remains unanswered. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have answered that question Rather than answering why it's relevant again, and agin and again I'll leave it up to you to re-read the above posts, and search around on the internet to see if other people find that fact relevant. Hey look! I even put a link above for you if you don't want to do the searching yourself, just click the link! :) How much easier could it be? and totally will again. It should be included because it complies with all WP policy on what should be included in an article. And sorry if I sounded snarky earlier, this discussion is tiresome because it feels like a positive SSCS POV is being pushed by the cleaning (removal) of relevant facts. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Which policies would that be? --AussieLegend (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that would be all of them. I mean you've argued against each WP (vandalism, POV, Undue wieght, notabillity) above and I've demonstrated how the info fits with each of those policies allready. Which policy are you concerned about now? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying "all of them" isn't good enough. I've cited specific policies. You haven't shown how the addition of the information is supported by specific policies. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You want me to demonstrate which of the wiki policies are not being broken by the inclusion of the material? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That and you could show how specific policies support inclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policies not violated = all Wiki policies being adhered to = all (as far as I am aware, I don't ACTUALLY know all of them). I don't think I want to list every wiki policy for you. (kind of a silly request) 68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not a very convincing argument. It loses credibility when you claim your addition doesn't violate any policies and adheres to all policies but then you admit that you don't know the policies. Of course I didn't expect you to list all of the policies but you could have listed one or two that support you. And yyet, there's not a single one. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've listed like 7 or so below. Basically, each angle you've tried to take on the removal of the "animal fat and vegitable oil" comment I've demonstrated that according to wiki policy and notable experts that the information was good. But now your position is that notable expert opinion is not as good as your own on the topic of content importance. So that's where I stop arguing you. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Army of Australian Sock Puppets

Once AussieLegend got to 3R on edits, an army of geographically isolated sock puppets took up the cause. Someone take a look and help if you can. I don't know the proper method of dealing with sock puppets. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The time has come to get a consensus here on the Talk page before reverting again. Admins are standing by. Those who count on being able to get up to three reverts before action is taken may not be on safe ground. We have a policy page called WP:Dispute resolution that is good reading. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I'm getting more than a little pissed off at 68.41.80.161's allegations everywhere. For a start, I only made two reversions to his three, back to the accurate and non-misleading content provided by another editor as part of the dispute resolution process. He needs to assume good faith and stop edit warring. That said, I thought we had resolved this issue. Cptnono came up with a neutral, non-misleading version here, for reasons that he explained here. Although the wording is slightly different to what I would have written, it seemed to be a reasonable compromise. 68.41.80.161 is intent on including references to the specific content of biodiesel which, as I have previously argued, is really irrelevant to the article. His reasons for focusing on animal fat is that he believes it's funny,[19] and ironic.[20] The simple fact, as I've been arguing, is that the type of fuel used is irrelevant. We don't discuss the content of the "non eco-friendly" fuels that have been used by the ships over the past 32 years, or the AVGAS used by the helicopter, so why discuss the fuel used by Earthrace? Discussing it just because one editor sees it funny or ironic that Earthrace uses an eco-friendly fuel is not encyclopaedic. It's more important and relevant to address the speed of the boat since that's why it's being used. Cptnono's edit does that so that's what should be in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

One editor finds that it's "relevant to address the speed of the boat since that's why it's being used". Another editor finds that it's relevant to include the "animal fat and soybean oil" becuse many of the sources include that as a relevant fact. Why don't we do both? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Aussielegend, you have not been full of peaches and cream yourself so it comes across as inappropriate to accuse another editor of bad faith and disregard logical reasoning as to why he is attempting the inclusion. Take a step back and look at yourself and the situation a little more critically, take a deep breath, then try again. In regards to sockpuppetry, #68 might be getting that confused with meatpuppetry or off Wikipeida campaigning. It does seem a little off to have IPs from relativity close area reverted edits with an empty contribution on this article or anywhere else on Wikipeida. Regardless of what it is called it is bad.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Aussie in response to my motives, I'd appreciate it if you did not cite my sense of humor as my reasoning. My reasoning is clearly spelled out in the section directly above. Would you mind looking at the sources in the "New Question" section directly above to verify if your "misleading" concern has been properly addressed? I believe your concerns have all been addressed with the citations above. Thanks. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Cptnono, I have been completely neutral, which is why I opposed inclusion of animal fat. "68"'s reasoning hasn't been completely logical. This is highlighted in my question as to why we should discuss the contents of Earthrace's fuel when we don't discuss the rest. That question remains unanswered. There is nothing wrong with my accusations of bad faith. "68" immediately jumped to the conclusion of sockpuppetry and made unfounded allegations in five different places, even going to the extent of removing my rebuttal on his talk page, but strangely not any of my other posts. To 68.41.80.161, if you don't want your sense of humour cited, then you shouldn't use it in your edit summaries as part of your reasoning for an edit. As I have expressed previously, you need to remain neutral. Humour and irony don't belong in the discussion, nor does the sensationalism expressed in the heading of this (and other) sections. A review of the edit history of the article reveals only two unregistered IPs, other than yourself, which hardly constitutes an army. Using "army" in the heading and your posts is pure sensationalism.

Of course, none of this discussion resolves the issue at hand. Perhaps we can now get back on track and discuss issues relevant to the article? --AussieLegend (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't write that much then run away. If you can't find the humor while editing on a collaborative project it sucks to be you. However, there is a big difference between the talk page and actual edits. Also, the IP history points to meat puppetry. Maybe we are incorrect but if it quacks like a duck it is more than likely a duck. Anyways, the on track discussion is in the subsection above you. If you want to get this discussion settled then it needs to get settled without harboring resentment and fessing up to mistakes (that goes for the both of you) would help.Cptnono (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with humour per se but justifying a misleading edit with humour is inappropriate. As for meatpuppets, anyone is capable of meatpuppetry, even an anon editor who is trying to sway opinion against a well established (16,585 edits) editor who has never been blocked and has no history of meat or sockpuppetry, especially when that anon editor has received warnings about edit warring on this page. I'm not making any accusations, I'm simply pointing out some facts you have overlooked. What does WP:DUCK or Occam's razor tell you now? Can we please get back to the topic now? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with defending yourself but if you can't understand why an editor would lay that charge against you I am completely confused. Maybe it was an IP starting trouble but that was least likely so duck is my preferred method of assuming bad faith.Cptnono (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up. I should have checked myself but didn't. You should have brought up your history earlier. Count doesn't blah blah how good you are or whatever but such a ratio of article edits and the total number are badass.

Hannah Montanna, though? (that is me screwing with you)Cptnono (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bring up my history earlier because I didn't see it as necessary. I agree that total edits don't indicate how good you are but if you've had over 16,000 edits and have never been blocked or used puppets, it's a pretty good indicator of innocence. As for Hannah Montana, most of my edits these days are administrative, combatting misleading, uncited ifnormation, original research, vandalism etc. ie exactly what I've been doing here. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take a break from criticizing one another, and try to come to a verdict on whether 'animal fat' should be included. A bunch of published sources that might assist you are already listed in the 'New Question' section just above this one. EdJohnston (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Or you could look above one section ;) Cptnono (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're saying that editors now agree that animal fat can be included? EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is still ongoing up above. Haven't heard from 68/new name for a bit (assume yes for inclusion), Aussie is still saying no, and I am leaning bare bones (essentially no). Things are looking up for getting it figured out but it isn't decided yet. I'm sure we can all act like big kids if you are inquiring due to the semiprotect. Cptnono (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I said that provided the article isn't changed to concentrate on specific components of the fuel, as was 68's original intent, and remains "derived mainly from animal fat, soybeans or other forms of bio-diesel" I'm willing to compromise. However, I do believe that it shouldn't be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears we are reaching the compromise that the phrase "derived mainly from animal fat, soybeans or other forms of bio-diesel" should be included and I'm happy with that as it's what many of the news sources say in articles discussing SSCS and Earthrace. --0nonanon0 (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You must be looking at a different discussion to the rest of us. I've said that I'm willing to compromise on the wording but have a preference not to include mention of the fuel type. Cptnono has said he's leaning to non-inclusion. That makes it only you that thinks that it should be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying noninclusions on everything. Hooray wikilink and leave it at that until more coverage comes out. Either that or we can spell out all of the fun bits. Earthrace will join Sea Shepherd. It is a futuristic looking ship that holds the world record for circumnavigaiton of the globe by a motorized vessel. The vessel is eco-friendly and runs on a low emision biodiesel comprised of animal fat and veggie oil. It will be painted black. (obviousley toy with it). All of it or none if it makes sense to me since we are all looking at the sources differently. After thinking about it all of it might be the best but can't tell.Cptnono (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on your preference for non-inclusion I'll suggest "In 2009 Earthrace, a futuristic boat, will join Sea Shepherd in its protest against Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean. Earthrace will be used to intercept and block harpoons." This sticks to the relevant facts (WHEN,(2009) WHAT (Earthrace, a futuristic boat) and WHY (to intercept and block harpoons)) and provides a detailed citation in support of everything without digressing into side issues. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I like your suggestion CPTnono because it gives a brief intro to Earthrace including all the notable factoids commonly included in articles mentioning SSCS (just as long as we keep it a short summary like you have above). I also like the way you are putting relevant facts into your own words, avoiding plagerism. I do not like your suggestion Aussie because, again, you are removing the "animal fat and vegitable oil" comment again, and it doesn't sound neutral. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hate the bock harpoon thing. One source said it and it sounds preposterous. Too expensive of a ship to let it get hit by exploding tip harpoons. Watson admits to manipulation and I think this is an obvious case of it. "Painted black and act stealth" was good but it can always just be "to assist in operations" (my preference is the last).Cptnono (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should say that because I wote the same thing but decided not save the edit becuse I've been talking too much allready. :) But yeah, seriously? It's gonna jump in front of a fired harpoon eh? lol. I'd love to see the face of the sailor that gets that order. hehe. Love that show. Also, making a comment about using it as a stealth boat might be nice, it's a commonly referenced intention... but we need to be careful with listing "intentions" because as with the other comment, stated intentions may simply be non-notable spin. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So screw detailed intentions. Go with "join operations in the Southern Ocean" or something similar?Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that or a simmilar phrase to that would be a neutral way of describing realistic intentions in a ref supported manner. Affix that to the end of your few sentences summarizing commonly noted facts (animal fat, speed records, and I'm all in. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, we shouldn't be including irrelevant information. See WP:TOPIC. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you disagree with all the sources noted above that it is relevant? The notable news sources discussing it so much in the context of SSCS demonstrates relevance. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already addressed this elsewhere, more than once. Notability does not automatically make something relevant. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what else do you want from the authors demonstrating that they found the information relevant? Other than writing a book or article about it? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You might hate the "harpoon thing" but that's what the citation says. I'm assuming that the intention is not to take a hit from a harpoon but to stop the Japanese from firing the harpoons in the first place. They're less likely to fire a harpoon with a boat full of people in the way. Regardless, it is a relevant fact, cited from a reliable source and explains the boat's purpose in the campaign. It's not up to us to determine whether the stated intention is plausible, that's original research. We can't cherry pick citations to get the content that we desire. That's not being neutral. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

1 cite vs 100 others means it does not deserve weight. Simple. Also, Watson is not a reliable source even if someone else is publishing his interview. He has stated that he is not. I also have not seen a source going into the detail you just did so that would be some assumptions on your part.Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)There aren't 100 citations saying that it isn't true. That there is only one citation saying that it is true is enough. It's a direct quote from the organisation's leader in a third party source which gives it weight. Wikipedia:Verifiability addresses this in the very first sentence:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

That's right on point. I don't know what you mean by "I also have not seen a source going into the detail you just did". My proposed wording doesn't go into any more detail than the bare facts, as published in a reliable source. If you are referring to my assumption as to how the blocking will achieved, that was just to provide an alternate viewpoint to your assumption that the aim is to let Earthrace be hit by harpoons. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone's stated intention is not a bare fact, respecially when it comes from someone who advocates manipulating media. If you actually LOOKED at the articles discussing SSCS (including SSCS's own website) you would also see that most of them consider the renewable fuel content to be pertinent. But that't OK that you disagree with them. We don't all need to agree. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you consider Watson to be unreliable is irrelevant. That's covered by "not whether we think it is true". As for the fuel, again you miss the point. The information needs to be relevant to the article. Knowing what fuel is used by any of the vessels does not improve the readers understanding of SSCS, which is what the article is about. Notability does not mean it's relevant. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Weight. 1 source does not deserve prominance over 100sdozens of others. Verifiability is not the problem.

Also, anything Watson says should be in the form of a quote with his name mantioned since he has admitted to not telling the truth but that should go for everything and not just this instance. I also assume you do not meant to say that truth is to be disregarded. "Watson said yada yada" is true while "this will happen" is not.

Knowing that it is futuristic does not improve the readers understanding of SSCS. Like I said, I am happy with all of it or none of it. I don't care which one you guys choose. Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

CPTnono, would you please work out the entire pararaph for inclusion as if we were to use it? I dont believe everyone has to agree on whether or not each part is important. If enough people think it's important, it probably is, and Aussie isn't providing any reason why the phrase should be utterly unallowed. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean not mentioning Earthrace at all. I am trying to say "In 2009 Earthrace will join SSCS in its operations in the Southern Ocean." This relies on the wikilink for additional info. I put up above a sloppy draft. Something like "Earthrace will join Sea Shepherd. It is a futuristic looking ship that holds the world record for circumnavigaiton of the globe by a motorized vessel. The vessel is eco-friendly and runs on a low emision biodiesel comprised of animal fat and veggie oil. It will be painted black. Cptnono (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a brief summary of Earthrace is best, just like the brief summary of each of the ships noted. We don't dupilcate that ship's main article, but we do summarize. So we won't talk about how the captains fat went into the fuel one time, we just give a quick sentance like you have. It's very consistant with your proposed second paragraph there. Just a wikilink won't do, lok at our treatment of the other ships, it fits wiki's policy on summarizing well, so does your paragraph. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nbeen quite a few comments from the both of you so I'm going to address specific points for clarity.

"Weight. 1 source does not deserve prominance over 100sdozens of others" - There aren't 100 other sources that dispute the statement. However, there is at least one that explains why Earthrace is being used and that is very relevant.

"Also, anything Watson says should be in the form of a quote with his name mantioned" - It is quoted in the source. That's all that's needed.

"I also assume you do not meant to say that truth is to be disregarded." - Of course not but even the truth needs to be verifiable. We shouldn't be going into a discussion about Watson here, when we're talking about vessels.The appropriate place for that is his bio article.

"Knowing that it is futuristic does not improve the readers understanding of SSCS" - Agreed, but simply putting [[Earthrace]] raises questions as to what Earthrace is since it's not immediately obvious from the name. The wikilink provides additional information but the reader shouldn't have to go to that article to find out what Earthrace is. "Earthrace, a boat" is just too bare.

"I put up above a sloppy draft (etc)" - This draft goes against your preference for non-inclusion. As you've indicated, we don't need to, and shouldn't, duplicate information that's covered in Earthrace.

"Just a wikilink won't do" - I agree with 68 here, but we don't need to add too much. WHAT, WHEN and WHY is all that's required and supports Cptnono's stated preference for non-inclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you're saying that you agree with the paragraph of summarization, and you think that everything should be in there except you still don't think the fuel should be mentioned because it's not part of the basic What When Why test. Is that right? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I said as much in this edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So what if experts in major news source publications find that it SHOULD be included in the What Where Why test of the SSCS/Earthrace disucssion. Would you argue that your WWW test is better than that of a professional journalist or would you yield to the opinion of an expert in the field? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So what indeed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument you should be making, especially when the articles you mention aren't related to Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So you've created an indefeatable argument that has you as the top expert of relevance and the experts don't know as much about how relevant an issue is? I disagree with that, mate. The experts tell YOU what is relevant, not the other way around. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comment below (Work towards consensus) and double check the practices or guidlines being ponted out and get back on subject. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that it must be indefeatable. You haven't explained how the information is relevant, you haven't tried to counter my argument that notability does not immediately make something relevant, you haven't shown that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply and you haven't shown a single policy that supports you, despite numerous invitations. These experts you talk of are typically newspaper repoters, not encyclopaedia editors so they're not experts here. They don't define what gets put into Wikipedia articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary time

OK summary time,

• On the inclusion of all commonly quoted facts in a brief summary we all agree except that Aussie does not like "animal fat and vegitable oil" to be in the article for. Originally becuase he thought it was Vandalism (as noted on my page), then NPOV (as noted here), then misleading (as noted here (6 times), then not notable, now undue wieght, then WP:Otherstuffexists (see below) I think is the complaint. Is this correct? I believe each of those complints are addressed by the numerous notable sources above that reference the issue in a SSCS/Earthrace context. It seems that it may be a personal dislike at this point. (unless there is a new reason not to include it).

• On the topic of watson manipulating the media and stating intentions, I think we all agree he's notable and this could be included as long as we quote him properly and not present his words as gospel, but that we present them as claims he is making. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm worried about unintended WP:WIN creeping through after looking at that history. Both 68 (where's the new name?) and I need to keep it in mind for ourselves of course.

Mentioning blocking harpoons is the exact opposite of mentioning the biodiesel comp (1 source asserting its importance and include vs many asserting importance but not include).Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the check. So you're saying 1. Tons of articles find that the biodiesel comp stuff is important. 2. Not a lot of people find Watson's stated intentions to be important and we need to watch Undue Wieght of them. Is that what you're saying? If so I agree except that we may find more articles demonstrating the notabillity of how people take Watson's statments and then might need to find a way to present them tactfully. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Precisley. And overall it doesn't mater too much since we should have some sources coming up wen stuff starts going on down there.Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning blocking harpoons is not the exact opposite of mentioning the components of biodiesel. That's a silly thing to say. Biodiesel is about the boat itself and is irrelevant to SSCS because the boat runs on biodiesel regardless of SSCS. It's a normal part of the boat and so is not overly notable. Blocking harpoons is the stated purpose of the boat in the SSCS campaign so it's relevant, since it's only ever been SSCS that has a stated intent to use the boat for this purpose. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I like this game. Blocking harpoons however contradicts being stealth which is also its stated intent. I really don't understand why you are pushing this. It comes across a little weird.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Aussie, what do you want from the authors to determine if they found it to be relevant? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a fallacious argument. In blocking harpoons, stealth would allow Earthrace to position itself where it wants without necessarily alerting the whalers as to what it's doing. Once it's in position, protecting a whale from a harpoon, even a black boat isn't going to be that stealthy when the whalers are looking right at it. The wake of the boat is going to give it away anyway. Painting a boat black, on its own, doesn't make a boat stealthy. I seriously doubt that blocking harpoons is the only thing it will be used for, since SSCS seems to spend a lot of time looking for the whaling ships, at least going by what I've seen on Whale Wars. It will probably also be used to follow the whaling fleet, taking advantage of its high speed, compared to the Steve Irwin, and its long loiter time, compared to the helicopter. You need to stop assuming things and concentrate on what is published in reliable sources.

To 68, I'd like you to explain exactly why you think fuel composition is relevant. Explain how it adds to your understanding of the subject of the article, which is SSCS, not Earthrace. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, as noted above, it's relevant for our purposes because the authors found it to be relevant. My POV (humerous or not) is not a factor in what the notable experts find to be relevant. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Notbale expertwriter mentioned the quote. Another writer menitoned a quote that contradicted it. The rest of the writers prefer to talk about other stuff. We cannot know what will be right. And it isn't haha funny it is cause for concern.

Writers also think the composition of fuel is important to mention in articles with SSCS. Since it was disputed, other sources were found to confirm. please do not get them confused.Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not good enough. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Those writers were not writing an encyclopaedic article. What they wrote might have been appropriate for their articles but it doesn't make it relevant to this Wikipedia article. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So nothing an expert or relaible source writes on the subject will be able to trump your expert knowledge of what is relevant to SSCS? I don't think that sounds right. The experts should be able to tell US what is relevant. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a shot in the dark, OK so if it doesn't matter if experts think it's relevant only you.. what if another editor thought it was relevant, like me. Would that change anything? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply here since it is about article and policy creation. Please don't do that.

Also, sources contradicting each other is a valid reason to be concerned about inclusion of material. Like everything else, we can add both in but we are looking at bloat and weight concerns. Of course we are then looking at the principle pointed out in theWP:RECENTISM essay since this is relativity unimportant in the grand scheme of things and devoting this much effort and potential lines of information. Like I said though, we can add it all in (looks, speed, possible intent, fuel comp, greenness, maneuverability) and everyone will be happy.Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

In 2009, it was announced that the Eathrace will accompany Sea Shepherd in September during operations against Japanese Whaling in the Southern Ocean. The Earthrace is a futuristic styled ship that holds the world record for circumnavigation of the globe by a motorized vessel. The vessel is eco-friendly by running on low emission biodiesel comprised of animal fat and vegetable oil. Pete Buthune, the operator, says that an agreement was reached with Sea Shepherd for the boat to adopt a support role and it became a stealth boat by being painted black. Watson has said that it will be used to intercept and block harpoons.

Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Adjustments made. There were two sections devoted to it. Now there is one in the Operation and a line in "vessels" (is isn't SSCS anyways). Moved possible 2nd ship and flag stuff up there instead of in Ops. This should make everyone a little happy and a little pissed. That means to me that it is neutral or at least meets all of our requests. Things to add when if RS mention them: Additional kevlar, non-foul black (silver was) paint.Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

While I applaud your used of WP:BOLD, I have some concerns. If specifics of vessels, such as fuel types, records, or anything else that is part of the normal functioning of the vessel or outside of its use with SSCS, is to be discussed then it would be more appropriate to discuss them in the "Vessels" section. Particular uses of the vessels, as a stealth boat, to block harpoons etc is certainly appropriate in the "Operations" section. My big concern is your re-introduction of "animal fat and vegetable oil", something you've acknowledged is misleading. We're supposed to be working towards consensus here and such significant edits really shouldn't be made whil discussion is occuring. That said, I do see some improvement and I'm not going to revert. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an SSCS vessel so I didn't want to give it too much there. I have been meaning to actually get that section going for awhile now since we are missing good stuff on several vessels before the recent "fleet".Cptnono (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though it's not an SSCS vessel it could still be included in the "Vessels" section, if necessary in a separate sub-section. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is in both. The detailed information is not duplicated is all. We could remove both instances if we want to put inline with the weight granted to other vessels owned and operated by SSCS that are not in all. We can also find more thinks to bicker about while wikilinking different policies in an attempt to win or we could just move on and improve other aspects of the article. Cptnono (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the paragraphs as you've written them in article. While, like Aussie, I prefer for the ships section to be a little more organized with more summaries of each of the ships, I think this is good for the current situation. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Some relevant links

Since concerns have been expressed at the number of reports confirming use of Earthrace to block harpoons, I thought I'd see if there were more. Comments here by Peter Bethune indicate that Earthrace will be blocking harpoons. Another I found indicated that the fuel used will not be biodiesel.[21] A Youtube video at that link also confirms use of Earthrace to block harpoons. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocking harpoons is already in. Do you want to continue to discuss it? Also, Myspace is not OK as a source. The fuel thing is interesting, though.Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

He called Watson out and had to retract for him LOL: “Paul must have been pretty excited when he said I'll be blocking harpoons with Earthrace. if they ever hit us with an explosive harpoon it'll be massive damage. but certainly we'll do our best to get in their way. If they hit us it will always be their guy that pulled the trigger — but hopefully things won't come to that.” Translated in "Um... yeah Paul said it but we know it can't go down that way since it will hurt my vessel too much. We will still be in the mix and if they hit us they will be in troouuuble."

I'm going to change the current biodiesel line.Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I looked because of concerns that had been raised. I wasn't advocating using any of the links in the articles, they have just been provided for reference purposes. I don't see Bethune as retracting. Here and in the video he says they'll be getting in the way, which confirms what Watson said. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I definately wanna get that crazy junk in the article. Again, we need to be careful not to adopt the intent as fact.. but say that "so and so claims that Earthrace will intercept explosive harpoons with the ship" kind of direct quoting. Thanks for the heads up Aussie, definately notable, we still need better sources than myspace though. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's official

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/10/07/earthrace-completes-its-journey-to-the-dark-side/ The boat is black. That boat is freekin sweet. Wording needs to change to reflect that the boat IS now black. :) I wanna ride in that thing. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Batman and shit. There was a leaked image of the ski doo and I want to see what they will do. replacing IS with WAS (this line still might be adjusted).Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

LOl.. Robin! Hand me my shark repellant bat spray! Yeah, I've read no news on the skidoo yet but I've seen a pic as well. I'll post when I find one. :) 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/09/28/earthrace-prepping-jetski-from-hell-to-fight-japanese-whalers/ There it is.. so cute. It's like an alien robot sith daddy and his little alien robot sith baby boy--68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind you that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. It's not an Earthrace fansite. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Earthrace rocks! I should know. I collect rocks. And besides it is about the article. They are SSCS assimilation news bits. Could be used in article. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think we had crossed into the being forumy and both links are nice heads up for resources coming down the pipeline and to better understand the subject. But if you just want to be a poopey pants then we can start talking about rocks that are related to SSCS.Cptnono (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just did a google search for Sea Shepherd Rock and check this nugget out! http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=t2cVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KOEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6875,2938514&dq=sea-shepherd+rock&hl=en vintage ship sinking article. There may be some great useable stuff in that one. Great idea cpt!! :D 68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Lol. "used acid and sledgehammers to destroy" NEEDS to be in the article somehow. Should also be the name of a band.68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your link didn't work but it looks like you are referring to the actions against the Whaling station (Iceland or Norway?) I think it is in already.Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The link still works for me. It's a news paper scan of SSCS having sunk ships and used sledge hammers and acid to destroy computers, warehouse materials and ships. Crazy stuff. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF? Must have been my connection that was a problem because it worked fine for me, too. Also removed a duplicate ref. Nice find.Cptnono (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, we NEEDed a few primary source refs for the early work back in the 80's. I think this is perfect for us. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

More news

http://www.theage.com.au/national/whale-activist-hits-visa-hurdle-20091004-ghwm.html The article might do well to mention that there is currently a pending federal investigation involving the recent raid of the Steve Irwin earlier this year. There have been several recent mentions of it in the news

Great source and looks like a prequel to what is to come. Oddly enough, it has information that might be needed in a few places.Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The raid isn't all that recent. It happened just over eight months ago. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but there have been many recent mentions of it because of the current investigation and recent difficulties for SSCS members to obtain passports. Here's another mention, basically same info. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/outposts/2009/10/whale-wars.html 68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Well duuuuuh :) This is interesting since it could be included in information discussing international relations, criminal history, Japan continuing to apply political pressure, ect.Cptnono (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Headings

I've just changed the heading levels on some sections to keep together all of the directly related parts of the one conversation that started with "Delicious Irony". This has meant moving "Archives" below some of the sections. As per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, this has been done to improve readbility. No content has been changed. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like how you isolated the Austrailian sock puppet taking up your cause of reverts to it's own category, taking it out of the context of the admin dealing with it. It makes me feel like you were trying to vindicate yourself by hiding it all by itself. I won't switch it back though. Just try to be aware of how your POV is coming off. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to get the headings in some form of order and the sockpuppet accusation stands on it's own. My point of view has always been neutral so your warning seems hypocritical given previous discussions that I don't see any benefit in revisting. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think either of you have been perfect little angels so the both of you get over it already.Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your point of view is not neutral, it's uniquely yours and subject to your experiences. I'm not warning you, I'm just letting you know that removing the sock puppet notice from the actions of the admin that came in response to it looks like you are trying to alter the appearance of the situation. To CPT, I'm just saying I don't like my edits messed with and taken out of context like that one has been. Makes me feel like someone is being dishonest. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You are allowed to be pissed but I figured I would tell you both off to keep it even :) Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not so pure of heart yourself. We all have faults but this is not the place to discuss them. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, I appolgize for bring up personal stuff. I just wanted to discuss edits, and how edits like that one affect the process. So it's said now, thanks for listening, not a big deal. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Weasle wording on negatives

Just a word on why the "percieved violent" had to be reverted back to "violent". First, violent direct actions is objective and well defined at Direct action , also the word "violence" is used in plenty articles. In general, we don't want the article to take a side in whether or not we percieve them to be violent. Either they are notable violent or not. We wouldn't want to say everyone says they are but we don't believe it. :) Avoiding weasle words like "percieved" helps us avoid that sort of POV problem. Peace and happy editing. 0nonanon0 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And from the editor's edits it is clear he is going for NPOV. This edit just had the potential to backfire.Cptnono (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Watson accused Australia of sabotaging SSCS

This is interesting.. and new. LAtimes on Watson 68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a small point, when adding urls, it's best to bracket them. ie "[http://www.website.com]" rather than "http://www.website.com". "[22]" is just as effective as "http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/outposts/2009/10/sea-shepherds-frustrated-capt-paul-watson-lashes-out-against-australia.html" and takes up less space. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Allright, thank you. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there an easy way I can get the link to say "LA Times" instead of "71" or whatever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[www.whatever.comSPACEYada Yada] = Yada Yada

Cool, thank you very much. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This article makes me question the current validity of statements within the "international support" section. I don't want to "counterpunch" the fact that certain people within government support them with a "but they can't get a visa" type statment but there has to be a way to get all the info in there tactfully. Suggestions? --0nonanon0 (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC) :Come to think of, that whole section could use an overhaul, I'm not sure "wrathful scowling demon" is the proper wording. :) --0nonanon0 (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I misread it, "wrathful scowling diety" is actually the wording used. Lol.. I swear the truth in this artcile seems funnier than any POV vandalism folks could dream up. 0nonanon0 (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Throw the Australian crackdown after the line about the Greens?Cptnono (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the way you reworded the section. Has all the relevant info presented neutrally. 0nonanon0 (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Despite Mr. Watson’s extensive criminal record and accusations of conspiracy, the Australian government only delayed his entry for a few days, finally making an exception in his case. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Do you have a source readily available? Cptnono (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Book

Dude who wrote the National Geographic story also has a book it looks like. A new editor attempted to dd this as a see also. Below is the info removed for use as an inline cite

• Heller, Peter (2008). The Whale Warriors: The Battle at the Bottom of the World to Save the Planet's Largest Mammals. Free Press. ISBN 141653248X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

This should definately be in the article. 0nonanon0 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kill Vs. Catch

I see the word kill is often used in articles envolving whales, commercial whaling is a process of gathering and harvesting from natural resources and i think it is misleading to call it killing. Fish also dies when its caught, we dont call that killing do we? The term hunt, hunting, hunted would be more accurate in my opinion. Rosenborgman 15:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.170.172 (talk)

I saw a similar concern arise over "slaughter. Certain words evoke more emotion and are not appropriate when alternatives such as "harvest" are available. In this circumstance, it is an easy fix since the info isn't necessary. They problem was them using non explosive harpoons. We could add "while hunting" but I think the reader gets it.Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The usual terms in the case of mammals are kill and slaughter. In the case of whales the more neutral kill is better, since they are not dragged into a slaughter house. It's also clear that catch has the wrong connotations: The details of killing whales are in now way comparable with angling or with catching fish in a net. Harvest is obviously out for POV reasons, since it's a euphemism that makes the activity appear as harmless as if whales were vegetables, and since it also carries totally inappropriate connotations of fostering (is this the right word?) the supply. Hans Adler 23:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns would make sense but "harvest" is a term that is common in and when referring to the fishing/whaling industry. It doesn't matter since this line is fixed and we didn't have to step on anyone's terms.Cptnono (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, i realize that it comes down to if you support commercial whaling or not. I for one am a strong supporter of it as long as it is only performed on whale species of relative abundance. I became engaged in this matter watching whale wars on Discovery Channel where the word "kill" was used, also by the Discovery Channel narrator. In my opinion that gives an unjust perspective on the matter and i think it gives an image of commercial whaling that is slanted towards the opinion of whaling protesters, and that "harvest" or eventually "catch" or "lethal catch" would be better.--Rosenborgman (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with "hunt" in this context, as it describes the activity very well. Hans Adler 12:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans, it sounds as if you’re applying your own subjective understanding/POV here. Really not a good situation to be using words like “obviously”. The taking of wild animals ordinarily is called harvesting, and I don’t see what your objection to the connotation of fostering is. The state bodies that legislate hunting are called “Wildlife Management” for a reason – quotas and limits are set to try to ensure healthy populations. Oftentimes (such as with whitetail deer in some US states right now) the population of a given species might actually become too large, and increased hunting is necessary to keep the population at a sustainable level. Sure, you’re killing individual animals, but you’re fostering the herd. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 11:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The "taking" of wild animals is certainly not "ordinarily" called "harvesting". The taking of cultivated plants/plant parts is ordinarily called "harvesting".

By talking specifically about wild animals you make sure to exclude the context in which the killing of animals is ordinarily called "slaughter". That's fine. But that's not the real distinction that determines what to call the killing of an animal. Although the verb "harvest" can be used as you say (just like the verb "slaughter" can be used for killing whales) it is not neutral to do so.

Reason: The primary meaning of harvest is the much more harmless and totally uncontroversial agricultural action described in the article harvest. "Harvest" carries at least the following misleading connotations:

• That it refers to plants or plant products. (No killing involved.)
• That large amounts of small things are taken in at a time.
• That it was preceded by human cultivation activity.
• That it is uncontroversial.

The fact that "harvest" has connotations that are almost exact mirror images of why whaling is controversial makes it a very convenient euphemism. The verb makes more sense for fishing with nets, especially in fish farms (where 3 of the 4 connotations above are appropriate).

In this article there may be contexts where the word is more appropriate than in others, just like there are contexts where "slaughter" is more appropriate than in others. Examples:

• "According to the Japanese government, the annual harvest totalled ..."
• "Photographs document the slaughter of a mother minke whale with her child by the Yushin Maru." [23]

But we must be very careful not to overuse either word. (Twice in the article might be too much.) Hans Adler 12:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Harvest#Other uses needs sources and it is obviousley wrong from what you have said. Just because you are not familiar with it doesn't mean that it isn't so. Your example above also sounds like you are looking at painting an emotive picture for the reader. If an alternate (rewording to the "hunt" as mentioned here and on other pages) is available then even better. Also, are you arguing just to argue. It isn't in the article anymore is it?Cptnono (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: "slaughter is used in the Taiji subsection. I'll make it say what the source says "An environmental group claimed Wednesday that Japanese fishermen use unnecessarily brutal methods to hunt dolphins".Cptnono (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I had this article confused with another (Japanese whaling?). "Kill" is used multiple times. "Sea Shepherd accused it of catching and killing dolphins in its tuna nets" is an example of an instance where kill is the only appropriate way to clearly present the info to the reader. "Japan decided to double their quota kill from the previous year to 935 minke whales and ten endangered fin whales." is an instance where quota fine on its own (unless we are accusing the Japanese of humping the whales). We also can't change anything in quotes, of course. Are there any specific lines disputed? I don't want to force a line to say something that makes it sound like crap.Cptnono (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT it is not about any specific wording at this time. However, I want to make it very clear that this edit of yours, replacing "slaughter" by "kill" (which I am not going to revert), was POV, and why:

"Slaughter" was used four times in the short CBS News piece, including once in the title. One occurrence is where they quote a SSCS member. You removed this word from a sentence where it is appropriate for the following reasons:

• The sentence describes the SSCS position, and they use the word.
• The word is objectively applicable since this was the controlled killing of a large number of whales confined in a bay. The pictures leave no doubt about this: The first shows the bay, and the second shows that the procedure is similar to the slaughter of domestic animals. Hans Adler 13:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And the source says hunt (like my edit). Hunt doesn't hurt anyone's feelings and works just fine. So since "kill" is so prevelant in the article, does anyone have any specific instances where they don't like it. I'm looking at adjustiug the wording in the lines that go into detail on the quotas (there is one Russian and one Japanese one). There is also the paraphrasing of a few quotes and a couple more with the dophins, and one with Pilot whales. ctrl+f throught the article and lay out which ones should be considered. "Kill" will be unavoidable for some.Cptnono (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Faroe Islands, machine guns?!

The sentence "The Faroese police returned fire with machine guns and tear gas canisters" is utter nonsense. I've tried to correct it, but it gets corrected back immediately. You can see a short documentation by the Faroese TV here. Unfortunately you need to be logged in to Facebook to see that. I can't find the clip elsewhere.

The reference to the article in The Los Angeles Times says that the Sea Shepherd were in international waters 7 miles from Tórshavn. The Faroese ocean territory has been 200 nautical miles since 1977, and it's clearly visible in the video to which I have linked that the Sea Shepherd is quite close to land. Furthermore, the footage shows that events unfolded a lot more peacefully than the article suggests. It is also clear in the footage things don't get dramatic before the Sea Shepherd crew and try to regain a confiscated small inflatable boat. I ask you to compare what Scott Trimingham is quoted for saying in the Los Angeles Times article to what you see in the footage, and I submit to you that Scott Trimingham is a liar. There's no denying what the footage shows. The Sea Shepherd vessel is quite close to land, there is no barbed wire to prevent anybody from boarding, the Faroese Police ask for permission to come on board the vessel, Paul Watson is interviewed by Faroese TV and some of his crew are consequently arrested for obstructing the execution of justice. The section on the Faroe Islands is a blatant misrepresentation of how the events unfolded and it should be changed to accomodate what the footage I have linked to shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heri Joensen (talk • contribs) 14:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are being reverted since you are not providing a reliable source. The LA Times has professional writers and an editorial process while facebook is user generated content. I think I see what you are saying from reading between the lines int he LA Times peice. Can you find a good source for your assertion?Cptnono (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Realized it was all claims. The spokesperson very well might be a liar but we can say that he has made claims. It looks like an edit done primarily by someone close to the organization/using their press release. I tinkered with it.Cptnono (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Incident in Norway '94

That the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs should have issued a communique "announcing the triumphant victory against the terrorist Paul Watson" is a claim by the cited article in L'Express and does not sound very encyclopedic to me. Communiques from Foreign Affairs tend to be very sober and was most likely not "triumphant" in style and would most likely not use the word "terrorist". I can't find the original communique, but I believe the sentence should be rewritten or perhaps removed since it's not very relevant in the description of the incident. Bernt (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it now?Cptnono (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010 Ady Gil collision

There was some highly POV wording on this recent event, as well as some unsourced claims regarding whether or not assistance was offered by the crews of the Japanese vessels, there were even some weasel wording thrown in for good measure (i.e. "Apparently") so I removed all but the statement about the collision and the source for that. It seems we should use reliable sources when it comes to the circumstances leading up to and the events following this (or any) notable event. Raitchison (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As the person who added in the decription that seems a lttlle harsh: I referenced the section to the Times of London article where video and a report of the incident is publically available. Perhaps you would care to view the siad video, and report and collaborate to help elaborate on the details. The actions of Japanese vessel were reported, and their failure to aid the stricken Ady Maru was in clear breach of maritime law which requires seafarers to render asistance to a vessel in distress. Please respond with a suggested version Ashley Payne (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither the video, or the article, say anything about failing to render aid. The article doesn't say that the Japanese "apparently" blast the Ady Gil with water cannon, it's clear that they do, and this is supported by both videos of the event. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, the part I was referring to was "Publically available video of the incident appears to show deliberate ramming of the Ady Gil by the Shonan Maru" I should have used appears instead of apparently but regardless that statement is clearly POV and uses weasel wording. Also there is no source for the statement that the Japanese ships failed to render aid following the collision and even if we have a source that states that no aid was rendered/offered (which I'm sure was the case) including the part about violating maritime law seems questionably relevant for this particular article. In general, YouTube videos are a poor source for establishing all but the most basic facts, it may appear" to you that the Japanese vessel deliberately rammed the boat but it may appear to others watching the same video that the boat deliberately motored into the path of the ship seconds before the collision occurred. I can offer no suggested version because there doesn't seem to be any other verifiable factual information regarding this very recent event. Until such information is available we should stick with what we can verify. Raitchison (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As another editor said, appearances can be deceiving. I doubt we will see such commentary from RS (was the boat putting itself in a bad position for example) but I am sure both parties will have statements. Both are going to have inflammatory and exaggerating language so it will be a simple case of paraphrasing their views. Us deciding what happened is against Wikipeida's standards.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just visiting this page in the wake of the latest Ady Gil events, and was just wondering - given the usual structure of Wikipedia pages on public entities, which include a section on public critiques of said figure/organisation - why there is such a dearth of reference to the large body of such criticism regarding SSCS and its methods? What remains is contained within a short section that presents said criticism ambiguously. Surely it would give greater clarity to break criticism and debate about SSCS out into a separate section - without this it appears that the article is biased. 86.129.174.16 (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

People complained since criticism sections are frowned upon at Wikipeida. They are common enough, though. All of that info is still in but the section header could be changed to "criticism" if other people think it would be best.Cptnono (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)