Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archive 7

This 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Challenge: Show us the claimed sources

{{done}} Several people are claiming that the situation is totally clear: That numerous respectable sources have called Sea Shepherd eco-terrorist. I claim that this is simply false. If these sources exist and satisfy our requirements for reliable sources on contentious statements, then please provide them here, with full citation and literal quotation of the sentence in question. I will start with a few sections, feel free to add others. But most importantly, please fill in the missing details that back the claims. Hans Adler 10:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Watson

{{done}} According to Mervyn Emrys: "Paul Watson describes SSCS as ecoterrorist in his books (cited in the article)". This may refer to something in: Paul Watson. 1993. Earthforce! An Earth Warrior’s Guide to Strategy. La Caňada, CA: Chaco Press. I don't think it's too much to ask for a literal quotation from the book (or whatever source by Paul Watson) that backs this amazing claim. Hans Adler 10:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation and literal quotation backing the claim

Japanese government

{{done}} The article currently says: "The group has been accused of eco-terrorism by the Japanese government." I do not doubt this, but we need a better source than the Daily Telegraph. We normally expect our sources to have a bit more detail. Who in the Japanese government said it? When? Hans Adler 10:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation and literal quotation backing the claim

"The collision caused minor damage to both ships. Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research, which sponsors the expedition along with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, accused Sea Shepherd of ``illegal harassment and terrorism in a statement on its Web site and posted a video of the incident. "[1][2] "... an aggressive, controversial, publicity-hungry environmental group that physically assaults whaling ships, and has been accused of eco-terrorism by both the Japanese government and Greenpeace." Daily Telegraph [3] Hans Adler 10:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This one will be hard because there are so many. In the last two hours I saw a a couple ministers of different agencies and something regarding a formal request to the US. If you start looking I'll start looking.Cptnono (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Japanese officials have asked Interpol to issue a red arrest notice for three environmental activists they describe as eco-terrorists."[4]

"while the Japanese Government described Sea Shepherd as a terrorist vigilante group."[5]

"On Tuesday, Japan _ which has described the protesters as terrorists _ said it would ask countries where the ship might make port calls to refuse it entry."[6]
"The anti-whaling group last month clashed at sea with the Japanese whaling boat Nisshin Maru. "Eco-terrorists," says the head of the Japanese Fisheries Agency's whaling division. 'They use violence against anyone who doesn't agree with their views.'"[7]
"The Japanese Whaling Association, which calls Sea Shepherd “a terrorist group,” said the Steve Irwin had rammed the Kaiko Maru whaling ship. It has asked that ports in Australia and New Zealand be closed to the group."[8]
"*"Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are eco-terrorists. They are acting illegally and dangerously. We are very concerned that they will use more and more desperate tactics," said Glenn Inwood, spokesman for the IRC (Institute of Cetacean Research ) from New Zealand. "Sea Shepherd has said that they are prepared to ram us and we fear that they will endanger the lives of our crews and scientists. We will take whatever action we can."[9][10]"
The Japanese company which owns the whaling vessels, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, condemned the butyric acid attacks on its ships that it likened to the work of terrorists. [11]
""The Australian Government helped an eco-terrorist group by providing full support. It is quite problematic," Mr Moronuki said." [12]
The Japanese government routinely describes Sea Shepherd as a terrorist organization and last year accused it of ramming a whaling vessel and attacking the mother ship with acid.[13]
"The crew of a Japanese whaling ship issued a distress call on Monday and labelled activists "eco-terrorists" following collisions in Antarctica's icy waters on Monday."[14]
"The Belize government deregistered it in December following pressure from Japan, which accuses Sea Shepherd members of being "eco-terrorists" and using dangerous tactics to disrupt its hunt."[15]
"FEDERAL Environment Minister Ian Campbell today denied Japanese claims he supported eco-terrorism in the fight against whaling...The Japanese Whaling Association (JWA) has accused Senator Campbell of supporting "illegal actions and eco-terrorism" by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which has a history of sometimes violent clashes at sea with whaling and fishing vessels."[16]
"But Japan questions the Sea Shepherd Society's legitimacy and calls them 'eco-terrorists.'"[17]
"To be sure, that's what people want to know about. All this blase news about fluffy vegan pancakes and art shows does is whet the appetite for the meat-and-potatoes activity that includes dramatic confrontation and what the Japanese refer to as outright terrorism."[18]
"In a letter of protest issued Wednesday, the Institute (IRC) and Kyodo Senpaku condemned the actions of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society from February 8 through 14 in the Southern Ocean. "They are inexcusable criminal acts that go against the practices of good seamanship. What is more, they are spiteful and mindless terrorism perpetrated in disregard of human life," the Japanese organizations said."[19]
"JAPAN'S Fisheries Agency has said it does not need the help of "environmental terrorist" anti-whaling activists, as one of its fleet drifs without power after a fire erupted on board. "[20]
"The Japanese institute accuses Sea Shepherd of ``illegal harassment and terrorism and says one of its boats, the Kaiko Maru, was rammed by activists three days ago and suffered damage to its propeller. The institute posted video footage of the incident on its Web site. "[21]
"Japan's Tokyo-based Institute of Cetacean Research described the protesters as terrorists and accused them of "menacing" and ramming the Kaiko Maru, causing minor damage to the whaling vessel. No one was injured in the showdown, said Glenn Inwood, the New Zealand-based spokesman for the institute, a Japanese government-affiliated organization that oversees the hunt."[22]
"But skipper Paul Watson and his crew were to face questions over the boarding of the Yushin Maru 2, which sparked heated Japanese accusations of 'terrorism' and 'piracy.'[23]

Cptnono (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Greenpeace

{{done}} According to 68.41.80.161: "notable experts in US, Japan, Canada, and Greenpeace all consider the SSCS eco-terrorists (or single issue terrorists), so OUR opinion is kind of irrelivant."

Cptnono behaves in a somewhat confusing way but seems to claim that a source can be found and it is the job of the editors who doubt it to find the source. Cptnono also seems to claim that the following backs the claim that Greenpeace called Sea Shepherd "eco-terrorist": "Some anti-environmentalists try to use the fact that an extreme minority in the environmental movement resorts to force and sabotage to brand the movement as a whole as 'terrorist.' ... By making it easy to paint anti-whaling forces as dangerous, piratical terrorists, Sea Shepherd could undermine the forces within Japan which could actually bring whaling to an end." However, this is obviously inadequate. Hans Adler 10:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for saying that Hans, your opinion matters, I was frustrated. Also add Norway and St.Lucia to that list. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you but if you looked at the paragraph I removed the line in question and instead moved it to a paragraph below. Doesn't mean to stop looking but thought it would be best left out. We also did have a source that was plenty reliable but it was disputed since it didn't go into enough detail.Cptnono (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation and literal quotation backing the claim

Ironically, the following two sources from Sea Shepherd themselves mention Greenpeace labeling Sea Shepherd as "eco-terrorists": http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/paul-watson-and-greenpeace.html, http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-090218-1.html. However, these are not direct quotes from Greenpeace and are probably not viable for use in the article. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are still valuable in demonstrating that the debate "are they or aren't they eco-terroists" exists. Since we are not trying to determine whether they are or not, but simply document that the thought that a notable debate exists with opinions on both sides. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Watson isn't exactly an expert on subtlety. Even some of the editors here can't see the difference between a disagreement about strategy (Greenpeace said SSCS make it too easy for others to brand them as terrorist) and a claim that SSCS are terrorist, and I am not surprised that Paul Watson doesn't see, or pretends not to see, the difference. You are still and again talking about the wrong subject. AFAICT, everybody agrees that SSCS are relevant to the eco-terrorism topic. This does not imply that this category may be applied to their article. Hans Adler 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

FBI

{{done}} It was claimed that the FBI considers Sea Shepherd eco-terrorist. However, the actual source, a statement given by some FBI person to the US Congress a few months after the attacks on New York City, appears to carefully avoid saying they are eco-terrorist while discussing them in a context of eco-terrorism. It is definitely not enough to back the claim that the FBI calls them eco-terrorist, a claim that raises red flags in the context of the organisation's legal status and the absence of US arrest warrants against Sea Shepherd members. Hans Adler 10:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have seen two good sources on this. This one is a surprise since it gets so much play but I have only found a couple that actually go into detail on how this was the first group to be cited by the FBI guy. The line says exactly what the primary source says but if you are looking for actual press coverage you can scroll up to where someone already provided a source.Cptnono (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind copying/pasting the sources you are referring to, since you know where they are? It seems that the point of this section is to paste a link and a direct quote under the bold Citation and literal quotation backing the claim heading. I also agree with Hans, in that simply inclusion of SSCS in a statement about eco-terrorism does not satisfy wikipedia requirements for verifiability that SSCS is an eco-terrorist organization. MichaelLNorth (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is up the page. I will actually go through tonight and gather all of the sources. I honestly don't care if they are terrorists are not. They are often referred to as such in sources so they should be in any category consolidating articles to look at on the subject.Cptnono (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The FBI quote is taken from a Congressional testimony by the Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, FBI Counterterrorism Division, here: http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm. The trouble is that while it is implied (depending on interpretation) that Sea Shepherd is an eco-terrorist group, he does not specifically say so. I have posted the quote below. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation and literal quotation backing the claim

"Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe."
Also of interest in the reference: "The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."

Source: Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI

(edit conflict)

"In a speech two years ago, then-FBI domestic terrorism chief James Jarboe said that the group's cutting of drift nets set out by commercial fishing operations marked the beginning of the rise of eco-terrorism."[24]
"The FBI dates the start of eco-terrorism - and the creation of the buzzword - to 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets."[25]
"In addition to the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which the FBI labels terrorist organizations, CATIC also kept tabs on... Sea Shepherd" this was published in the Oakland Tribune and other papers but requires signing in to view
"In the context of government-supported environmental criminals killing the oceans for profit, Heller concludes that the SSCS cannot be called “eco-terrorists” (the FBI’s label) nor Watson a “rogue pirate and lunatic” (Ian Campbell),"[26] (not the most reliable source but interesting)

Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Your first point is an attempt to set yourself up for a WP:SYNTH violation. You can't source the definition, and then find sources that indicate that they might fit the definition, and then claim that they are eco terrorists. That is original research. Your second point cites a source that makes use of a classic logical fallacy. All it says is that two events happened in 1977 -- the implication is that they are related, and that one is the cause of the other, but this is not explicitly said. Sourcing the IMPLICATION using this source (i.e., something like "the buzzword was created because of SSCS") would be a flagrant WP:NPOV violation. Your third bullet point is the FBI source we have been discussing here. They go to significant lengths to not lump Sea Shepherd in with ALF and the other orgs they refer to as "eco terrorists".

Please be careful to make sure that the sources say what you think that they say. "[marking] the beginning of the rise of eco-terrorism" is not the same thing as calling SSCS eco-terrorists. At best, what you have here is enough to have some statement in the body of the article which says that some organizations have alleged that these are acts of terrorism. An unqualified label like an article category is a explicit and direct violation of WP:Words to avoid/WP:TERRORIST.

MichaelLNorth (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful to read the article and my statements that my opinion on if they are or are not terrorists is irreverent. The article does not say that the FBI called them terrorists and the sources clearly summarize that he cited eco-terrorism beginning with Sea Shepherd. If they are labeled as so by others and involved in the discussion of eco-terrorism then it should be grouped with other articles discussing the subject. Categories are a navigation tool and you are using using them as a label. Also, the FBI is not the only source available. There are plenty more coming.Cptnono (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to insist that categorizing an article is not an unqualified label, we will certainly have to move on to dispute resolution. I'd be happy to submit the request. MichaelLNorth (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as you understand that I will argue that it is a label applied by many sources and that some editors' definitions do not outweigh RS then go right ahead. I also have not been edit warring on the category by the way.Cptnono (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A thought on this, Michael, first, the article defines eco-terrorism and then goes on to say that SSCS does all the things within their description. If you say "Eco terrorists are all the people who eat pineapple and You sir eat pineapple" then I am in affect calling you an eco-terrorist, though not directly.. so we need to be careful how to use it but we should surely use it. Also, a label on this page isn't us agreeing that they are terrorist. A label on this page is us agreeing that this article is part of the discussion on eco-terrorism as this present conversation confirms. Peace and happy editing.--68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Norway

{{done}} This July 6, 1994, however, the Norwegians have tried everything to restore Watson at Bodo in northern Norway... The next day, the Foreign Ministry issued a communique announcing the triumphant victory against the "terrorist" Paul Watson. [27]Cptnono (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is completely useless as it's not even clear that the word "terroriste" is being used as a quotation rather than ironically. (The article contains many puns and jocular passages.) We need a more direct source. Hans Adler 14:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just google Norway terorist Sea Shepherds and see what pops up. I've allready linked multiple articles from Norway calling the SSCS terrorist. Your turn to find 'em. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Iceland

{{done}} An Icelandic official told a local TV or Radio show that the sinking of 2 whaling vessels in 1986 was an act of terrorism and SSCS has taken credit for it. I am having a hard timefinding a free source that is reliable so the challenge is still there for anyone else.Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Canada

{{done}} Danny Williams, premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, called Watson a terrorist on Monday, saying the Sea Shepherds are not welcome in the province.[28]

There was that article on single issue terrorism where the Canadian serviceman described eco-terrorism as a form of single-issue terrorism and then described how sscs had taken part in that form of single issue terrorism. I think that one's quoted in the article allready. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a clear cut opinion. Please make sure you directly attribute the opinion

"Danny Williams, premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, called Watson a terrorist on Monday, saying the Sea Shepherds are not welcome in the province."

to its owner, Danny Williams, per wikipedia policy. MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

fixedCptnono (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm74-eng.asp "The term "Single Issue Terrorism" is broadly accepted as extremist militancy... ", and, "Canadian Paul Watson, formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, with its off-shoot, Orcaforce. Watson and his supporters have been involved in a number of militant actions against whale hunting.." So this source doesn't call them terrorist but relates their actions to terrorism. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

St.Lucia

{{done}} I can't rember the source, anyone know about this island nations statment?

This was basically an article published on the official government website that was similar to those seen from Japan and Norway's whalers. It was written by a gentleman who was the prime minister's spokesperson but it was not clear if he was working in an official capacity and the article did not look vetted.Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Watson’s engagement in anti-whaling terrorism and other extremist actions have not only got him in trouble with Greenpeace and several governments..." http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/pr2001/ocean_warriors_confront_lucian_fishermen.htm They are called terrorists on the country's official "Homepage". --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand

{{done}} The NZ Herald: "Anti-whaling terrorists put lives at risk" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/whales-and-whaling/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501010&objectid=10361673 --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Scholars

{{done}} This source was given alot of weight when it was introduced. Big school and looks like a reputbale guy. The paper and his lectures are in regards to the debate itself. he does not apply the label. [29]. Cptnono (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC) {{done}}

Further use of the label by independent secondary sources

"According to sources, much of this information and more has already been presented to the IRS but due to a lack of resources and the perceived low priority of the case, a thorough investigation has yet to take place. After all, Mr. Watson does not practice is brand of what some refer to as "eco-terrorism" in that country as often as he does in others."[30]
"Consider as well that this organization is run by a man who, even while the world grieved over 9/11, stated, *"There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win." (Animal Rights Convention 2002 )[31]
"The Sea Shepherds have been called terrorists, criminals and outlaws, but Watson, 41, says no one has ever been injured during one of his raids."[32]

Pacheco is a veteran of animal rights terrorism, getting his start aboard the Sea Shepherd, famous for ramming whaling vessels on the high seas.[33]

"Others do not see Watson as a hero. Neither as a pirate. They see him as a terrorist. Japan has tried unsuccessfully to designate the United States Sea Shepherd as a terrorist organization. Watson has spent 80 days in jail in Norway. One member of Sea Shepherd, Rodney Coronado, who along with teammate Dave Howitt whalers sunk Hvalur-6 and Hvalur-7 and sabotaged a whaling station in Iceland in 1986, described in terms almost guerrilla action in an article published by the magazine No Compromise in 2005. "Our goal was to infiltrate in Iceland in order to cause maximum economic sabotage in its whaling industry."[34]

Cptnono (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional research

{{done}} Google scholar is also an excellent source. Many writers have discussed Sea Shepherd in their books and papers discussing eco-terrorism. Check it out here and through different searches such as this (there will be duplicates).Cptnono (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

adding a break below o keep books separate conversation.Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Break

{{done}} I have a few thoughts on this whole list.

First, thank you HANS for engaging the issue. I think this list will be productive and more helpful in deciding there to go in the article.
Also, thanks Cptnono for trying to keep the whole thing civil.
Regarding the material, I think for the article it may be quite beneficial to include both sides of the discussion on eco-terrosim. There are tons of people calling SSCS eco-terrorists and simmilarly tons of people defending them. This entire conflict of terminology should be noted in the article. There are a few quite scholarly articles on why SSCS should NOT be considered eco-terrorists (one of which TBASE quoted above) that we should use to demonstrate the entirety of the conversation.
We should consider a new section dedicated to the fact that the conversation exists without trying to answer the question but simply demonstrating the notable opinions of both sides of the argument. I think this would serve also to develop a spirit of consensus to the two side working on this article. But regardless of that there are notable opinions on the "eco-terrorist" label discussion alone that deservews to be noted in the article. Peace and haoppy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Here it is, TBASE wrote this above and it should be included in the article, verifying the notability of the debate and also providing expert opinion on the OTHER side.

"Chief Jarboe’s definition refers to domestic groups and does not apply to the Sea Shepherds which act on the high seas, generally outside of state jurisdiction. In such a context, the Sea Shepherds would not constitute ecoterrorists. (Nagtzaam,G. Lenti,P. (2008). 'Vigilantes on the High Seas?: The Sea Shepherds and Political Violence'. Terrorism and Political Violence 20:1 pp. 110-33) " --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I have been a little less then civil the last 24 hours unfortunately. Maybe the dispute resolution will come up with something good.

I think that section would turn into a debate and could give certain arguments undue weight. We would have to be super cautious. I would also be concerned with scope creep since the label of pirate and vigilante are just as important and overall their actions are more important than the labels. Nothing wrong with adding counter claims as long as weight is taken into concern, though. Also, I'm not a source but I just wanted to point out that Nagtzaam's doesn't make any sense (not ever alleged as a domestic eco-terrorist is what he meant to write maybe?) Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the weight of wiping out a species forever?ref prec.Wdl1961 (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for that type of thing. We're working to improve an article in an encyclopedia, not debating the finer points of commercial whaling and/or the IWC. MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

More Japanese sources. There are plenty of Japanese sources that speak of the group in terms of terrorism: [35]. That said, it's hard to decide if the category should be applied or not. If the Japanese, Icelandic, Norwegian, or any other government has "officially" labeled the group as a terrorist group, then I think the label is appropriate. If they haven't, and it still isn't clear if any of these governments has gone so far as to say clearly that, then the label can't be applied. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To summarize who and what has: Government officials from Japan have called them terrorists, requested Interpol to investigate, asked other countries to not allow them in port, and asked the US to classify them as so (groups is based in US). Individual Norwegian, Icelandic, and Canadian leaders have labeled them as so in interviews but only trade associations associated with smaller municipal governments in Norway and Iceland have gone as far as publishing their own work. Companies (Japans are associated with the government) from the different whaling nations have published their own work. Reliable sources such as random newspaper writers and authors have applied the term. They lost their IWC observer status to several questionable sources and paid ones that I have not accessed due to their "terrorist" act of trying to scuttle a couple whalers with explosives while they were in port in '86.Cptnono (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest expanding the section in the article to fully explain the allegations of eco-terrorism, who has labeled them that, and when. After that, I think it will then be justified to include the article in the eco-terrorist category. Cla68 (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to contribute to our discussion about the appropriateness of the "eco-terrorism" category here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society. Thanks — Mike : tlk 06:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate space

{{done}} Clearly many have applied the term "eco-terrorist" to Sea Shepherd. Is that notable, considering that many others have applied positive terms to the group? We should be aware of WP:Terrorist guidelines on such labels, and mindful of scope creep I'd suggest the most appropriate place for the "terrorist" issue is attributed and specifically integrated with coverage of the discourse between Sea Shepherd and their adversaries, so for example in the Japanese case, SS says "they are poachers" and the ICR says "they are eco-terrorists". Prefer this to a name-dropping contest (Greenpeace vs Dalai Lama etc...); and, consistent with Wiki guidelines, prefer to avoid POV-magnet extended "criticism" sections. RomaC (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have posted on the NPOV noticeboard regarding this exact issue. NOTE that the issue is not whether some view them as eco-terrorists or not, it's whether categorizing the article is applying an "unqualified label" as is discouraged/prohibited in WP:TERRORIST". Please try not to turn this question about wikipedia policy into a pro/con debate over SSCS. Feel free to add your two cents. MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My reading of WP:TERRORIST would not include the categorization of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as eco-terrorists.Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look now. I've added the word "eco-terrorist" in the approprite place of contentious words to be avoided as eco-terrorist is. Using the word in an article should be done very carefully and only when supported by numerous citations. If you need any proof that this word is contentious and debatd, just read this page. Many people are highly offended at the term. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Simonm, what do you believe WP:TERRORIST means when they say "unqualified label"? MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It again looks like an editor's interpretation (correct me if I am wrong Simon). Just a reminder to those I haven't been chatting with: our views and opinions don't matter. We take exceptional amounts of caution to present the term with proper attribution. Even sources that did not call them eco-terrorists say that others call them eco-terrorists and that is all we are doing. MichaelLNorth has been adamant that some readers view it as a label. I prefer not to edit Wikipedia in a manner that assumes the readers do not read any of the prose and do not want to start toying with censorship for those readers but I still can understand why that looks like a concern. If you have a concern with the category (where some of us want the group and an operation of theirs which involved explosives has already been in for some time) go do it. There was a discussion about deleting so maybe their needs to be a discussion over there about adding a disclaimer or adjusting the subcategories.

Criminal proceedings

{{done}} Speaking of appropriate space, I also want to repropose adding more information on criminal trials and jailing of SSCS members. It does not need a complete subsection but info was removed because a good source could not be found. According to some sources they have been charged many times and do not return to certain countries. Unfortunately, the sources were very biased and I want to make sure anything included is properly vetted. For example, one source led the reader to believe that Watson did jail time in Norway but T-Base was able to find additional info that pointed out that the extradition failed and he spent the time locked up somewhere else (Germany or something?). This is important information and a single line when it did occur would be appropriate if anyone can actually find good sources.Cptnono (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

{{done}} I would like to remove "The group undertake campaigns they claim are guided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature and other statutory laws protecting marine species and environments[2]They are criticized for violations of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea by operators of the whale harvesting ships." from the lead. This reads like grandstanding from both ends of the spectrum. It also does not properly summarize the extent of criticism or how many other laws they are attempting to protect.Cptnono (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's talking points from both extremes. Sounds dumb. Remove it. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please move instead of deleting. I think it's important to document what SSCS claims their justification to be, regardless of what the UN thinks. It's only fair that we present their self-described "mission" (especially because we are considering adding some more critical information), as long as its wording or placement doesn't violate WP:LEAD. I also would like to avoid something like

"The group undertake campaigns they claim are guided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature, but they have violated sections X, Y and Z"

As this is tantamount to writing "hypocrite". Simply using the word "claim" already makes it clear that this is only what they say, nothing more. — Mike : tlk 02:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The claims need to be documented and properly cited. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

~~I think~~ both are already in. ~~I'll double check again since it has been a couple days since I last verified.~~Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I actually put an inline comment on it saying a source was missing even though there was one previousley. I replaced it with the source. Both are in.Cptnono (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversial direct-action tactics section

Sea Shepherd's point of view is very much underrepresented in this section. The appropriate solution is to significantly trim down the long list of criticisms that follow sentence two. The first two sentences

According to its mission statement, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society "uses innovative direct-action tactics to investigate, document, and take action when necessary to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas".[33] Direct actions have included scuttling and disabling commercial whaling vessels at harbour, ramming other vessels, throwing glass bottles of butyric acid on the decks of vessels at sea, boarding of whaling vessels while at sea, and seizure and destruction of drift nets at sea.

which Cptnono recently added are much more along the lines of what the section should be: a description of the tactics that SSCS employs in their "operations". The remainder of the section is a long list of criticisms, for which there is no pro-SSCS information to balance it out. Which are the most notable (note: not necessarily the most critical, obviously) criticisms to include? I very much think we should keep Greenpeace, as that helps establish the divide between non-extremist and extremist environmental activist organizations. — Mike : tlk 02:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What do the SSCS have to say about the controversial (read violent) direct actions? I think the title leads us to the controversy about the actions being over the top or terrorist like. I know SSCS has put out statements that address this. Other scholarly sources have as well. Most are noted above. Try to keep the section on the topic of "the controversial actions" though. It can serve to springboard thoughts on what to do with all the eco-terrorism discussion. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for not sourcing this immediately, but I'm confident in its accuracy and would certainly source it before adding to the article. SSCS describes their tactics as "Monkeywrench", meaning they try to get in the way. When you say that they "ram ships", they would likely talk about how they position the Steve Irwin between a harpoon ship and the factory ship that the whale needs to be transferred to, preventing the transfer of the carcass from taking place. Their goal is to cost whalers money by getting in the way, tangling their ships up, spoiling whale meat with vomit/rancid butter (so it cannot be sold in fish markets), etc... It's worth noting that the whalers use identical tactics and more, including ramming the Steve Irwin, attempting to foul the Steve Irwin's propeller, LRAD, throwing pieces of metal at the inflatable watercraft, etc... Pointing a LRAD at a helicopter (used for filming only) is clearly across the line of what constitutes defensive action, seeing as how it would be a disaster if the pilot were to get disoriented to the point of losing control. — Mike : tlk 04:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "ramming".. actually no I wasn't referring to recent blocking strategies on the tv show. (The TV show stuff is very mild and hardly terrorism compared to older stuff) I was talking about the "Can opener" device tactic used in the past. There was no strategic placement issue, it was straight up, "sink that ship" time. There have been lots of simmilar well cited incidents (though not recently) where they sunk ships intentionally. This is how they originally lost allot of their former registries.. if I'm saying that right. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what they say if it is on their website. Watson has expressed that he has no concerns with manipulating the truth and I do not think we should be facilitating that with an overabundance of links to their website. They are also a primary source when secondary are preferred. In the past, their descriptions of the incidents have been extremely whitewashed when video clearly shows something different. That is why we use the secondary sources. They have a vetting process with oversite from an editor and hopefully some reputation and standards to live up to. If a reporter views it and says "it was ramming" than I am inclined to use the term "ram". If the sources say "the Mexican fisherman claimed" than we say "claimed".

The Japanese aggressive/defensive response doesn't deserve any play in that section but could go "they responded by yada yada" in the section describing the incident since it is madly interesting and related. This section isn't a contest to see who we can make look like the biggest dick. Scroll down to the Canadian section and there should be some info on the Canadians storming the hotel.Cptnono (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking to their website is fine and dandy to source statements like "Sea Sheperd refers to their tactics as 'monkeywrench'". It is quite common to use a subject's own website to source their own views, as long as those views are properly attributed as such. That's all I'm advocating here. Do you agree that the section, beyond your new content documenting tactics themselves, is essentially a long list of criticisms and grievences? — Mike : tlk 13:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies about these things. Please read them. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the context of your opinion was lost in edits. Which policy do you think is/was being ignored? Thanks. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It understand that it is quite common but we do not need to facilitate traffic to a site where the boss has admitted to manipulating facts. The writing on that site is also written in a very bias tone which I don't want to see creeping into this article. If you notice, even the terrorism charges are kept brief but this goes for hose as well. We no longer link to St. Lucia, the two Japanese (one might be in once), or the Iceland/Norway whaling sites for this reason. If you ant to open up the flood gates we can but that would impact the article in a way that would make us all unhappy. If it isn't covered in secondary sources then we have a concern but almost everything is. If it is not I question its credibility and if it is even valid for this article. We already have an external link in two separate places we don't need to link farm. According to WP:SELFPUB we can link to "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" This looks great until you read "so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving" and "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"It understand that it is quite common but we do not need to facilitate traffic to a site where the boss has admitted to manipulating facts." As much as this concept makes sense, it's not what we're supposed to be doing here. The site is still a reliable source for the organization's own views. There are several other articles I have been working on whose subjects, in my opinion, also spread misinformation. Not everyone will agree on this, so we just have to make sure we get a whole bunch of sources to (supposedly) balance out any published lies. Remember, wikipedia is not about truth, as much as it's about verifiability. — Mike : tlk 04:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If "...the material is not unduly self-serving" is still a concern. If several secondary and reliable sources say that they rammed vessels but they say collide their wording does not deserve as much (or in some cases) any weight.
I also think that we have done pretty well at not needing them due to our ability to find sources. There maybe 5 holes in the article that I would like to see filled but the only sources are from them or their enemies so I don't push it. Chances are if it is important it is covered by secondary sources. This isn't always the case but it is always better to look first.
More importantly, continue to point it out if you are reading something that concerns you. It would be my hope that if there is a concern about so and so saying "ram" we can find what the majority of sources say or a proper summary. An example of this would be something that T-Base and I ran into a month ago. One source said the can-opener was meant to "gut" the enemy hull while the second said "rake". It was adjusted to "damage" which seems like a fair summary.Cptnono (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't buy it. No information is better for describing the views and opinions of sea shepherd than their own words. You are saying that we should not rely on them for accuracy regarding specific events, especially those that may reflect badly on them, and I agree. However, this is not license for totally disregarding all information they have about all topics. You seem to be very focused on the truth, and again wikipedia is not about the truth. Disregarding SSCS's, especially in an article that contains a significant amount of criticism, is a WP:NPOV violation. I would be happy to request a third party editor's opinion on this matter, if you think I'm trying to push a fringe viewpoint. — Mike : tlk 14:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The good thing about the guidelines is that you don't need to buy it. If their website is using language contrary to that of many sources there is a reasonable chance that it is not true (since Watson has admitted to manipulating facts) and is unduely self serving. If valid sources say one thing we do not need to provide a means for them to potentially spread lies. It gives their side of the "argument" too much weight. I'm happy to take it on a case by case basis so digest the above and...

You are either misreading or misinterpreting what I'm saying. I have already agreed that SSCS's website is not an appropriate source for fact, but is important when documenting their own opinions and positions on issues. What I don't buy, is the assertion that any third party source is more appropriate for documenting SSCS's stance on various issues, than SSCS's own website. I am really finding it hard to assume good faith here, as just about every organization that is documented on Wikipedia uses that organization's webpage for basic information, including that organization's own opinion. This type of information is categorically impossible to be "self-serving", as it is their opinion, not fact that they may be distorting (which is your concern). — Mike : tlk 08:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, coffe break time fellas. Go havea cup 'o joe and come back in a few hours. You are both excellent editors with a desire to make this page better.

Part of the stated Modus Operandi of monkey wrenching by both Earth First and SSCS is that if lying to the press, ie.. "we have never hurt anyone" or "we didn't ram them, they rammed us" serves the purpose of helping their cause, it is all fair game. There's ample documentation describing how lying in interviews and for public media is a taught and endorsed tactic of monkey wrenchers. That makes the validity of any of their statement exceedingly suspect. Matter of fact, maybe they were lying about lying and they don't really lie! Hmmm... --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Intent

{{done}} "The vessels surrounded the Japanese spotter ship Kaiko Maru to attempt to prevent the vessel from continuing its work.[107] and the Robert Hunter and Kaiko Maru collided with each other. The Robert Hunter suffered a one metre long gash in the hull above the waterline at the stern of the ship.[108] In a November, 2007, statement, Watson stated that Sea Shepherd 'has no intention of ramming any Japanese whalers on the high seas.'" In this case, the bolded statment is sourced by the SSCS website. it was only included to dumbdown the paragraph. None of the published sources cared thatWatson didn't intend to colide with the vesels and if anything they put the blame on SSCS. This is the exact reason.Cptnono (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Folow-up: Just to prove my point, we don't need to link farm. A quick google search plenty of coverage on Watson's rebuttal. If we paid more attention to adding in secondary sources this wouldn't have even been an issue. The source above is from a primary source as well. ~~It was watered down~~ (that was my recolection from reading it) Actually, whatever other source was used to generate the line was removed or the page was updated but it should be easy enough to replace. Most of the wording from secondary sources is even worse so this will make a fine read.Cptnono (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Went through some sources deleted the two primary ones. Added in claims from boh sides. Still looking for coverage from media on the vessel since that will be more interesting but this is what happens when secondary sources are used. No link farming to either group. No watered down garbage or pushing an agenda. This one was pretty even source wise (I misspoke earlier) so it worked out well. There are some where sources rail against SSCS. Watson almost always gets a voice in front of the reporters so there shouldn't bee too much of a problem.Cptnono (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Submarine

{{done}} I added info on the Submarine. I think Paul Watson wanted to be Captain Nemo.. but then realised how bad of an idea that would turn out to be in reality. If you have more sources for the submarine incident, please contribute them. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

SSCS site citing sub use altough never actually in the water http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/the-battle-of-the-lofotens.html --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't get this one to load. Can anyone summarize? http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-09/news/vw-54963_1_paul-watson
from : http://xn--www14-g33b.greendaily.com/photos/sea-shepherd-anti-whaling-activists/1251353/, http://www.blogcdn.com/www.greendaily.com/media/2008/12/51634625.jpg I wish we could use this pic. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The sub apparantly was never opperable. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33725483_ITM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Was Cpt Nemo the one with the razor blade sub? That was a cool movie when I was a kid. From what I have seen while going through sources the last couple of months it looks like a sub was donated by one of the big business guys. It was a little thing (doesn't sound like it held anyone) and the intent was to paint it to look like an Orca (go Sounders!!!) and have speakers to make the calls. This was to scare off whales during the Makah whale hunt off the coast off Washington. It was not operational but Watson talked big about it until the Indians threw rocks at him.Cptnono (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to status quo ante

{{done}} The Eco-terrorism category was first applied to this article on 11 August. Since then it was forced in by edit-warring that I have described above under #Moving beyond the edit warring and #Edit warring update. We have had extensive discussions, but still no consensus. It is simply not appropriate that the status quo is changed in this way due only to the fact that one side is more reckless about the edit warring. Therefore I am removing the category again.

Above, under #Challenge: Show us the claimed sources, I have started an attempt to collect proof that SSCS have been called "eco-terrorist" or "terrorist" by various people or organisations. There has been very little success, as sourcing proves to be quite difficult even in what should be easy cases, such as the Norwegian government.

There is consensus that Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is (very) relevant to the "eco-terrorism" debate.
I believe we are close to a consensus that the term "(eco-)terrorism" is not normally used without qualification when neutral high-quality sources describe SSCS.

Regarding the second point, the high-quality sources that Cptnono has found in #Scholars and the following section are quite clear:

"[...] we also note that on the one hand, it may be possible to argue that in some respects the Sea Shepherds may constitute either a “blind spot” in the literature on terrorism and political violence, because its actions could in some circumstances be considered activism, militant direct action, piracy, vigilantism, terrorism, or eco-defense, which makes it very difficult to classify. [...] Throughout the article we maintain that the Sea Shepherds constitute an example of a gray area phenomenon. Despite the ambiguity surrounding their legal status and academic interpretations of their actions, the results of nearly three decades of the organization's activities, including its 2007 campaign to disrupt Japanese Antarctic Whaling, suggest that the Sea Shepherds may be best categorized as a vigilante group, because they claim they are seeking to enforce a legal status quo because of states' and the international community's inabilities or unwillingness to do so." [36] (my italics)
"The Sea Shepherds have been called terrorists, criminals and outlaws, but Watson, 41, says no one has ever been injured during one of his raids. [...] Still, the Sea Shepherd remains out of the mainstream." [37]
"Others do not see Watson as a hero. Neither as a pirate. They see him as a terrorist. Japan has tried unsuccessfully to make the United States designate Sea Shepherd as a terrorist organization." [38] (my italics)

There are some further sources of lesser quality (such as an opinion piece by Tom DeWeese, who also called global warming a "hoax" and the UN a "criminal enterprise"), but even these don't go substantially beyond what the high-quality sources in the list make clear: It is mentioned that SSCS have been called "(eco-)terrorist", but never without qualification or weighting this by mentioning contrary evidence.

All of this makes it even more obvious that we need to follow WP:TERRORIST:

"Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. [...] These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article.

This is what the neutral sources follow, and this is what we must follow as well. Applying the eco-terrorism category will be read as saying that SSCS are eco-terrorist, regardless of whether it is meant that way or not. Without following the link to the category (something that few readers do, and which is impossible when dealing with a printed copy of the article), our readers cannot know that the inclusion criteria for this category are more inclusive than "eco-terrorist individuals and organisations". Every week that this article stays in this category increases the odds that we will see a "neutral" article claiming as a matter of fact that "Sea Shepherd is a terrorist organisation" because the journalist got the impression that this is what we are saying.

As a compromise I propose renaming the category to something more NPOV or creating a suitably named sub-category to which the present article can be added without danger of misunderstandings. I am not sure how best to go about this, though, since when doing so we still need to follow reliable sources in one way or another. Hans Adler 16:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: The categorisation is already redundant. This article is in Category:Radical environmentalism, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Eco-terrorism (somewhat counterintuitively, but correctly, due to the very liberal definition of the inclusion criteria of the eco-terrorism category). This makes it very clear that the only purpose of applying the category tag directly is to label the organisation as eco-terrorist without any need for accompanying reliable sources and without any chance to soften this with qualifications in the way that our sources do and that we also must do according to WP:TERRORIST. Hans Adler 16:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that there are finally some disclaimers on that page now. I'm glad someone did it. Fiddling with the sub categories doesn't hurt my feelings as long as it is clear that they have been labeled or discussed as eco-terrorists by many reliable sources.22:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The eco-terrorism debate predates august 11. 2.Your reverts sans consensus is to blame for the edit wars. We can't solve it here. Debate at the admin page please. --35.12.54.53 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Whay was the link again? (I losit it)

Adler, you are also reiterating past arguments that ahve already been disagreed with for what feel is good reason. Just to catch you up: US is not the only country that matters, yes it is hard to classify, no injuries is debated (bombimg also didn't hurt anyone), we aren't making a direct quote but quotes are directly cited in the article from RS. Also, radical environmentalism is an article in the catagory not a subcatagory. That catagory is separate. Whoever included this so prominently is a genius:

This category includes articles that describe:

issues related to the discussion on eco-terrorism.
law enforcment organizations and efforts to stop eco-terrorism.
organizations and people who have been cited in reliable press reports as having been involved in some way in eco-terrorism.
actions attributed to eco-terrorism.
organizations, publications and websites associated with the the discussion of eco-terrorism.

Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Today 2009-06-09' where??

{{done}} Steve Wynn and John Paul DeJoria ref name="The New Yorker 2007-11-05" ref name='Hollywood Today 2009-06-09' Where??Wdl1961 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

ctrl+f in the New Yorker shows both.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Where?Show sentence pls.Wdl1961 (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Make sure that you have clicked "Single Page" since it is 13 pages long and use your browser's search function. You can't miss it.Cptnono (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Steve Irwin now sails under the Dutch flag.

{{done}} The Steve Irwin now sails under the Dutch flag. Where??Wdl1961 (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

replaced.Cptnono (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it shuld be added that the Dutch debated creating a new law in order to legally remove the ship from Dutc registries. --35.12.54.53 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been wanting to add more stuff on the vessels for sometime. I don't know where to start and every discussion that involves working with other editors instead of boohooing (see vessel, jail, and the split discussions above). Do you have any source on the flag thing yet? That is for sure noteworthy.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

dutch wiki quote. "De organisatie vaart sinds 2 jaar onder de Nederlandse vlag."

The organization has been sailng under the dutch flag for two years. no other dutch refs found. Wdl1961 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So do we have any sources (not Wikipedia circling) on the recent legal stuff you mentioned, #35? We need something concrete and reliable.Cptnono (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To me having a wiki article not changed in dutch is proof enough. Some dutch get real nasty after having been lied to.Wdl1961 (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be for you but it isn't for the guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Some googling around came up with a letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Vice-Minister of Transport, Public Works and Water Management expanding options to remove the certificate of registry. Looks like SSCS is fully aware of this from the online petitions. At this time, I'm not seeing any coverage of it so until sources are found it can't go in. Also, most google hits will bring up Japan requesting t and the UK and Belize removing them previousley.00:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Allegations against IWC

{{done}} The International Whaling Commission, which imposed the ban on commercial whaling ref 36 states opposite of quote:

"Australia's Labor government says research whaling is a ``charade designed to disguise commercial whaling and dispatched a coast guard vessel to monitor the whalers in preparation for possible legal action.

The International Whaling Commission, which imposed the ban on commercial whaling, will hold a three-day meeting in London from March 6 in an attempt to end an impasse between anti- and pro-whaling countries on the issue."

how do you get here with the ref?:

Critics point out that Sea Shepherd's actions constitute violations of international law.ef>Biggs, Stuart (4 March 2008). "Japan Summons Australian, Dutch Ambassadors Over Whaling Clash". Bloomberg News.</

Wdl1961 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you intentionally being disruptive? "Some of the actions taken by the activists clearly violated international law" If that is not sufficient there are 172 other refs in the article with many of them discussing this. We are summarizing something that is not contentious.Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Above is the statement in the article with the reference. How did they get there with that ref?? there were failures this afternoon which deleted my name . I got a correct copy in my userfile and notepad wih timestamp.Wdl1961 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent fines from Canadian ruling

{{done}} Here are two recent articles discussin fines acrued by SSCS members for the sealing event.

http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-376091-Two-antisealing-activists-receive-40000-in-fines.html

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1141952.html

We have over 172 links

{{done}} At the bottom of the page are listed 172 sources. Most of them are doubled (if not quadroupled) up. Anyone wanna take a stab at cleaning this up? I'm not sure how to. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you’re right, they really have gotten out of hand again. Looks like people continue to be really lazy with their citations. I’ll see what I can do. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that people aren't bothering to format their citations. They’re basically just dumping URLs in <ref> tags. This makes for crappy reading, duplicate refs, and a lot of working sorting them out. Please, guys, if you can’t do something properly, then learn – or just don’t bother. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion on this page before. Admittedly, I have done it a couple times when in a hurry. My biggest concern was when an editor threw in many duplicates that were not consolidated. My advice previously was that if you do it, make sure you start fixing a few as soon as possible to eventually trim the waste. Doesn't look like this happened to the extent we needed and I will be happy to grab some.Cptnono (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

er.. yeah.. that's my fault too. Sorry. :) That's why I asked you all to fix it. So when I want to link to an article that's allready sourced. Instead of just using ref webpage ref how do I do it? Thanks a ton Nren. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I like User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar or [39]. The most important part is naming the reference for use later. Some people prefer not using templates and some prefer doing it over lines. I like this though: <ref name="NAME FOR THIS REF. I USE WORK+DATE">{{cite news|url=WEBSITE HERE |title=NAME OF NEWS PIECE |last=AUTHOR'S LAST NAME|first=AUTHOR'S FIRST NAME|date=DATE|work=NEW YORK TIMES|accessdate=TODAY'S DATE}}</ref>, Also, there is a perpetrator was than 68 and me combined but I won't say any names! It also looks like he went through and did some work awhile back or a bot came through.22:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

More SS arrests

{{done}} http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/21103653/detail.html Another arrest story. ANyone want to put it in the article? Perhaps a new section, Arrests related to SSCS actions?--68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The arrest had nothing to do with SSCS, but rather a rival organization. I don't see anything in there about interpol pushing for extradition either, so I view this as irrelevant in this article.--Terrillja _talk 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The arrests, jail time, and "leaving" the countries throughout the orgs history are important. Since it is so contentious I would recommend drafting a new section before inclusion or simply adding lines to the related incidents.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Where did the guy arrested in PA leave from? Are we even talking about the same thing anymore? I haven't ever seen or heard of Interpol actually trying to extradite anyone from SSCS, ever, so I don't see it as particularly relevant, especially not relevant enough for its own section. Perhaps if Interpol actually did try to extradite someone, but as of now I don't see the importance.--Terrillja _talk 00:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No. We are talking about the long history of charges, arrests, and court proceedings in general. This has come up before but no one has pulled the trigger on gathering all of the sources and getting them in. Again, Norway attempted extradition after a conviction in one instance, Japan requested an Interpol red notice in another instance, ect.Cptnono (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it might be notable if there was something to write about, but having an arrest warrant put out with no arrest is an empty effort, as is arresting someone and releasing them with no action. The charges for the sealing fiasco were noted in the relevant section as something actually happened, but adding a section and noting every time that a bench warrant has been issued puts undue weight on it. Most of the warrants have probably run out at this time anyways.--Terrillja _talk 00:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It would not be undue since it shows allegations of criminal activity. If they wanted a squeaky clean image they would not have committed acts to get charged. Also, please start reading the sources. It is often more than warrants including arrest, conviction, not returning to certain countries due to warrants and/or conviction, and extended jail time. INTERPOl red notice is very noteworthy and to say it isn't just comes across weird. However, we don't need a whole section if people want to add it to the existing prose (I believe a few things are in already).Cptnono (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I just think it's important not to let Watsonian statements about how everything is legal and no one objects to take precident over what governments say. :) The real tendency of this article is to treat Watsons statements with too much wieght. They deserve far less wieght than opinions of governments and experts.--68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Link farming kind of

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

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

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

Bot archive test

{{done}}
Please do not edit this section, it is being used to test the archive bot. This may take up to 24 hours.--Terrillja _talk 06:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Anyone with skills at archiving wanna zip this page up to current month conversations? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried adjusting the bot's parameters. When it didn't work I asked for assistance. Got nothing so am going to do it by hand.Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It has to do with when a few months ago someone had the bright idea of deleting one of the archive files and pasting all the text back. So now the bot has no clue why it can't find the file it thinks should be there and does not archive. I set up the archiving and it was working fine until the archive record was deleted. I may be able to look at in the next few days and play around with the bot, but deleting the file screwed it up royally. Here is the "discussion" Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society/Archives/03/2009--Terrillja _talk 06:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be working, at least for when it has an archivenow parameter, so we'll see in 60 days when it tries to do its next auto archive.--Terrillja _talk 07:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done It moved the section to the August archive folder, presumably because the folder was created in October. I may have to move/rename the folder, I'll look at it later.--Terrillja _talk 07:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)