Talk:MY Ady Gil/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Peter Bethune's detention and arrest - massive deletion of referenced material

Oda Mari (talk) just removed a huge amount of relevant, reference material from this section claiming it was irrelevant, despite numerous WP:RS. These are all relevant points raised by the news media. Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ady_Gil&diff=351112510&oldid=351111934 Please revert this edit! Or at least, at least discuss it! By the way, this editor has not, after repeated requests, acknowledged or responded to my question about possible WP:Conflict of interest. Could you please respond? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to reinsert some of this material, but I will omit the "he said, she said" about the conditions of his confinement on the SM2. I think readers will want to know the circumstances of his arrest. The news media seem to think the details are important. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I reinserted the information about the black hood AFTER the blue tarp information and BEFORE the "eco-terrorist" accusations to avoid linking "hood" and "terrorism" to address Cptnono's concerns. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I did remove it per consensus last night since this wasn't going anywhere. He has now reinserted it. Yes it is slightly reworded but that doesn't make it better and is still against what 4 other editors have agreed on. This revert also included the removal of another editor's edit. It was questionable but more discussion would be better than making an argument without allowing sufficient time for a response and reverting. (Cptnono)
You left out one minor point. The other editor removed more than half that section of the article without any prior discussion. I tried to address her concern that there were too many details, but balance that by including key points. Why are these key points? If you read the news source and watch the news videos, these are the key points they mention and show. The editors and producers felt these were key points. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
[139] He has also re-included previously removed Youtube video. It appears to violate ABC's (I mistakenly said AP earlier) copyright. The uploader has attempted to justify it but it does not appear to be inline with Wikipedia's standards.[140] Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
There are two videos. One is ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp.) and the other is AP (Associated Press). You seem to have only given them a quick glance. The ABC video was uploaded by newsupload 2010. If you click on their user id, it takes you to their page, where they say: "The video news clips uploaded on this channel are under the permission directly from the copyrights owners and consistent with the terms of use established by the copyrights owners. Under the very few exceptions video clips from other sources are uploaded with the intention to be protected under the Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976 in the United States where the YouTube and its parent Google company are located." The AP video was uploaded by the Sea Shepherd Society. I assume they know what they are doing. It's not some anonymous user. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo just insists the arrest-related facts are important and has never explained their importance and why they should be mentioned in the article to other users. Oda Mari (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The WP:RS seem to think these details are important. See my explanation above. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
He never listens to arguments or participates in debates constructively, but this is not the right place to discuss that. Possibly it could be taken to WP:AN/I or something, but as far as I'm aware, not listening to others isn't actually against wikipedia policy. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, please! Check out OpenFuture's discussion style on the talk page at 9/11 conspiracy theories. Now, who does the comment he made better apply to, OpenFuture or me? By the way, why are YOU continuing the debate on the Administrators Noticeboard when you warned US not to? And how did you become a party to this dispute? I haven't see you participate in this discussion until it showed up here. Do you have an axe to grind? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
ANI might be fine but for now I want him to stop edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Stop removing relevant, referenced material then. It takes two to edit war, and your position is extremely weak. You have no references to support your case. Not one. I suggested, if you feel strongly about this, that you find references to support your assertion and encouraged you to insert balancing material based on those references. But you'd rather just pretend it didn't happen and remove it. It happened. It's relevant. It's well-referenced. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Oda Mari (talk) has still not responded to my WP:COI inquiry. This is very, very important. Cptnono claims he has four editors who support him removal, but only he and I have declared we have no conflicts of interest. Please respond that you do or do not have any conflicts of interest. I'm not sure who else he is referring to as the other two editors who support removal of the "hooding" line, but I'd like to them to declare that they are for removal and have no conflicts of interest. At that point, you might begin to have a case for removal, but I'd still be very, very skeptical that the news media is mistaken in focusing on this and that removal is the only solution. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you are counting 日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe as supporting removal, but I think he was watching the video of the ship inspection the day after the arrest. He did not comment after I directed him to the correct video. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you do not speak for me. I did not comment because I don't live here on the site, and I actually have a real life outside of Wikipedia. Do not attribute that opinion to me, or imply that you know what I'm thinking just because you don't see an immediate response. He absolutely was not hooded even though he was wearing his windbreaker hood. To include a link to hooding is blatantly misleading and false. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, there is no link to the hooding article at this time. If you have a moment, please take a look at the current edit. Thanks. I did solicit your response; I was not presuming to speak for you. It was clearly conjecture. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, if you have a moment, please review the two videos that are referenced. He is clearly hooded. The only question is whether or not this is notable. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This must be the other person you are counting as supporting removal (from the Neutrality Noticeboard): "Yes, I do think that the fact that he has been arrested by the Japanese authorities is notable. I don't think that fact's notability is automatically inherited by commentary about that fact." Sean.hoyland - talk 06:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I contacted those two and solicited their comments. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo, please answer my question first. Cptnono wanted your answer too. Then I'll answer yours. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, your question was, do I have anything to prove Bethune was hooded against his will. I believe I've answered that, but I will do it again. Bethune had no reason to request a hood. He does not consider himself to be a criminal. He considers himself to be the victim. He is not ashamed of what he did. He is seeking as much publicity as possible for his cause. He has been interviewed by the news media and has not denied his actions. He has never hidden his face, even when engaging in anti-whaling sabotage. His picture is all over the media. Assuming the purpose of the hood is to conceal his face from the news media, it would be illogical for him to request a hood. Now I will do some more research and try to figure out what the other question is and try to answer it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, Cptnono had the same question. See above. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I cannot accept it as an answer to my question. I asked if you have any reference or evidence to support your personal speculation. Oda Mari (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The line in the article does not address why he was hooded. It only states he was hooded. It does not assert he was involuntarily hooded, therefore, I do not need a reference to prove that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(out dent)Japan is a constitutional state. Bethune has his right as a suspect. Japan Coast Guard told me "We cannot hood him without his consent". That is why I ask you to show me the evidence that he was hooded against his will. But as I wrote in my edit summary, no media reported a violation of human right or the illegality on this matter and WP is not a running commentary of the arrest. So I think it's trivial and not worthy of mention. You have to explain why the fact should be included in the article. As for COI, I don't have it at all. Oda Mari (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on the COI. The reason this should be included is that it is not routine in most countries to hood suspects, or for suspects to ask to be shielded from the media, unless they are child molesters, murderers, embezzlers, rapists, or someone who has committed a very shameful crime. Bethune certainly doesn't seem to feel he falls into this category. The news media seem to think this is news worthy. All of the news sources referenced either mention or show this prominently. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed by EdJohnston (talk) that we open this up for a WP:Request for comment. I think that is a great idea. What do the other editors think? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
If the hood line can be removed for now I think it is great. We also need to find a fix for the potential copyright material (is there a noticeboard for that?) I don't mind the report but we can't link to something if it is a violation. It appears to be a violation but I could be wrong. We could use {{cite episode}} but that would not preserve the video's link.Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not ok with removing the line. I've given many reasons why it should remain. There are WP:RS that support it. You want it removed based on your personal opinion that it is not notable or misleading. At least some media sources think it is notable. It is a simple statement of fact without any accusation of abuse. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo, you asked for my comment here. First, do I have a conflict of interest. Yes, I guess, in the sense that I'm 100% opposed to hunting Cetaceans but that doesn't affect my editing opinions. Other than that, no I don't. The question seems to be whether the details of the arrest with respect to hooding etc merit a mention in the article. I would say that the notability of this information is not reflected in the international media. If you pick 3 major international media sources not connected to Japan, whaling and with no biased interests in reporting what happens to New Zealand nationals, The New York Times, Bloomberg and The Associated Press there is no evidence of the notability of the arrest details. So, I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that 'the news media seem to think this is news worthy'. It's not surprising that the press in New Zealand report the plight of their nationals in a different way from the other media e.g. plane crash, 400 killed, no US citizens harmed etc. Every country does that. I don't think those kind of inherent nationalist biases should skew notability assessments. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Two One of the sources are is from New Zealand, one from the U.S. and one two from Australia. I think it should stay for now since retention is based on WP:RS and removal is based on editors personal feelings that it falsely implies Bethune was being abused. The line just states the fact that his head was covered with a hood. It was. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
(Some of the sources for the hood are given after the "called him an eco-terrorist" line because they reference both statements) Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Only the first article you cite is about Bethune's arrest. The other two are much more broadly focused on the dispute between whalers and anti-whalers. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's noteworthy that there were protests at the scene of Bethune's arrest. Oda Mari (talk) removed this line, too. This is a big issue in Japan, and to omit that makes it look like no one took notice and it was no big deal here. Also, why are references being deleted? Is there other information that needs to be covered up, like the FACT that he was hooded by the Coast Guard? At least readers can find out what really happened by reading the references, even if this information has been kept out of the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that you do, but wikipedia isn't a tabloid. Sorry, but move on.--Terrillja talk 01:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's constructive to remove well-referenced, relevant material from the article without prior discussion. The place to discuss edits is here, not in the comment section of deletions. Why is this material being removed? For what precise reasons? What do you mean Wikipedia isn't a tabloid? Does that mean we edit out inconvenient truths, and cover-up events that happened to airbrush history, only tell one side of the story? The Rfc was about the hooding of Pete Bethune. Only two editors commented - hardly decisive. It was not about removing ALL the details about the arrest. The fact that he is so unpopular in Japan is not relevant? The fact there was a lynch mob at the pier waiting for him was not relevant? You are distorting this to make it look like this issue is just a dispute over a traffic accident, with no deeper issues involved. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it Wikipedia policy to REMOVE references? You want LESS verifiability? You want to make it HARDER for readers to find out and verify the facts? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
You don't NEEEED TO EMPHASIZE WITH CAAAAAPSSS. The RfC was the last step on a process over several discussions to prove some sort of consensus to GoN who continued to ignore it and guidelines. In regards to the removal of other stuff: I don't care. My concern was manipulating the reader with the hood line. A couple lines might be OK but other editors continue to argue against it so that is a different conversation. Read the discussions closer and click on the blue links that say things like WP:Weight.Cptnono (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Now it appears there is no controversy whatsoever regarding Bethune's arrest. That's simply not true. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Well that is different then the hooding thing for sure. Like I have said, I don't mind a line saying there were protesters. Others do so that is something we might need to figure out.Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Why did I remove references? Because having a bunch of references that say the same thing is: 1)rediculously redundnant, 2)irritating to have tons of footnote links. Oh, and there is the small matter of linking to copyright violations. Tsk tsk. You should know better.--Terrillja talk 04:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I assume more references from WP:RS are better than fewer. It also supports the assertion that numerous media sources found this story important. They are different articles with different information. Would you care to explain what you are talking about regarding the copyright violation? Like exactly which reference you are referring to and why you think it's a copyright violation? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
That was already explained.Cptnono (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo, you have to remember not a single editor has supported your additions to the Peter Bethune's detention and arrest section. It's not a matter if the pieces of information were referenced or not, but if they were important or not. As for the latest addition, it's not important enough for an encyclopedia article. I'm removing it. Please ask for consensus before you add something to the section next time. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
We did discuss the hooding line. We have NOT discussed whether or not the controversy surrounding Bethune's detention and arrest is worthy of inclusion. It was CLEARLY controversial. I had many WP:RS that it was. Why do you think this very widely covered, well documented and pertinent information is not worthy of inclusion? Your personal opinion seems to be at odds with the referenced sources. This repeated deletion of factual, pertinent and well-referenced material looks like an attempt to cover-up what happened. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
This is from the ABC video poster's home page on YouTube: "This channel is for the non-commercial, non-profit fair use for the purposes such as providing diverse perspectives on the specific geopolitic issues to those who are used to the US and Western news media, and also for the purposes of academic research and commentary. The video news clips uploaded on this channel are under the permission directly from the copyrights owners and consistent with the terms of use established by the copyrights owners. Under the very few exceptions video clips from other sources are uploaded with the intention to be protected under the Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976 in the United States where the YouTube and its parent Google company are located." Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
By ABC video, I mean the Lateline video from the Australian Broadcasting Corp. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, can you please stop indenting in your responses to yourself? No, it's not a cover up, it's an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. The Daily Mirror != Wikipedia. I think all the discussion that was needed has been shown, I removed your lines, another editor removed your lines, another one disputed it here. Actions speak louder than words, and these actions have all said to leave it out.--Terrillja talk 08:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought we were supposed to be informing readers on this topic by conveying information, not hiding information from them by removing it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not hiding it, what is with your conspiracy theories? Include relevant information. Some people waving cans of whale meat around is not relevant to an article on a ship. Think big picture here. I would honestly try to work with you on this if I saw any possibility of reason, logic, and an actual willingness to collaborate rather than argue with other editors, but I'm not holding out much hope.--Terrillja talk 08:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
This is from the New York Times story: "Mr. Bethune’s arrest was top news in Japan, where Sea Shepherd’s efforts to obstruct whaling ships receive wide publicity, none of it positive. While few Japanese eat whale, public opinion is generally sympathetic to the government’s claims that whaling is part of Japanese culture." Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Must have been a slow day on the news.--Terrillja talk 08:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think the AP video is a copyright violation? Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Sea Shepherd Security (whoever that is) is not the AP. They have no right to release it, and I know that the AP does not freely release their materials, I looked there before when trying to find an image.--Terrillja talk 08:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the Sea Shepherd Society, if you click on the username. Why do you think they didn't purchase the rights to use the video from AP? Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Could someone place the material here or a diff showing the material that this discussion is about ? Things seem to have moved on since the original diff so it's not precisely clear what the disagreement is about. For example, Ghostofnemo, could you place the material you think should be in the article here ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Protesters present at Bethune's arrested called him an "eco-terrorist"." "Peter Bethune Sea Shepherd arrested in Toyko Japan by Japanese Coast Guard". Associated Press. March 12, 2010. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
"He has also been called a terrorist by the Japanese press." http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10632168 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
What is the reason for sampling these sentences from the sources rather than other sentences ? What's the objective ? It's not clear. Is the objective to highlight the views of a particular section of Japanese society and media ? If so it's not clear why this view is especially important amongst other views like the other editorial described in the nzherald source that said it was a cultural misunderstanding. If he was going to be charged under Japan's terrorism laws I could understand why the 'eco-terrorist' aspect should be highlighted. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It points out attitudes in Japan towards Bethune in connection with his arrest, and helps explain why Bethune is under arrest instead of the captain of the Shonan Maru 2. It might be good to balance this with sources saying Bethune is considered by some to be a hero, esp. in Australia and New Zealand, for trying to stop whaling. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
For example: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/13/2844907.htm?section=justin Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's another: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/world/asia/13whale.html Both of these stories quote Watson though. Better if we could find a more objective source. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Bethune

Did you know that he used to hunt and rape the seabed (or he said something like that)? I have admittedly been concerned that GoN would start Peter Bethune but the guy received significant coverage with Earthrace alone. He is obviously getting more now. It is about time he gets his own article. An eye should be kept on WP:RECENTISM but realistically it is time for someone to pull the trigger. As much as I think he sucks, a DYK is easy if someone wants it. The toilet source in this article is a good character profile and there many others. Now we have him in max and it will continue to grow. So does anyone want it? Nevermind, someone did.Cptnono (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill

The referenced video showing Peter Bethune delivering his bill to the captain of the Shonan Maru 2 needs to be restored because it backs up the referenced news story which states that was the purpose of his visit. The video shows Bethune knocking on the door of the bridge of the Shonan Maru 2 with a piece of paper in his hand. In other words, he was not attempting to sabotage or blow up the ship. I added that because another editor added the word "ostensibly" to his reason for boarding the ship. But the news story and video agree that was his purpose. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, this is not a self-published source. Bethune did not take a video of himself on another ship or post it. It is evidence that he was there to contact the ship's captain. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It was a PR stunt and sources even poke at that. As long as that gets some weight I see no problem with saying what his said intentions were.Cptnono (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
You misinterpreted the "Self published source". It is irrelevant to whether the publisher is the subject of the article or not. For instance, if someone publishes his own view about Barack Obama to a web site and other person cites it in the article Barack Obama, it is considered to be a "Self published source". In this case, the subject (Peter Bethune) is a member of the publisher (Sea Shepherd Conservation Society), it is literally "Self published source" even by your own narrower definition. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's a video. It shows the event taking place. There's no interpretation of the event. You could argue the camera angle is subjective, or something like that, but.... It shows him going to the bridge, not sabotaging the ship, so that's the point of referencing it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
A video is quite unreliable because it can be edited; removed an inconvenient part, synthesized or even completely forged. So unless it is published by a respected publishing house, it should not be used for Wikipedia. Anyway I don't think the video is playing an important role in that context as you think because no one argues he sabotaged the ship on the deck although boarding itself may be sabotage. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I added the video as a reference after an editor inserted the word "ostensibly" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ady_Gil&diff=353527591&oldid=353024250 Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, boarding the boat itself is considered to be sabotage. The editor may have considered his real purpose was to sabotage the ship and the reason he said (to conduct a citizen's arrest and to present a $3 million bill) was a pretext for his illegal boarding. So I think the editor was not arguing that Bill sabotaged the ship on the deck. Anyway now that the word "ostensibly" was removed, There is no need for proving he was not sabotaging on the deck. So please remove the video reference from this article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think it's important to provide visual evidence supporting the claim that he was on the ship to speak to the captain of the ship? I think that's a key point, and will be a key point at his trial. Why did he board the ship? Did he have criminal intent? According to the video, apparently not. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. He was arrested on a charge of trespassing. The video helps nothing for his crime. Please reconsider the video is not allowed in Wikipedia, because it is unreliable and self-published source. Please remove the video by yourself. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:SELFPUB. It seems like it does not violate those guidelines. The video does support his claim that he was on the ship to see the captain. He wasn't caught sneaking around below deck, for example. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo, you'd better learn more on laws. Ships sailing the high seas are generally under the jurisdiction of the flag state. It mean Shonan maru was regarded as a part of Japan. Whatever the purpose was, Bethune's boarding was regarded as an unlawful entry into Japan as he was not invited nor permitted. The end does not justify the means and his claim will never be a key point at his trial. Drop it. Oda Mari (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As described in the policy "especially in articles about themselves", WP:SELFPUB is a policy for an article about a relatively less renowned person or organization for whom it is difficult to find a third party source about a detailed personal information like a biography or hobby. So it is not the case here. You may use the biography written in the Peter James Bethune's website (if any) for the article Peter James Bethune as long as the conditions described in the policy are met. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
What is your rationale for removing the video? I thought you said it was because it was self-published. The video shows Bethune on the ship, so it proves your case, too! Why delete an excellent source showing exactly what happened regarding this contentious issue? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you going to start this discussion all over again? I already explained the rationale. Please read above discussion again. I never use that video no matter how much it proves my case. Please remove the video immediately. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You said it shouldn't be used because it was a self-published source. I refuted that claim. NOW why do you want to remove the video? It is proof of what happened, and is NPOV. It shows Bethune on the ship approaching the bridge and interacting with a member of the crew. Why is that a problem? Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in what Bethune did or didn't on the ship. There is no "my case" at this point. Moreover aren't there no dispute over the description "The captain of Ady Gil, Pete Bethune, boarded the Shōnan Maru 2 on February 15, 2010, to conduct a citizen's arrest on her captain for what he said was the attempted murder of him and his crew, and to present a $3 million bill for his lost boat."? I just removed the video because it is against the policy of Wikipedia. It is my practice to remove the reference against the policy without any position. See this, this, that and so on. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court. It's unnecessary to prove anything that is not in dispute. Oda Mari (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
So Phoenix7777, you are arguing that the Sea Shepherd Society is not a reliable reference source? But this is actual video of the event in question. It's not the Sea Shepherd's version of events. If you could argue a) that is not Peter Bethune in the video, b) it's Bethune, but he's not on the SM2, or c) the video has been edited to misrepresent the facts (Bethune stabbed two crew members, for example, before the video started), I could see your point for removal, but none of those things seem to be the case. Now, regarding Oda Mari's assertion that this in not a court, yes, you're right. It's a reference work. And the video is important documentation of the facts surrounding this controversial incident. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "controversial incident"? Oda Mari (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Some people are saying Bethune is an environmentalist who is being unfairly persecuted for trying to protect whales, others are saying he is an eco-terrorist who should be treated like a criminal. There is disagreement over who is the criminal, Bethune, or the captain of the SM2, who changed course and sped towards the Ady Gil just before the collision. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Bethune is now imprisoned, partially for boarding the SM2. He The Sea Shepherd Society claims he was there to arrest the captain of the SM2 and deliver a bill. The Japanese Coast Guard seems to be arguing his boarding of the SM2 was much more sinister. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soap box nor a forum. Or it might be more correct to say that Wikipedia is not your soap box. Your edits and talk sound like a spokesman for Sea Shepherd. There is no controversy over Bethune's arrest. If there's any, the government of New Zealand would have done something. Sea Shepherd is merely claiming what they want to say by their right of the freedom of speech. As I wrote above, whatever Bethune's intention was, boarding on a ship sailing international waters without permission was a crime under the international law. So the link should be removed. You still do not understand what Wikipedia is and is not at all. Furthermore, your addition "He is being held without bond in a maximum security prison." is just another piece of unnecessary tabloid information. Because there's no illegality or dispute about it. What you have been doing here at Wikipedia is nothing but wasting other editors' time. You should think about it seriously. And if you are not pro-Sea shepherd, please add the Guatemalan accident to the Peter Bethune article. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's look at this from another point of view. I think it displays your lack of objectivity to say "there is no controversy over Bethune's arrest". Please check out the press reports that are referenced in this article and you can find many more by doing a news search on this topic. That assertion is, frankly, ridiculous. The linked video simply shows what happened. There is no sound track berating the whalers. There is no Sea Shepherd propaganda. It shows Bethune approaching the bridge of the SM2 and handing papers to one of the crew members. It is NPOV. Now, why do you and other editors want to remove references that help shed light on what actually happened and which inform readers of the facts about this incident? Could it be because it shows the whalers and the Japanese government in an unfavorable light? Because it shows Bethune is not a monster? Regarding the Guatemala incident with Earthrace, if you want to add that, fine, but he was released without being charged, so be sure to mention that. You can't say "X was stopped for drunken driving" without adding that he wasn't charged for drunk driving. Especially because you're dealing with a living person and that could be defamation of character. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Controversy: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/govt-under-fire-over-peter-bethune-case-3446288 Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The other editor is correct. You are wasting to much time on trivial stuff. I keep on meaning to add the accident and his career before the boats into the other article but am just sick of bickering with you. You need to follow the guidelines more. For example, you have an inappropriate primary source in the other article. It needs to be removed but it will take 48 hours of arguing for it to be done. Just relax and stop stirring up trouble when it isn't needed.Cptnono (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I've never argued with anyone (that I can remember) about adding material. But I object when people delete well-reference, relevant material for mysterious or illogical reasons. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
You have been provided all necessary links to guidelines that you need. You continue to use inappropriate material and the style guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are supposed to be about educating people and spreading information, not about concealing it under the guise of style concerns. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
How about you go make a Featured Article or even one rated GA and then come talk to me about what this project is and isn't. To clarify, I had to remove an image I loved along with primary sources on other articles to get them promoted in the quality scale. Quality and standardization are part of what goes on here. Stop taking it the worst way possible.Cptnono (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the video. SSCS is not RS. We also need to limit links to a site that is unduly self serving. GoN seems to be the only one who wants it in and since "ostensibly" is no longer in the article tere should be no worries.Cptnono (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I object to the removal of NPOV references that accurately depict events discussed in the article. No one has given a convincing reason why it needs to be removed. The reference is not self-serving - it is video footage of what happened. It's only being removed because other editors really, really want it removed, but for no good reason they are able to articulate here. It seems rather peculiar to say the least. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Using Bethune's full name

Since it's the first use of Bethune's name in the "Bethune's detention and arrest" section, the full name should be given. WP:LASTNAME refers to subsequent uses of the name, not the first use. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually wikilinked both the first full use in the infobox and article during the edit. The section heading doesn't need it. We could actually change the section heading to his "trespassing and arrest" but I assumed that would start even more trouble. Move on.Cptnono (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
His full name now appears nowhere in that section. Not even in the section title. It looks very odd. Who is this Bethune? Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't need to. Read the guidelines already. Cptnono (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
At a quick glance, it appears the last cite of Bethune's full name was in the "Design" section, six sections above where you are referring to him as "Bethune". Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It is in the infobox and the first mention of his name. Another mention in the lead would be inline with he style guide. Stop wasting so much time on something trivial.Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not trivial. Someone who skips to that section is going to have no idea who this "Bethune" is. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've wikilinked it, but I still think the full name would make this section much clearer to people who are not insiders. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
FFS. As I explained: WP:OVERLINKING. You are being disruptive. No edits can be made to the article without you starting trivial discussions or partially reverting. Stop it. Cptnono (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
That was an attempt at a compromise. You should try it some time. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand "FFS". Ghostofnemo (talk)
We don't need to compromise. You need to follow the style guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hooding of Pete Bethune RfC

Is mentioning the hood on Pete Bethune's head as he was taken ashore for arrest in Japan misleading (see hooding and its relation to allegations of terrorism) and/or is it given undue weight.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Line in question: His head was covered with a black hood.
References:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VpAXYNErHk&feature=related (Australia)
http://www.3news.co.nz/Pete-Bethunes-wife-shocked-at-arrest-/tabid/417/articleID/146204/Default.aspx (New Zealand)
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/tokyos-angry-reception-for-antiwhaling-activist-20100312-q46s.html (note photo chosen to accompany article (Australia) Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
To see the line in context, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ady_Gil#Peter_Bethune.27s_detention_and_arrest Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note that there is NO LINK to the hooding article. The line in dispute is a simple statement of fact. Some editors wish to remove this line from the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Remove Misleading, yes, undue weight, yes, should it be removed, yes and in an expedient manner, and nemo, don't badger everyones responses. --Terrillja talk 03:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Remove as it's completely misleading, giving undue weight, and just plain absurd to include. It wasn't hooding, so it doesn't really matter what he was wearing. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Remove Same reasons. Undue weight - this article is supposed to be about the boat. Misleading - not big a problem as its undue weight, but yes. Because hooding is also terminology for a type of torture, it's misleading. Bbrown8370 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Keep or Restore I don't understand why anyone would want to remove this fact from the article. What is the problem? I could not find a mention of the hood in the current article. I watched the youtube video and I saw a black hood over his head and shoulders when the blue tarp blew out of the way a bit. The hood is a fact, not an opinion. It's not misleading, in fact, removing reference to the hood is misleading. He was not wearing the hood as one might wear clothing. It completely covered his face and head, which prevented the filming of the condition of his face and features. Vampyrecat (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
His condition was just fine according to the New Zealand government officials who were in contact with him if reassurance is needed of that.[1] If we want to add that in and clearly separate it from anything malicious it might be a option but then again we might be going into way to much detail for a simple anti-perp walk. I think your concern shows the problem with inclusion. It got spun into some scandal by some when there is no indication that is the case. Everything points to the exact opposite but it is not clear since sources don't go into detail on it. It is more than likely because it is not important but a single writer spoke with his wife and made a single mention of it.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice

I brought the recent trouble here and Peter Bethune at ANI. Oda Mari (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ady Gil (The Person)

The donor responsible for naming the boat is quite a character and perhaps some mention should be made of that. He's well known for being an eccentric personality. John Stossel did a story a few years back on 20/20 about Ady's association with sugar daddy web sites. (Seriously) Here's a link to the story: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=8364856. He's the founder of both American Hi-Definition and Sweetwater Video. He got his start essentially providing video projectors to America's Funniest Home Videos. I have a lot of interesting stuff I could relate personally, but to relate that all here would border on salacious and couldn't be documented by published sources.

If he made his fortune from "sugar daddy" websites, it might be relevant, but he didn't, and other things he does with his money and his free time do not seem relevant to this article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
He probably does meet the general notability guidelines through coverage. It would need a separate article. When that time comes (if someone wants to to it) this will need to be moved to Ady Gil (boat/whatever).Cptnono (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I found two videos a thought were pretty nifty and was considering integrating them into the text as sources (assuming they are RS). Thought I would throw them up here if anyone wanted to take a crack at it:

Cptnono (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaker system technical inaccuracy

"and an array of speakers capable of producing 9000 watts.[25]" Regardless of a citation, this information is factually incorrect, and should be removed from the article, or modified in a way that describes the speaker system without stating factually incorrect information. A watt is a measure of power or work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt). Speakers do not produce power but are consumers of power. Speakers convert electrical power into sound waves. The output level, or sound pressure level, of sound waves is measured in decibels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel) or sone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sone), _NOT_ watts. Thus the statement in the article, quoted above, is factually incorrect. The correct way to phrase this part of the article would be:

"and an array of speakers powered by a bank of amplifiers with a combined power output of 9000 watts." Hardwarefreak (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwarefreak (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't know the output of the amplifiers or the ratings of the speakers so the phrasing you've suggested is original research. For all we know, they may have plugged a bank of speakers rated at 9,000W into a 4W amplifier and think that they can now output 9,000W. And is that 9,000W peak or RMS? There are so many things we don't know that we can't suggest any phrasing other than what's there now. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You are correct in that saying "capable of producing 9000 watts" is pretty much rubbish. I will rephrase the article to omit the 9000W figure for the time being. Sound is a wave, and waves usually involve the transference of energy. There is such a thing as sound power, though the sound power level is not going to be anywhere near 9000W. If you have a look at File:Ady Gil 1.jpg the system isn't anything more significant than a number of car/marine speakers. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the specification of the system, the passage about speaker array being added during conversion for Sea Shepherd is wrong. When I visited the boat during its promotional tour (as Earthrace) it already had a big array of speakers, and literature mentioned these being used when it entered harbours. Possibly the system was expanded during the conversion, but we'd need a source for that, and making it sound as though they weren't there previously is misleading. dramatic (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This quote: "He also set an array of speakers capable of 9000 watts of sound into the rear of the cockpit, the better to get his message across." Sounds like it was added for the campaign, post earthrace fame. --Terrillja talk 01:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this 2007 photo shows no speakers, so they must have been added after the race and several months before conversion to Ady Gil (I saw the boat in May 2009: [4]).dramatic (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Name change

I have reverted this as there is no proof that the name change ever brought bad fortune or whatever upon the ship and name changes these days are commonplace. If someone else feels otherwise, please feel free to say so.--Terrillja talk 19:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is something I've chuckled at but never seen a related source. Eve if we did find a source it probably isn't encyclopedic at all.Cptnono (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Centralized discussion

@ Talk:Ocean 7 Adventurer#Sea shepherd's new interceptor vessal Cptnono (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Youtube collision video should be included at the end of paragraph 3.

Kindly provide a compelling argument as to why video of the collision ought not be included in this "MY Ady Gil" entry. Simply plug "ady gil collision" into the search box of You Tube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maoriii (talk • contribs) 23:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it would be a copyright violation. Marcus Qwertyus 23:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
To expand on it and plug an essay I wrote up: It is often contributory copyright infringement. Basically, we should not knowingly link to a video on a website that is infringing on someone's copyright. There are some cases that linking to YouTube is acceptable but there are a host of concerns with using primary sources in this topic area (chiefly, Sea Shepherd has admitted to not being honest enough to be considered a reliable source). I suggest listing videos (without a direct link) that you feel are appropriate and they can be handled on a case by case basis. Feel free to take a look at WP:Video links.Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
i dont see why i would be copyright infringment, if it was youtube bans those vids pretty quick. not to mention, a video cant lie. so it wont be biased towards anyone. theres a few good vids that show the colison from mulitiple angles, we should consider using those. Joesolo13 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Read the links provided regarding copyright then. YouTube removes some (primarily when the copyright holder has a relationship with them) but many get through. There are copyright violating videos there. That is why I mentioned listing individual ones. Also, yes, videos can be misleading. Editing and manipulation are obvious in a few of them as already discussed in the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pete Bethune's Facebook

An anonymous editor added the following:

Pete Bethune also stated on his Facebook page on October 25, 2010 that he has decided to meet with the designers about building the Ady Gil 2, though it will not be used by Sea Shepherd.

I then went ahead and investigated this claim and found the Facebook status message that they were referring to. http://www.facebook.com/pete.bethune/posts/165439863475064 I added it as a source for the unsourced statement. However Cptnono has claimed that the reference should not be on the page, even though the statement does not have any references whatsoever at the moment. The original status message and comments is probably as good as we are going to get right now. So are we to use what we can get now or are we just have unreferenced statements? It seems unreasonable to report on the issue and then not back it up with the original source. So if we aren't going to use the only sources we have because they may be questionable, we might as well delete the statements all together. I will note that Cptnono has been very abrasive in all interactions with other users thus far and hasn't been willing to answer questions when there were points of confusion and disagreement.--Anthonzi (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Facebook is not RS. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources on ideas on how we find sources here. Cptnono (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
good use of abrasive. i think it would be fine, as he using facebook to make an anouncement. he himself is stating something, it not just some random people talking about him doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesolo13 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. It isn't controversial that he said it. — BQZip01 — talk 23:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
We don't even need Facebook. This primary is probably acceptable and it goes into more details.[5] Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Any primary source is fine by me, as long as it is used appropriately. — BQZip01 — talk 16:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Report

Something to keep an eye out for.Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The report is out: http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/AdyGil/Investigation-report-Ady-Gil-Shonan-Maru-Hi-rez.pdf It's a goldmine of information about the collision and the ships involved. There's a pretty in-depth analysis of the technical specs of the Ady Gil that will probably be useful for this article. 74.67.173.54 (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's in depth, etc., but it's also politically motivated in its conclusions and findings. JT (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MY Ady Gil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on MY Ady Gil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MY_Ady_Gil/Archive_2&oldid=1136975922"