Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Disputed

This article reads like a public relations placement for Sea Shepherd. Almost one-third of the references in the article are from Sea Shepherd sources (although some do not reveal that until you hit the link) and are therefore WP:SPS self published sources, not WP:RS reliable sources. Some of them are in Japanese language (this is the English language Wikipedia...isn't it), so worthless to anyone who does not read Japanese. One is to a yahoo search cite (not the article apparently cited) and one to Wikinews (not supposed to cite other Wikis, I believe). Many of the references do not display to the reader any information about the reference, giving just a plain link.

Given how controversial Sea Shepherd is, it seems inappropriate to cite Sea Shepherd as a source of information about itself, doesn't it? Especially since its leader has published a book advocating lying to the media (and presumably everybody else). See the section on Strategy at Paul Watson for that. After all, Sea Shepherd IS Paul Watson. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You have added "verify credibility" tags to some citations with broken links. I will try to fix them, and it would be nice if you could afterwards check whether you can remove the tag in some instances. Where I can't fix the link I will replace your tag with a "citation broken" tag, because it seems obvious that we first need some minimal information before we can decide whether a source is credible. Your edits make it appear that you doubt the credibility of AP, which is surely not what you meant. (They are certainly not infallible, but for us they are usually considered good enough.) --Hans Adler (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, about the tags in detail:

• It's hard to see what's going on with the "ORCA Force". A book [1] uses this as a description of Seashepherd. The Seashepherd mentions it as the organisation that scuttled a Norwegian whaler. I think the sentence is probably about the best we can do with this information, but it's also probably not needed. I think the source is adequate for the very limited purpose of stating that Paul Watson was at one time (the? a?) president of ORCA Force.

Perhaps this needs better explanation in the article? It is listed as "CUSP Endorsers list" and contains a list of people who endorse something, but it does not say what. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• The statement sourced to Asahi doesn't seem to be particularly contentious. Even if it were, Asahi seems to be a major Japanese newspaper, cooperating with the International Herald Tribune.

Japanese language sources are not much use in an English language Wikipedia, and foreign language sources are discouraged, I believe. The link was to a Japanese language source when I clicked on it. If you find one in English that our readers can read, fine. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It was obviously not the correct page because it was too short and redirected to the site's main page after a few second. I simply entered the URL into the Wayback machine (http://www.archive.org) to get an archived version. It is in English. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• The AP news report linked to Yahoo was broken, it now links to FOXNews. I think since it's still an AP report it's probably reliable anyway.

If its a link to a story, fine. It was not. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Same problem. We are talking about the internet here. Websites are changed all the time, therefore valid links become invalid. See WP:LINKROT. This has nothing to do with (un)reliability of sites etc. The story was clearly marked as being from AP, and it was trivial to find another copy by simply entering the complete title into the Google. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikinews generally is a reliable source. That's the whole point of this Wikipedia sister project. In this case it's a synthesis article with full citations. See wikinews:Wikinews:About#What Wikinews articles are.

Really? So one can post an article there and then cite it here? How strange. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just try to make up a story on WikiNews and see what happens. I have no experience with WikiNews, but I predict that you are going to run into the same problems as hoaxers on this site do. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thus the first tag is probably best fixed by removing the tag altogether, while the last three don't seem to make much sense. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it made sense to tag them when they were tagged, before you fixed them. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In the disputed "response to terrorism" section, the second sentences' beginning, "Thus, albeit without official sanction" appears to me to be weighted in favor of the organizations' self-justification of a legitimate international "law enforcement" mission. (I use quotes here not as a dismissive weasel tool, but because that is a quote and a self-description of their mission.) Further in that sentence, the unattributed "toothless gesture" language appears to me to also be of an advocacy nature. A more neutral sentence might be something along the lines of, "The lack of official enforcement mechanisms in that law prompted the Society to adopt, without official sanction, what it sees as a law enforcement mission." This revision also provides a good segue-way into the next sentence, where their "law enforcement" mission is elucidated in a more specific fashion.

In the second paragraph, the term "outlaw" is vague and potentially prejudicial to a point of view. ("Outlaws" could be viewed either sympathetically or with disdain, removed from any context.) Perhaps "Sea Shepherd considers the hunting to be criminal acts, and as such the alleged perpetrators assume the risk inherent in their actions." This removes the hot-button word "outlaw" while preserving the Society's view regarding the alleged criminal nature of the hunters' actions.

I intend to make those changes because I see them as preserving the intent of the original authors while making that section a bit more neutral, but will wait a while for responses.76.27.199.240 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment added: The entire "response to terrorism" section may be redundant and on the whole an advocacy article in favor of the Society's POV. There is a need, though for a more equitable balance to the "criticism" section, which includes not just people and groups, but instances and accusations. That section is OK, but the ostensible "counter" to that section - "Supporters" - reads as a simple list of supporters, and does not adequately balance the "criticism" section. This is where a more detailed response to terrorism charges needs to be, not it's own stand-alone section.76.27.199.240 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it, removing much of the Shepherd's talking points, summarizing it concisely and adding official governmental positions on the "authority to enforce" issue. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Butyric Acid charges

The first paragraph originally read "...two Japanese crewmen reportedly splashed with the foul-smelling butyric acid during Sea Shepherd's recent (February 2007) action in the Ross Sea. The Sea Shepherds have denied this." This is incorrect; the Sea Shepherd crew has never denied that they threw six, one-liter bottles of butyric acid onto the deck of the Nisshin Maru. Their website acknowledges this [2]. However, the use of the term "acid" is loaded and has negative -- even frightening -- associations. If the Sea Shepherd crew had thrown bottles of "citric acid", it would give the impression of it being more dangerous than if it was described as "lemon juice" (which can indeed be described as citric acid). Butyric acid is a naturally-forming acid that occurs in fermenting sugars and starches, and is present in kombucha tea, among other ingested products, and is present in cheeses and in rancid butter[3]. Since representatives of the Nisshin Maru have not demonstrated any damage from the butyric acid, it may be that the acid was nothing more dangerous than food-grade butyric acid, which would be too dilute to burn the skin or cause permanent eye damage. On their website, the Sea Shepherd's founder and leader Paul Watson described it as being "a simple non-toxic butter acid, basically rancid butter. It will not cause eye injury." I have changed the passage to read "...two Japanese crewmen reportedly splashed with the foul-smelling butyric acid during Sea Shepherd's recent (February 2007) action in the Ross Sea. The Sea Shepherds have admitted throwing six one-liter bottles of butyric acid onto the deck of the Nisshin Maru, but have claimed that it was "a simple non-toxic butter acid, basically rancid butter", and incapable of causing injury. Bricology 19:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This fits my experience when I was a crew member on the Sea Shepherd II. We had a supply of butyric acid to be used as a tool to discourage certain ecologically dangerous activities. It smelled horrible and even a small amount was quite unpleasent. However, I spilled some on my hand while transferring it from on container to another and suffered no ill effect other than a strong and persistent desire to wash my hands. Adistius 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet it is still an acid. The proper name for it IS Butyric acid. I am sure it is more than capable of damaging the eyes. This was basically a terrorist attack. Civilians can not simply throw an acidic substance at another man. I only wish that they were officially charged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.31.41 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. If one man throws a glass of orange juice at another, it is not a "terrorist" attack with citric acid. And while you may wish they were officially charged, many feel that the Japanese whalers, supporters and gov't officials should be charged for their crimes. Everyone has an opinion.Woody Tanaka (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think almost all acids are harmful for you eyes at a high concentration. The material safety data sheet (MSDS) states that butyric acid can burn your skin and eyes [4] [5]. When it comes to chemical safety, quoting a non chemist (Paul Watson) and to give an impression that it's correct is misleading and dangerous. Adistus, did you have it on you eyes, or on a wound? Unless we can prove that it is actually harmless (I doubt that we can reverse MSDS), or the condition (concentration, temperature) in which it was used is harmless, we have to be very careful about this. BTW, I think lemon juice is also harmful if you squirt it into your eyes even though it is just (?) 5% citric acid. Luvfacts 11:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the MSDS facts after Paul Watson's statement and moved the MSDS link after this. Luvfacts 00:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the MSDS reference because the wording of the sentence implied that Sea Shepherd used the acid at full strength. We don't know this. The MSDS applies to full strength concentration, not necessarily what was used in the attack. The way the MSDS is referenced in the article amounts to synthesis of a conclusion, which violates WP:NOR.

Your right. We don't know the concentration. But it is Paul Watson's comment that generalizes the danger of butyric acid without mentioning the condition or concentration. I don't have any problems if he said "the way we used the substance should not cause any harm", but he didn't. And we don't know whether it was diluted to a very very low concentration. Just like the news source [6], I think we need the scientific fact (about butyric acid) or otherwise the article would look like Sea Shepherd's propaganda. Luvfacts 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me delete the part I added. "My thought" was inappropriate for wiki. Luvfacts 07:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I updated the article on butyric acid to include the pKa (4.82). This is very slightly weaker than acetic acid, which is present to 5-8% in vinegar. Because butyric acid is heavier than acetic acid you can't make it as concentrated as pure "glacial" acetic acid, but pure butyric acid is still 10.9 molar vs. 1.3 molar for vinegar or 17.5 for glacial acetic acid. To work out initial pH of pure butyric acid (for example), take the geometric mean of the Ka and the concentration: square root of 10^-4.82 molar * 10.9 molar) = square root (10^-3.78) = 10^-1.89 molar i.e. pH 1.89 (see [7] for a good explanation). The bottom line is that like acetic acid, when concentrated enough butyric acid strays from being a very acidic food into being just plain acid. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Why don't they outsource their operation to some people who like the smell of durian fruit and use an organic approach? (they might even find some people from the region with piracy experience...) 70.15.116.59 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really getting tired of removing "harmless" wording on this. Please stop re-adding it without baking it up. The opinion of Paul Watson does not count as an expert reference. --BarkerJr (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There is now prooof that SS uses commercial grade acid in their attacks [8] This should be proof enough that they are using dangerous chemicals in their attacks—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk • contribs)

Well the fist picture is a screenshot of some random forum, no way that meets WP:RS, and the second is a picture of a label.... And the significance of that is? It's pretty well established what they are throwing, but I don't see how the links you added show a "commercial grade" acid (whatever that means). Not really sure what point you are trying to make, but I don't see how those sources provide any reliable insight into the actions of SSCS.--Terrillja _talk 05:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a FACT that they use commercial acid. Look at the photos. It is clear that they are commercial bottles of the acid. Please stop using the propaganda put forth by Watson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 14:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the rancid butter statement. There is no proof that it is simply rancid butter. It simply smells similar to it. I also removed the stink bomb portion. The facts about the acid make it much more dangerous than a simple stink bomb. There needs to be a statement of facts, and avoiding the propaganda put out, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I put it back in, since it explains why you don't want to work around the stuff. It is one of the compounds in rotting butter that makes it smell terrible, just as acetic acid is the compound in vinegar that makes it smell terrible. As far as commercial or not, not really relevant. Sodium Bicarbonate is commercially produced, but if someone threw it on you, you wouldn't be burned alive. It is commonly known as baking soda.--Terrillja _talk 16:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant. You are implying that they set some butter out until it rotted. This isnt true at all. Photos from the SSCS have shown it is commercial bottles, clearly labeled as Butryic acid. Reading the proper sources, Butryic acid can main and kill. Calling it rotten butter is simply playing it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it was commercially made is irrelevant. What matters is the concentration. Even commercially made acids are often 'watered down'. 80.226.15.168 (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To all those that keep bringing up acidity. I need to bring up something that has alreadt been mentioned and pretty much ignored. that is molarity of butyric acid. that is 10.9. This is very dangerous and will harm you if you inhale or come in contact with it. Information has been proved that proves the SS use commerical/inudstrial stregth butyric acid. I will remove all mention of 'stink bombs" and "rotten butter" as that is not what this group uses. DO NOT change it back. Stop avoiding facts and you will see that Watson spins facts to his favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And your source is? I know that I personally use HCl on a regular basis, and use different molarity acid depending on what I am trying to do with it. 12M HCL is not the same as .5M HCL. Do you have a source for which one they used?--Terrillja _talk 18:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There are copious references to MSDS sheets and the alleged dangers of butyric acid. Preserving the "rancid butter" references is good. I always want to default to "the common man" perspectives. A general encyclopedic entry is not a scientific journal or spec sheet, and should not read as one. If "rotten butter" enables to reader to get the "flavor" of the stink bomb, then that is a good thing. It can go overboard, and clearly "rotten butter" sounds less dangerous than "butyric acid" but there is plenty of balance and statements of the dangers of the acid. Removing all instances of "rotten butter" would violate neutrality, especially when the term is commonly used in reference to the compound when used as a stink bomb.76.27.199.240 (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This might be off topic, but why don't the Japanese researchers use chemical weapons on the terrorist?Mantion (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are off topic. 80.226.15.168 (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1334.html According to the CDC this junk is toxic, combustible and dangerous. Why would you throw glass bottles of this at people? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

More info from CDC website, "AVOID ALL CONTACT!" "Do NOT let this chemical enter the environment." "IN ALL CASES CONSULT A DOCTOR!" Yeah.. sounds harmless. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Isba I & II

This article claims, according to Sea Sheperd own informations, that the whalers ISBA I and ISBA II where sunk in Vigo ni 1980. I don't konw if they did it, but I suppose that thay didn't it because Sea Sheperd never told about how they did. It was a bomb attack and the boats weren't at Vigo, they were in Marín. I know all this things because it happened near my house, and, moreover, a friend of mine is writting a book about it. Rgds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.117.209.244 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

useless comment. -67.183.162.129 (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's part of the article allready but more detailed information would be good if a bomb was used. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How well can radio communications be traced?

I was surprised by "Whale Wars" video showing the Sea Shepherd flagship communicating with the MV Esperanza, with communications where the Esperanza refused to tell them where the Japanese whaling fleet was located. Since the Esperanza follows this fleet, why couldn't Sea Shepherd simply triangulate the radio signal? Wnt (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Trianculation is harder to do in real life than on TV, and especially difficult with only one vessel. Needs two or three with special equipment. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, I meant "turn to start moving in the right direction, with periodic course corrections". Wnt (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the other thing to note is that even with the right equipment, you still need radio traffic in order to triangulate. From what I remember, it was SSCS calling with the radio with no replies (nothing to triangulate), or calling Greenpeace over satphone, which cannot be pinpointed. Either way, it requires at least two ships/points in order to triangulate the signal, which probably is part of why SSCS is working to get another ship.--Terrillja _talk 18:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Triangulating would require two or more ships, but determing which bearing a radio signal is coming from only requires a directional antenna. So it would not be hard for a single ship to move in the direction of a radio signal. They would not know the distance, which would require triangulation.   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are these directional antennas common? expensive? Did the Sea Shepherd flagship have one? Wnt (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea whether had one during that voyage. However such antennas aren't particularly more expensive than other antennas. The expense would be in the mounting. Depending on the frequency/size, the antenna could be hand-held, which would mean the mounting cost is zero. A marine-grade motorized mounting would probably cost a few thousand dollars. However while it's interesting to try to figure these things out on our own, ultimately what goes in the article needs to be based on reliable sources, not our own theories.   Will Beback  talk  05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Radio direction finding equipment is not spectacularly complex and works pretty well for any sort of consistent transmission. Typically they're used for homing in on transmitting radiobuoys/beacons. For example in wildlife tracking, SAR, and fisheries. Pointless to speculate though. (Brianrusso (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

No reason for the tags on the article

To me the article in its current state, while obviously requiring some cleanup and restructuring, does not seem to me to lack citations, nor to favour one side of the whale debate over another as it does seem to present as many arguments from both sides of the debate as possible. I see no reason for the two labels claiming that it lacks citations and factual accuracy. The article does not seem particularly disputed either, judging by the contributions on this talk page. I would agree with the statement of the anonymous spaniard above that some of the claims of the Sea Shepherd foundation may be unwarranted, but that should be fine as long as the article clearly states that they are claims - which in my opinion it does.

Therefore, I suggest that the labels (tags) are removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realnightshadow (talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While there may be isolated entries that are biased in both directions, the overall article is not. Any individual entries that need attention should be tagged, not the entire article. 76.27.193.88 (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The fact that a great deal of the discussion was archived recently does not mean there are not disputes about anything, especially the allegations of terrorism. Also, the article needs references from reliable sources other than the self-serving Sea Shepherd website for many factual entries. Fully one-quarter of the references are from the Sea Shepherd home page, although this fact is concealed by failure to attribute many of the linked sources properly to Sea Shepherd. Keep the tags until appropriate third party sources provided and all sources are properly attributed. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

May as well just perma-tag it then. They will always be controversial. Who is going to be the reliable sources anyway? Japanese whalers? Greenpeace? Both have vested interests. Former crewmembers? Could be scorned. In my opinion the way to handle topics such as this is to note that they are controversial and the reader must view all material with that in mind. Further, it is acceptable to Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines for questionable sources to be used in their own articles. Therefore complaining that an article about SSCS cites SSCS is irrelevant. If this where the Whaling in Japan article I'd agree. Please clarify your position if you believe I am incorrect. cheers (Brianrusso (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

Reference issues

I’ve been going through the references for this article. Out of 92, 20 are from Sea Shepherd themselves. There are also a handful missing information. Right now I’m going through them, filling out the details so we can better decide what stays and what goes. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good plan. Thank you for doing this. I found 25 Sea Shepherd so you may find a few more when you check them all. The numbered links with no information in the Reference section are the worst. Again, thank you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah yeah. :) I made a quick count of 22 or 23 and rounded down. The point being too many, but I didn’t want to be a dick by overstating it. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts to correct the bias in this article is likely futile. I expect anything you fix will be undone and you will only be insulted or ignored. Save yourself the frustration and do something more productive.Mantion (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

These days, I try to be a little more optimistic. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Time (again?) to talk about protecting the article, or at least semi-protecting. I quickly searched the archived discussions but found no mention of this option yet. Public awareness and media exposure has been heightened, of course, with Whale Wars and the recent Larry King appearance. Fhue (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Shooting

Please see the discussion here Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Violent" direct action?

In the right side it reads "Methods: violent direct action" (but links to direct action as such). I do not understand how can it be described as "violent", when they do not attack people. I understand that those methods that only attack property are nonviolent. Violence is what the military, terrorist and death squads do: killing people (or animals).

And I have some history of nonviolent activism, so I think I know what I'm talking about. --Sugaar (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in law, atack property is considered violence in the countries I know (violence against property). Maybe is a nosense, but is in this way. Akhran (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

From the article on direct action:

Violent direct action is any direct action which utilizes physical injurious force against persons or property. While groups such as Animal Liberation Front maintain destruction of property is not violence, most nations' laws and international law include violence against property. Examples of violent direct action may include, but is not limited to: destruction of property, rioting, class intimidation such as lynching, terrorism, political assassination, and armed insurgency|insurrection.

I’d comment further but I’m having work done at the house and the power needs to be shut off. Be back in a bit.

— NRen2k5^(TALK), 16:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also commented in that other article because it seems it's anything but clear. In my opinion sabotage that does not endanger lives is not violence at all. It is nonviolence if the authors assume the consequences openly in fact. I have been a nonviolent activist for many years and we have damaged public property more than once (notably military installations) - nobody ever considered that to be "violence" at all.

Considering something to be a crime or misdeamanor by law is not the same as being vilence. Otehrwise Gandhi's campaign of making salt, which was a crime then, would have been violence too.

There is non-criminal violence, such as the excercised by the legal armed forces, and there is criminal nonviolence, like nearly all that Gandhi or other activists have done in their campaigns.

And, well, Wikipedia is not a source for itself (WP:sources, I believe). --Sugaar (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

One of SSCS’ oft employed tactics is to ram whalers’s ships with their own. That’s pretty clearly a violent, life-endangering act. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 17:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This notion that violence against persons is the ONLY "legitimate" form of violence is a load of crap. The legal, moral and ethical concept of crimes against property and violence against property are firmly established in ancient as well as modern history. The root of this absurd denial of reality is the far leftist belief that property does not exist, therefor crimes and violence against it are illegitimate concepts. Fortunately, Marxist philosophy does not guide jurisprudence.76.27.193.88 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Webster’s definition of violence:

1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

American Heritage Dictionary’s definition:

1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

By the dictionary definition, it’s pretty clear that SSCS tactics of ramming, “butter bombing” and scuttling ships are violent. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem here is that it's such a loaded word (ie, overpowering -- as you said elsewhere) but we dont have a better adjective. "violent" is obviously more than just property damage -- thus implying that SSCS is unrestrained in their actions, which is not true. But to just leave it at "direct action" is misleading, as well.

In working towards a compromise, i suggest something like:

"Methods: direct action, violent direct action."

or

"Method: vigilant direct action"

...to diminish the connotations of violence against people. A term like "destructive" would be more appropriate, but the phrase/label "destructive direct action" seems clumsy. Fhue (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

“"violent" is obviously more than just property damage” Yes, but property damage of the sort SSCS indulges in is obviously violent.

“thus implying that SSCS is unrestrained in their actions […] connotations of violence against people.” No such implications or connotations are being made. They are totally inferred on your part and that is your mistake.

“vigilant direct action” “Vigilant” only means “watchful”, so that doesn’t work. If you really meant to type “vigilante”, well that’s a little too dramatic.

“"Methods: direct action, violent direct action."” Best thing you’ve said so far, though “nonviolent direct action, violent direct action” makes more sense. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

again you're projecting.
personally i dont have a problem with the word "violent," which i thought would be clear from my first suggested compromise. but i'll rephrase anyway:
"violence" is really an umbrella term (ie, hypernym) for a wide range of destructive and unrestrained actions. Yes, the SSCS's methods are violent in the sense of property damage, but others above do have a problem with the word's primary connotation of violence against people. I didn't say that it's your implication, nor is it totally inferred. Perhaps you could look beyond your own reading of it. Fhue (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You’re the one who’s projecting, and repeating yourself. And one is not pluralized. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ok I see now, you're just lamely trolling.
/yawn Fhue (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (self-edit 6/18/09)

Projecting: Case in point. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose "eco terrorism" is out? I don't know how WP:TERRORIST and WP:RS balance in this situation. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that direct action involving destruction of property is violent direct action. Simple direct action would perhaps be dumping rotting potatoes on the lawn of the Parliament building, or running a bunch of taxis very slowly on a highway to block traffic. These actions are not intended to cause direct physical damage (well, the grass under the potatoes, but c'mon...) Ramming a ship, OTOH, is a deliberate attempt to disable physical property. That's an act of violence. Further, deliberate attempts to damage property almost always carry with them a threat to life. For instance, the Lytton Industries bombing (which article mentions the distinction) and the attack on the Rainbow Warrior are examples of actions directed against property which resulted in physical harm. Attempts to disable or destroy property are by their very nature violent acts. Franamax (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We can't go around layering more meaning onto words than their dictionary definitions provide. Wiktionary says:

1. Extreme force.
2. Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering.
3. Widespread fighting.
4. (figuratively) Injustice, wrong.

Websters and American-English dictionaries clearly agree. It is very clear that violence can be perpetrated against things as well as people.

So - it's perfectly valid to use the word to mean "action intended to cause destruction" or "extreme force". Think about it like this: Would you be surprised to read the following in a newspaper: "A violent gang rampaged through the streets of Chicago last night - using baseball bats to smash store fronts and car windows. So far nobody has been injured." Would you say that the last sentence invalidates the use of the word "violent" in the first? I certainly wouldn't. It's possible that you might regard the tactics used by this organisation as legitimate given the circumstances - but it's incorrect use of the English language to describe what they do as "non-violent". So we can use this word here. The question is whether we should.

Bottom line for me is that I strongly agree that the crew of the Sea Shepherd act extremely violently. It's possible to be morally right - but still act violently. I think their captain is a power-mad lunatic. I think it's only a matter of time until they kill someone. I don't think whales should be hunted. I think the abuse of the "Scientific Research" loophole in the anti-whaling laws are egregious and should be closed ASAP. I think the crew of the Sea Shepherd are turning public opinion against the caused. I think a lot of things...but I don't write about them in article space.

But this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper op-ed piece. Our job is to state the facts - not to offer opinions or to shade the meaning of the words in any way. We should describe, coldly and without inflection, what precisely these people do (with references). We may (with references) to explain whether this is or is not legal in whatever juristiction they are operating. We may wish to explain (in a section called something like "Media reaction to the actions of the Sea Shepherd") that such-and-such newspaper or such-and-such news report described their behavior as, quote: "violent direct action" and that such-and-such described them as "non-violent protesters" (or whatever we have references for). But unless we have a solid stack of references that say that what they do is violent - and can find no independant references to say that they are non-violent - then I don't think we should use any adjectives at all. It's just not necessary. Let the facts speak for themselves - if we lay them out clearly and without bias then the power of those words will exceed any opinion we might offer. The power of Wikipedia is that we can build consensus about reporting the facts - people on both sides of the debate can agree that this or this or that happened. It doesn't matter whether we agree about whether it's right or wrong because we aren't writing about that.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources I'm seeing quote Sea Shepherd billing itself as "non-violent direct action". Greenpeace characterises Watson's tactics as violence.[9] animalethics.org.uk has a whole on-line book where they discuss "Direct Action" and characterise Watson as using "violent action" (//www.animalethics.org.uk/i-ch3-4-directaction.html) and include a helpful section on the difference between violence and non-violence. (//www.animalethics.org.uk/i-ch5-2-violence.html) I suppose we would have to figure out whether Roger Panaman is an acknowledged expert, but an "animal rights activist, conservationist and biologist, with a bachelor degree in biology and psychology and a doctorate in animal behavioural ecology" (//www.animalethics.org.uk/i-ch0-1-about.html) might qualify as an authority. Still looking for more. animalethics.org got caught in the spam filter, so we would need a whitelisting to use it. Franamax (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you go. We can leave out the adjective in our words - and quote those sources to show that opinions are mixed about whether their actions are violent or not. Our readers can then make up their own minds. Everyone wins. SteveBaker (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it’ll be a bit of a challenge to work it in well. The article’s already a clusterfuck with all the places where we have two or three sources describing something and then throw Paul Watson / Sea Shepherd’s take in. But if we all agree that it’s the best way to move forward, then I guess we can manage. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I just read the FBI link below where the Sea Shepards are described as eco - terrorists. I think the FBI's opinion is notable and whether or not you want to consider them that I think this article should CLEARLY state that governments consider them to be eco-terrorists. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to this below in the "eco-terrorism" section. Also, for the record, there has been a prolonged discussion about the issue of whether the SSCS's actions should be labeled as "violent" -- essentially, other editors (including admins) have agreed that the term is misleading because the primary definition of violence is force against people (although I know some still disagree with this characterization). Please see archives (links above) & these admin threads for more info: Editor assistance request, Wikiquette alert, Administrator's noticeboard - incident. Thanks. Fhue->PrBeacon (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

At what point then would we use the word violence? When notable governments condemn their actions as violence? (as many recently have?) Not trying to open old wounds but it seems with recent complaints of injuries and recent statements by Australia, Netherlands and Canada that the words "violent" and "illegal" should be reconsidered. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You’re just summarizing your position and that of those who’ve taken your side – not the actual content or consensus of those discussions. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again NRen is misrepresenting -- even his own friends, whom he asked to comment on the dispute, told him to let it go. At least two of the admins tried to work towards a compromise, as I did initially (see above) before resolving to stand up to his bullying. He just cannot stand to have anyone disagree with him & has a sad need to get the last word in. Anyone can read those admin threads and see that. He even had the gall to respond to one of the summary notes so as to look official -- then baited me into a 3RR war so as to get me blocked. I can only hope someone else has the nerve to stand up to his bullying, again. Fhue->PrBeacon (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

________

Further questions for future referrence that I do not see being currently resolved:

1. Sea Shephards bill themselves as non violent but governments describe them as violent.

2. On the Whale Wars shows they refer to their glass bottle attacks on other ships as "attacks". Not "non-violent protests"

3. from direct actions: "Violent direct action is any direct action which utilizes physical injurious force against persons or property. While groups such as Animal Liberation Front maintain destruction of property is not violence, US and international law include violence against property.[4][5] Examples of violent direct action may include, but is not limited to: destruction of property, rioting, class intimidation such as lynching, terrorism, political assassination, and armed insurrection." --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following text because it isn’t supported by the source:

CSI is involved mainly in documenting and keeping statistical accounts of whales and cetaceans.

I would also like to ask whether CSI is RS. Tough to judge from their website alone. It’s kinda… spartan. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 16:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest ammending intro

I think the Animal Planet show Whale Wars should be mentioned in the first or second paragraph since it is filmed on the MV Steve Irwin and documents the SSCS's current campaign against Japanese whaling. Fhue (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. As long as it isn’t too overpowering. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 11:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

to improve Background section

I added info on the whale research issue and quickly edited the section for readability and clarity but, as I say in the edit summary, it "needs more reworking; move specific incident reports & criticism to respective section(s) below?" .. then i thought about the 3 archives here, what a collective beast. Wonder if anyone is willing to summarize the major points of the earlier discussions (?) -- i've seen it done on other pages. the challenge is in separating article discussion (ie, arguments in support of article changes) from POV. Fhue (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism and supporters sections really need to be written up, because as things stand they're just lists. Also, criticism should be woven throughout the text if at all possible, in part because otherwise it becomes a magnet for people to add drive-by criticism, which ends up giving it a list-like quality. It's also more NPOV to present criticism in context. It's not always easy to do that, but it should be the aim. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Eco - Terrorism

Is this group considered by most Japanese to be a terrorist organzation? I know very few people here read Japanese but it seems like a notable fact that shold be mentioned in the opening. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It just came up on the edit history so as a reminder: We can use this term. We need to be especially cautious and only use it is from a reputable source and even then we need to make sure to do a direct attributed quote without any additional commentary. It looks like these are available and would do a disservice to the article to keep it out. Here is the guideline: "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears." per: WP:TERRORIST Cptnono (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above.. I keep using the FBI's link but it keeps getting pushed around. It currently is noted in the opening paragraph. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I moved it from the lead paragraph to the Criticism section where I (still) think it belongs, but I'll let other editors weigh in on its proper placement. I was in the middle of posting a reply on this talk page when I ran into some technical trouble. And I just reworked your revert to the lead section -- as Cptnono says, we need to be careful about calling them eco-terrorists. So I put that in quotes as it appears on the FBI page.

However, I dont think the FBI source stands up much to further scrutiny -- Sea Shepherd is mentioned only briefly as a jumping off point for later eco-terrorism by organizations such as EarthFirst, ELF and ALF. Furthermore, the FBI webpage is testimony from the domestic terrorism chief to congress. I dont see where it says this is the official FBI position nor, by extension, US gov't policy. A search of the site for "Sea Shepherd eco-terrorism" or "eco-terrorists Sea Shepherd" only brings up the one page mentioned.

Also, applying the term "widespread" to "international criticism" is questionable and smells like POV. the Times Online article only quotes the Japanese whalers as calling them eco-terrorists. There may be other sources that identify them as eco-terrorists, so feel free to find those and post in the criticism section. Thanks. Fhue->PrBeacon (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree "Widespread" sounds like editor's voice.. but consider this, each country they associate with has condemned the "violence" of their actions. Australia won't condemn them per se but they ahve made statements about their "violence". The Netherlands wishes to remove them completley from their registry, Canada and US governements have no good thing to say about them and that's not even taking into consideration what all the Asian countries are saying whose languages I do not read/spaeak. :) Would you please propose language that then reflects almost unanimous international disapproval for their violence that doesn't sound POV? BTW, Thank you kindly for the respectful tone. I hope I am not coming off snarky. I am enjoying this discussion. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

I note that the sources showing that Horst Klienschmidt, Louise Leakey, Ian Campbell support SSCS have once again been quietly removed. In their place are again tags saying "citation needed". Is this yet another prelude to removing any hint of official support for the SSCS? Funny how these things just keep happening in this article. People that hate Sea Shepherd, more than likely sealers and whalers, forever trying to distort the article against them by bit-by-bit removing positive content while adding any possibly negative thing they can dig up. To ubiased editors here, pls forgive my tone, it comes with seeing this kind of thing happening way too much on Wikipedia. 63.196.193.66 (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look at that source and while I did not remove it, I do notice that the information is coming right from Sea Shepherds own website which makes the citation dubious at best. If the information were carried by a erputable nwes agencey or perhaps if the man made a statement that would make a better more encylopedic ref. Best Regards. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The man did make a statement if you looked at the links, look for No Middle Ground. Also, the fact that it is posted on the Sea Shepherd's website in no way makes it "dubious at best". 63.196.193.215 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that OF COURSE the subject of an article will post good things about themselves on their own webpage. That makes it too biased for encyclopedic value. What it can serve to do though is to provide you with where to find it in established print media. I encourage you to look at that data and google more about it to see if any major news source has covered it. That would make it notable and relatively unbiased. Happy hunting. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't get your objection. Are you saying that because the Sea Shepherd Society has a commentary by Mr Klienschmidt (et al) on their website that can only mean that they must have just made it up? And that in fact anything positive they might have on their website about themselves must be immediately assumed to be a lie? That we can only trust them if they post awful things about themselves? That's pretty cynical, and backwards. You seem to have a very negative opinion of the SSCS, which is understandable given the negative tone of the article. The links I post are primary sources and are fine as they are. What's more Wikipedia's policy states that "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" Wikipedia:Verifiability. Since the source is also the subject of this article that makes it reliable. 4.246.202.94 (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Ok 68, will this do?

"Mr Campbell joins an advisory board that includes a former vice-chairman of the International Whaling Commission, Dr Horst Kleinschmidt. Whale scientist Dr Roger Payne, oceanographer Dr Joe McInnis, anthropologist Dr Louise Leakey, naturalist Terri Irwin, marine wildlife photographer Robert Talbot and actors Piece Brosnan, Richard Dean Anderson and Sean Penn are also involved." - From the Sydney Morning Herald

"Heavyweights sit on the board of Sea Shepherd, including former vice-chair of the International Whaling Commission Horst Kleinschmidt and former Australian federal environment minister Ian Campbell." The Australian

"Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is proud to announce that Horst Kleinschmidt has joined the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Advisory Board and also is now a sitting director of Sea Shepherd South Africa. Horst Kleinschmidt has stepped down as Vice-Chairman of the International Whaling Commission and has volunteered his considerable expertise on whaling and fishery issues to Sea Shepherd." the New Zealand Scoop

"Sea Shepherd does have unofficial representation at the IWC. This year's IWC Vice Chair Horst Kleinschmidt of South Africa, is a director of the Sea Shepherd in South Africa and a member of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's International Advisory Board." Environmental News Service

"Over the last few years Sea Shepherd has been joined by former Australian Minister of the Environment and Senator Ian Campbell and the former Vice-chairman of the International Whaling Commission, Horst Klienschmidt of South Africa. Both Mr Campbell and Mr Klienschmidt believe that governments are not solving these urgent conservation issues and that the Sea Shepherd policy of direct intervention is one of the few approaches that actually saves whales and efficiently intervenes with outlaw whalers." perth now

"Two years ago, the former Vice Chairman of the International Whaling Commission Mr. Horst Kleinschmidt joined the Sea Shepherd Advisory Board and is also now on the board of directors of Sea Shepherd South Africa. The former South African Commissioner to the IWC said that the only way that illegal Japanese whaling will be stopped is through direct confrontation and the enforcement of international law." IndyBay International —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.196.193.183 (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Those are WAY better than quoting the Sea Shephards website. They are far more notable, unbiased and useful for wiki. Well done. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but notice that nothing that they say contradicts what is on the Sea Shepherd's website about their supporters. Thus your automatic mistrust about their honesty ("dubious at best") was misplaced. 4.246.201.99 (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The tone taken by their quotes implies far more than what thier words are saying. We need to maintain neutral. Chekc me when I'm not too please. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually.. I should say that most of those are good. Just try to remember to use major news sources that use an ubiased tone. So much of what is written is the tone in between the lines, the things editors are implying as they state fact. We want to avoid all that as it would weaken the article. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Um 68, I notice that you have removed an entire section, the response to accusations of terrorism section. In its place is a crude POV paragraph which talks about their "their violence against whalers" and also contains several misspellings and grammatical errors. As per previous talk page discussions since they are being accused of terrorism, a serious charge, they have the right to have their side heard as well. I am restoring it. 4.246.201.99 (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"See this commentary by Mr Klienschmid" reads poorly. There also shoudn't be any problem finding reliable and nonbiased secondary sources for any information that is good enough for inclusion.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be a soap box for their defense. A brief summary should be there not a statement of beliefs. That's what their own blog is for, not the encyclopedia. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

The images are against the manual of style guidelines. Thumbed a couple but they might need to be moved around more. Infobox images might need touching up. Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

== See this commentary by Mr Klienschmid/Fighting vandalism from anti-SSCS people again (newly merged discussion)== There is nothing wrong with including comments from Mr Klienschmid. However, it is appropriate to put it in the prose and cite it with a reliable source. I saw that one of the IPs has few edits (could be a forgotten login or newly recycled IP) so here are some links to guidelines that will be helpful in using information from Mr Klienschmid while still keeping the quality most editors expect if the editor is needs some info and is explains my reasoning for removing it:

• WP:PSTS Info on use of sources. If this information is truly noteworthy there will probably be a source covering it. I recommend a google news search with a couple key words (his name + the organization)to find some respectable sources.
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles This line in particular does not provide enough context for the reader
• WP:NOTADVOCATE There have been some serious allegations against the organization but please do not combat that by adding in info that is in just to prove a point or to sway the opinions of the reader
• WP:NOTLINK It is not appropriate to use an article as a collection of links

The line needs to be removed or expanded.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added the comments from Mr Klienschmidt: "I have done my checking on the organisation and I think they have got a bad name which is not deserved. They are not a violent organisation. I don't support violence" Kleinschmidt joins activists trying to stop whaling. It's from the South African Cape Times which is quite RS. However I notice that others (NRen2k5 and Cptnono) are now removing the link to his commentary and his Cape Times comments claiming that it's "spam", huh? and "trying to prove a point", yeah so? And because the "article is already a mess as it is". So how does removing this link clean it up? Come on, who do you think you're kidding? You anti-Sea Shepherd people are soooo transparent. Is the idea is to get me to revert again so that I can be blocked? I hope tht someone with some honesty can step in. 63.196.193.205 (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How about you see my above subsection discussion and stop assuming bad faith.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not move around subsecitons. It could give the wrong impression editors new to the discussion. Please do not accuse others of vandalism. You also do not need to have a knee-jerk reaction and assume everyone is against you or the organization. I have edited the lines to be in accordance with standards.Cptnono (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

See this commentary by Mr Klienschmid/Fighting vandalism from anti-SSCS people again (newly merged discussion)

There is nothing wrong with including comments from Mr Klienschmid. However, it is appropriate to put it in the prose and cite it with a reliable source. I saw that one of the IPs has few edits (could be a forgotten login or newly recycled IP) so here are some links to guidelines that will be helpful in using information from Mr Klienschmid while still keeping the quality most editors expect if the editor is needs some info and is explains my reasoning for removing it:

• WP:PSTS Info on use of sources. If this information is truly noteworthy there will probably be a source covering it. I recommend a google news search with a couple key words (his name + the organization)to find some respectable sources.
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles This line in particular does not provide enough context for the reader
• WP:NOTADVOCATE There have been some serious allegations against the organization but please do not combat that by adding in info that is in just to prove a point or to sway the opinions of the reader
• WP:NOTLINK It is not appropriate to use an article as a collection of links

The line needs to be removed or expanded.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added the comments from Mr Klienschmidt: "I have done my checking on the organisation and I think they have got a bad name which is not deserved. They are not a violent organisation. I don't support violence" Kleinschmidt joins activists trying to stop whaling. It's from the South African Cape Times which is quite RS. However I notice that others (NRen2k5 and Cptnono) are now removing the link to his commentary and his Cape Times comments claiming that it's "spam", huh? and "trying to prove a point", yeah so? And because the "article is already a mess as it is". So how does removing this link clean it up? Come on, who do you think you're kidding? You anti-Sea Shepherd people are soooo transparent. Is the idea is to get me to revert again so that I can be blocked? I hope tht someone with some honesty can step in. 63.196.193.205 (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How about you see my above subsection discussion and stop assuming bad faith.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not move around subsecitons. It could give the wrong impression editors new to the discussion. Please do not accuse others of vandalism. You also do not need to have a knee-jerk reaction and assume everyone is against you or the organization. I have edited the lines to be in accordance with standards.Cptnono (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

First Cptnono, you made bogus arguments in your deletions and without first explaining yourself on the talk page. Next, if you look at the Criticism section you will find no less than six anti-SSCS comments therein and numerous links. I am attempting to balance that with one comment and one link. Yet you object saying "please do not combat that by adding in info that is in just to prove a point or to sway the opinions of the reader". Um, what do you call all those anti-SSCS comments in the Criticism section? And "collection of links"? Then remove some from the Criticism section too. The fact that Mr Klienschmidt has a commentary written for the SSCS site is reliable since he is a senior member of the SSCS for crissakes! Do you really think that he would allow a false essay in his name to remain all these years since he first wrote it? If you don't want people to assume bad faith then don't act so as to give that impression. Please! 63.196.193.205 (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually mentioned it on the talk page as a heads up. I also could care less if you are trying to balance the article if you are doing it improperly. I also don't care about the essay one way or the other since you found a good source. Anything on their website could be incorrect. I hate calling people liars but it is easy to have a blanket policy of being extremely cautious with such sources. Speaking of the source, :Follow-up: Why is he in the supporter section anyways? He is no longer a third party supporter but someone who is on the board. I propose we move the lines to another section of the article.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, there are notable groups in the Criticism section so he should remain in the Supporters section since he is a notable supporter. Now, again there is no reason at all to believe his commentary is not legitimate so it should be there. How do you propose adding it? I haven't looked but my assumption is that you aren't going to find a major news outlet publishing his commentary which is what it sounds like your asking for. By the way, apologies on the confusion in trying to merge our comments into the same section. It was unintentional and occurred because we were commenting and posting simultaneously. 63.196.193.205 (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It happens. You already found a source. If there isn't an appropriate news source covering it than I have reservations on its inclusion. I doubt it will be that hard, though. Since he is not a supporter but a member it would make more sense to have it in the background section. We have to watch out for giving it WP:Undue weight (essay: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight) but that should be easy enough. From the link on the guideline for undue weight note the "Giving equal validity" guideline. We can achieve neutrality without fighting each allegation with a rebuttal and simply let the facts speak for themselves. Although I am not a fan of the group, this obviously has to go both ways.Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Since he is not a supporter but a member Well of course he's a member and a supporter! He didn't stop supporting them when he joined them. 63.196.193.205 (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well how about we put Paul Watson then. And how about the Seattle Sounders FC midfielder Ljunberg is put in the supporter section as well. More to the point, this article would benefit from adding information to the prose instead of that list. have you thought that moving it into the background section might be an improvement?18:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

At one point it was in the background and others thought it better to do it as it is. Are you proposing eliminating the Supporters section but not the Criticism section? 4.246.202.172 (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I for one thinkg support/crit. sections are like POV free for alls. Any well intentioned information can be put more more readable within the content of the main body.. it just takes more skill. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That is just silly. The sections both suck and but i don't know how else to mention some of the interesting names and opinions in each one. In regards to this case in particular someone who is part of the organization deserves room in the background section and it will unclutter the list. Lists are not the preferred method of including information in Wikipedia. Put a couple lines in the background and it will be better.Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd as a source

I propose replacing all citations of the organizations website with neutral sources. The information is controversial and we have an external link to the site for the info that isn't. please see WP:PSTS Cptnono (talk)

I think that's ridiculous. By your suggestion you are making the claim that they are inherent liars, not to be trusted. That's making a negative POV statement all by itself, and will impart your negative impression about their trustworthyness to readers who will wonder about it. It's silly that in an article about the SSCS that you are suggesting that we can't use any of their own comments or anything from their website. What's more Wikipedia allows controversial groups and people to speak for themselves. 63.196.193.205 (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't my rule. Check out the guidelines on it. It is best to use info from a source a step away from the subject to ensure neutrality. This is also more of a notice than an actual proposal since I will try to keep the article inline with protocol. I need do double check some standards myself to make sure it is done properly. If you want to also do some leg work to make sure that editors do not make any mistakes that is cool too. I want to make sure that I am not screwing up by what may look like arbitrarily deleting them all. We be able to do "according to the organization blah blah blah" when their comments are neccasary. Google news should work just fine. Pop in key words from what they state on their page then narrow down the date and I bet something good will come up. Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think they all can or should be replaced, but it would probably be a good idea to go through them and remove or replace them where appropriate. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, What do you think this means: "Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial? Note that I am not suggesting not using other RS but that of course we should be able to use them when called for.63.196.193.205 (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that they are not called for. If it is important enough you can usually find it in RS. Also, they are unable to write in a neutral tone so there "news" seciton is disputed. That is why secondary sources are so important. I wouldn't worry about it unless we come to that point. I will be shocked if we can't find alternative sources for almost if not all claims. Also, for the times when they are offering a rebuttal to an allegation, a direct and attributed quote would cause little concern if it cannot be found in RS (which I doubt will come up). Cptnono (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Their own blogs are not a reputable news source for this encyclopedia. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Sea Shepherd source has been added. I understand and appreciate that it is directly quoted but we need to stop using these. The Sea Shepherd website is not balanced and they obviously are promoting themselves and their ideas (not a bad thing just the way it is). Linking more and more lines to the site could cross the line from adding information appropriate for an encyclopedia into advertising. It could also be argued that it is not reliable. Watson has admitted to manipulating the media. As I have said before, I'm not calling the group liars but, words and phrasing that would be considered weaselly here are all over it (as any organization or business does). It is a disservice to the reader to use them as if they were a reliable source. We do have their page as an external think so all of the information is available. I personally believe (ie not a guideline in any way) that if it is important enough to add there is almost always a secondary source so I am sure if we poke around enough something will come up.Cptnono (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree entirely, but let's be clear on the distinction between an external source and a neutral one. Simply because a source is external does not make it neutral. Unfortunately IMO the majority of wikipedians believe that if it appears to be external/unrelated then it is neutral. Generally I'd say that's a fair assumption, but in the case of highly controversial issues such as this; it's best to treat every source as suspect. (Brianrusso (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

POV in the entire article

Hey guys, if you like the show or not, if you like greenpeace or not, please do not let this article be your battle ground. I ahve removed POV from the article that is pushing the article both ways. We cannot call this organization evil all over the article and we cannot omit the negative things governements are saying about them in this areticle if is to be a good article. Please.. try to audit yourself so we don't have to go round and round. Thank you. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article has become a textbook example of how not to edit an article for balance. Almost any bit of information that reflects badly on Sea Shepherd is responded to with a drive-by edit to tack on an opposing POV (and vice versa, though the pro-SS camp is clearly the worst offender). — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Again NRen2k5, the Criticism section has six comments by anti-SSCS groups while the Supporters section has but one. Anyone trying to add any semblence of balance have to run a gauntlet of people who clearly don't like them and will delete anything that is pro SSCS on sight. Both 68 and Cptnono have stated that that they think the Sea Shepherd is a lying organization not to be trusted. That definitely colors ther editing. You clearly fall into this category yourself. By the way 68, you comments added to the Response to accusations of terrorism are POV, such as your use of the word violence to describe them. Sure you can find people in government who say bad things about them, that doesn't mean everyone does. For example, Ian Campbell of the Aussie government is a supporter of the SSCS and he has even called for war against the Japanese for their illegal slaughter of whales in an established whale sanctuary [10]. Shall we include that? I can probably find others in the other governments (which governments are all, by the way, against Japan's whaling). So your comment that they have had only bad things to say about the SSCS is false. The fact that some in the neo-con Bush administration have had bad things to say about them is no surprise considering the extreme anti-environmental positions that ridiculous adminsistration took. 4.246.207.32 (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I would appreciate it if you reread my comments if you took me calling them liars from it. You are coming across like someone who will refuse to edit neutrally with this last message. It is possible to have an opinion on this subject and still edit neutrally. If you stop editing in a defensive fashion the article will improve. Relax and try it out. Let other editors make the mistakes of adding POV then fix it but don't stoop to their level by cramming in as many lines of rebuttal as possible. And watch the tone of your writing here since you are coming across rude.Cptnono (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: To clarify the "liar" comment: Like I said, not calling anyone a liar. However, you have to view primary sources of controversial subjects cautiously. Many organizations (evil neo-cons or hippies) can and have inserted commentary in their blogs, marketing material, and "news" archives that can subtly change the or skew the facts. It is their website and they are free to express their opinions but is up to editors of this project to not chose sides when including informaiton. It is obvious that some bias will come through so if you see something that is blatant please fix it but don't react in a fashion that counters it just for the sake of winning or in an attempt to lead the reader. The neutrality guidelines are well laid out for us to follow and for good reasonCptnono (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

“Huh? Again NRen2k5, the Criticism section has six comments by anti-SSCS groups while the Supporters section has but one.” This is exactly the problem – you can’t see past the numbers. To you, criticism of SSCS is something that needs to be fixed. It doesn’t matter how much criticism outweighs support out in the real world; out here in the article, you insist that they be held equal.

“Anyone trying to add any semblence of balance have to run a gauntlet of people who clearly don't like them and will delete anything that is pro SSCS on sight.” Oh come on now.

“Both 68 and Cptnono have stated that that they think the Sea Shepherd is a lying organization not to be trusted. That definitely colors ther editing.” I beg you, read some of Watson’s postings on the SSCS website sometime, or just try and sit through an entire episode of Whale Wars. Calling Watson/SSCS dishonest isn’t a POV fault, it’s an indication we’re in touch with reality.

“By the way 68, you comments added to the Response to accusations of terrorism are POV, such as your use of the word violence to describe them.” Okay, now you’re just getting overly personal and quite frankly ridiculous.

“Sure you can find people in government who say bad things about them, that doesn't mean everyone does. For example, Ian Campbell of the Aussie government is a supporter of the SSCS and he has even called for war against the Japanese for their illegal slaughter of whales in an established whale sanctuary [11]. Shall we include that?” No, seeing as he’s on SSCS’s advisory board and that’s already in the article.

“I can probably find others in the other governments (which governments are all, by the way, against Japan's whaling). So your comment that they have had only bad things to say about the SSCS is false.” Again, that’s totally the wrong approach. That’s what got this article into such a clusterfuck to begin with.

“The fact that some in the neo-con Bush administration have had bad things to say about them is no surprise considering the extreme anti-environmental positions that ridiculous adminsistration took.” Oh wow, and you think the way we take SSCS primary source stuff is a problem? Sur. Bloody. Real. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 07:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, the reason I stated that you are calling the Sea Shepherd liers is your refusal to allow the obviously genuine commentary by Horst Kleinschmidt to be in the article. He is a member of the SSCS, he supports them. There is absolutely no logical reason to suspect that that commentary is a fake. Then your comment that "they are unable to write in a neutral tone so there "news" seciton is disputed." I think it's ridiculous that a link to that commentary is disallowed and yet there are all kinds of negative comments in the criticism section. Still I appreciate your tone. I acknowledge that mine could have been better but as I stated before it comes from seeing this article slanted toward the negative time and time again. Not long ago it accused the SSCS of being "terrorists" no less than four times on the main page. Keep in mind that not one person has ever died nor have there ever been any provable injuries to a whaler or a sealer as a result of Sea Shepherd. Yet some here want to put them in the same class as Osama Bin Laden. 4.246.202.172 (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn’t verifiability, it’s that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. The negative comments in the criticism section fit because they’re from third parties and they’re qualified. Kleinschmidt’s commentary (and for that matter, most of the “support” section) doesn’t because he’s vague and an SSCS member. Heck, the “support” section should be reworked or tossed, because in its present form it’s basically just a list of high-profile members. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that Martin Sheen and the Red Hot Chili Peppers are members (and therefore shouldn't be listed) ? That's ridiculous [they're notable supporters & worth including in this article). Many editors (see archives) think that the section should stay. So no, the support section should not be removed. And your pro-whaling agenda here is more and more transparent. I remind others, NRen has said before that "Balance is not the goal." He clearly does not understand the tenets of wikipedia. (ammended)  Fhue->PrBeacon (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous but true, Martin Sheen is not just a member, but on the Board of Advisors [12]. RHCP don’t seem to be members per se but do financially back SSCS. Considering your track record for honesty thus far, I take any claim you make about past consensus with a grain of salt. Still bleating and projecting your misunderstandings about Wikipedia on me, I see. Balance is not the goal. Neutrality is the goal. For example, if a movie is a box office flop and the vast majority of reviews are unfavourable, you don’t go digging for the few good reviews you can find. You accept that most reviewers say the movie is bad and work that into the article in a neutral tone and/or let the reviewers speak for themselves. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

neutrality not balance is an excellent way to put it. RHCP does deserve some mention since it has received some attention. Mentioning that they donate to the group could be included. I would consider them "supporting" the organization and its ideals both in spirit and financially. If we really are considering cleaning up the two lists, we could add a section explaining the donations and any other financial info (ie tax status if it is note worthy enough).Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You’re right. RHCP isn’t a particularly good example of what I would call public support of SSCS, but they do fit into that category much better than into the category of celebrity members. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, NRen2k5 distorts the concept of balance to his own incomplete understanding. The movie analogy is simply weak (and stale, you used it above [13])   while your self-righteous tone does not give you any more authority than the next editor. In fact, it diminishes your limited credibility as a contributor. I suggest you do a bit more reading of WP policies instead of setting up camp on controversial sites just so you can argue. From WP:NPOV: "the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance.."  You might also read WP:How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle(aka Balance) which summarizes the issue: "Wikipedia articles eventually reach neutrality because warring parties push their POV, not in spite of it. Wikipedia therefore depends on POV warriors. Which is just as well. (As there are lots of them)"

Funny how you don't refute the assertion that you are pro-whaling. So you're welcome to keep pushing your POV, just be honest about it and stop trying to bully everyone else. PrBeacon (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to point out that that is an essay not a guideline. Many editors actually take offense to that method although sometimes that mentality can be beneficial it needs to be done carefully.Cptnono (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

PrBeacon, I am not pro-whaling. Is that what this has come to – that I have to say the magic words before you stop harassing me? (And you accuse me of wiki-bullying?…) — NRen2k5^(TALK), 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

lol @ "harassing" ..But, seriously? Get over yourself and stop personalizing these disputes, learn to accept disagreement. I can admit to some incivility but not nearly as much as you, nor did I start it -- you have been dismissive and patronizing since we first exchanged words at the Whale Wars discussion [14] and then carried it over here. So, yes -- counting all your template warnings (on my talk page [15] [16] etc ad nauseum, & other talk pages, even to more-established editors like SV [17]) as well as prolonged complaints to admins [18], [19], including the current one [20] plus the disingenuous attempts to remove comments [21] & [22] just because you don't like them -- you are the textbook example of a wiki-bully. Thus you've scared away other editors but I'm still here, rising to the occasion. PrBeacon (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually.. I'd like to point out that in this section alone NRen has been the undue topic of discussion by two separate editors. I ahve been by one and CPTnono has by one. Here's a friendly reminder to all, this area is not for talking about other editors. It's for talking about the article. If you have something to say about the person go to their talk page, not here please. And BTW, I think there's a nice balance of people on here rightnow. You guys are good for each other. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] in re Balance: yes, the WP article i linked is an essay but it also contains guidelines. Here's something a bit more straightforward:
"The ideal Wikipedia article is well-written, balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing comprehensive, notable, verifiable knowledge." - from [23]
Balance is more than a simple scale -- ie, it's not about giving equal weight to both positive and negative, as with the false analogy in reviews of a bad movie. It goes hand in hand with the concept of neutrality, yet it's not just a zero-sum game or even divided into two distinct camps. In the case of this article, the SSCS receives a wide range of both support and criticism regardless of how effective we editors are at reflecting that. For instance, you don't have to be pro-whaling to be anti-SSCS. PrBeacon (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there’s hope for you yet. =) — NRen2k5^(TALK), 18:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)