User talk:Terrillja/Archives/07/2010
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Paul Watson eco-terrorism
Greetings! I've included both the SSCS and Paul Watson articles in the eco-terrorism categories. If you read the articles you will find that plenty of notable experts have considered the violent direct actions as such. Paul Watson is personally named in some instances where in others it is the actions of the SSCS as a whole. I assume you are familliar enough with both articles to know the sources (if not just word seach). Regardless, I don't believe you and I need to debate personal feelings, as we can both agree that notable experts consider the actions of Mr.Watons and SSCS as eco-terrorism as evidenced by the qutes provided in the articles. If you feel these quotes are inappropriate, let's discuss removing them. As they stand though, the facts of what has been said are clear, and that is these entities are part of the popular discussion on eco-terrorism. Peace and happy editing. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- See, they aren't and the discussion pages have said the same. This discussion is getting repetitive every 6 months when you decide to show up and throw a fit, then disappear.--Terrillja talk 17:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Which aren't? The quotes of governmental officials calling Watson and SSCS terrorist being inapropriate or being unclear? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- They are mudslinging by the people he opposes. The FBI mentioned SSCS offhandedly, but not Watson. You're heading down the thin line of WP:SYNTH.--Terrillja talk 17:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think loss of ship and income invalidates thier complaint. Would that loss actually validate it? Wouldn't their loss demonstrate that it wasn't just empty mudslinging? I think the FBI article clearly deliniated the intentional destruction of property for these political reasons as eco-terrorism. I should read it again to make sure I'm not misquoteing it. Regardless, the affected parties, (governing forces of various countries) were very clear on thier position from my reading of the quotes. But you are right, I do not want to claim that someone is saying something they are not. Still, I think we can agree that the conversation is happening aand that is what the categorization is about, that Watson and SSCS are part of the ongoing discussion of eco-terrorism, not that they quantifiably are. Peace. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- They are mudslinging by the people he opposes. The FBI mentioned SSCS offhandedly, but not Watson. You're heading down the thin line of WP:SYNTH.--Terrillja talk 17:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Which aren't? The quotes of governmental officials calling Watson and SSCS terrorist being inapropriate or being unclear? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)