Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New "Response to Terrorism" Section

This section and the bulk of changes to the article associated with it have not improved the article, they have harmed it. As I suspected would happen, the net result was serious POV pushing and radical dilution of opposing POV. Consolidating the snippets and responses to "terrorist" accusations could be handled in one paragraph under "Criticisms." The "terrorist" claims are borderline WP:FRINGE, so they need not have a lot of weight associated with them, and in that light, excessive "rebuttal" and one-sided "background" becomes a WP:NPOV issue. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I just wrote basically the same thing before seeing your comment; see below. -- John Callender (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Critics and Supporters Sections

It needs work and citations, but I was thinking that sections and sub-sections would be a better way to handle them. It looks "weedy" in its rough state now, but if fleshed out it should work better, I hope. Thoughts? 24.21.105.252 (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Seal hunt lead paragraph

Just received this message from Igoldste "One or more of the external links you added in this edit to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Igoldste." Um Igoldste, the information you removed was not an external link, nor is it advertising or promotion. It is a legitimate part of the article. Why are you removing it? 4.246.205.212 (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. The warning was in error, in my opinion, but also I agree it was wrong for you to restore it. That paragraph is not a legitimate part of the article, it's an unnecessary essay about seal hunting, containing NPOV-policy-violating phrasing such as "taking the lead", and irrelevant statistics about public opinion polls. It is hardly an "explanatory" paragraph for anything, and it disrupts the flow of the article because none of the other issues in which Sea Shepherd is involved has, or needs, such "explanation". The article works just fine without it. =Axlq 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons I already stated. All sourced, nothing untrue and it goes to the heart of the Sea Shepard's philosophy. But if you feel that parts of it are not right why not state exactly what parts you disagree with first instead of just deleting the whole thing? There are several links therein that all fit within the scope of the article. It looks like censorship to just remove it all. By the way, one paragraph does not an essay make. 4.246.205.212 (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because a statement is true doesn't mean it belongs in this article. Not only me, but apparently other well-established editors here, don't disagree with the content of that paragraph. Rather, I disagree with its inclusion in this article, based on the Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:IINFO. It doesn't belong here. It fits better in an article about seal hunting. There is no censorship involved, just policy enforcement. And yes, one-paragraph essays do exist. =Axlq 05:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What I see here are a lot of aconyms being thrown out. First NPOV:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Wikipedia:Describing points of view: "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy". Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial Under Information Suppression: "Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds)". Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ Under Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete "The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? Occasionally, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V. Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed". None of the information is OR.

As far as you undue weight argument it goes on to say:

"However, there are legitimate reasons for removing text because of bias: As per our undue weight policy, large sections of text expressing a minority or fringe point of view could hinder our primary purpose as an encyclopaedia by leaving the reader confused as to what the academic consensus on a subject might be. Likewise, Wikipedia is not intended for advocacy, so text which simply advocates a point of view, but offers no information should be deleted." Note 1, that the single paragraph does not constitute "large sections of text". 2, it does not express "a minority or fringe point of view", these are concerns to not only the scientific community but of the majority of Canadian, and the world's citizens as well (sourced). Note 3, that it did not 'simply advocate a point of view without information', everything was sourced. Additionally that section on seals is three little paragraphs long. Hardly undue weight. If anything, considering Sea Shepherd's large role in the issue, it should be expanded. 4.246.205.212 (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only is your interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE questionable, but you also don't get to pick and choose the pieces of the policies you want to follow. The irrelevant paragraph about about seal hunting promotes a point of view and fails compliance with all the policies I mentioned, especially WP:IINFO. It's gone now, and will stay gone. =Axlq 16:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd Heroes

I'm seeing lots of criticism of the Sea Shepherd and their interventionism to try to stop the barbaric practices that constitute so much of the sealing and whaling industry. I believe that in the interests of "balance" this article has become unbalanced. The great majority of Canada's, and I suspect the world's people who are aware of what's going on in Canada and other places are foresquare against sealing and whaling [1][2].

I remember many, many years ago hearing about the cruel slaughter of baby harp seals, and the commonplace practice of skinning them alive and was shocked to my core that anyone could be capable of this. Then I also heard of the Sea Shepherd Society who valiently stood up to these ruthless butchers, braving regular rammings of their boats, death threats etc. etc. For some reason I'd thought that with our advancing consciousness the practice had ceased. Then, recently I discovered that, no, it continues strong as ever - 250,000 - 350,000 a year!. In following this issue I have read debates on line between these two groups, the hunters and the conservationists. Commonly the hunters are a foul mouthed, threatening and otherwise abusive lot, consistant with the sort of people who do this kind of work. While the conservationists do respond in kind at times there's definitely a qualitative difference to the venom. Conservationists try to use reason while the hunters just hurl invective and verbal hakapiks at them. Yet, while so disturbing, the slaughter of baby harp seals is only one part of the overall tableau of rank cruelty to animals that seems to define our kind. It's very sad.

While some will defend the seal hunt as providing clothing to the natives, the great, great majority of seal skins are made into completely unnecessary fur coats and what have you for the rich to show off at their white wine, caviar and roasted duck brunches, dinners and parties [3][4]. No doubt in the heat of battle over the years the Sea Shepherd Society has made mistakes which are legitimately critisized. Still because of all those years they've persevered on the front lines, and because of all the abuse that they have taken both physically and in the form of negative PR attacks by rabid anti-environmentalists and rightwing thinktanks (who see other animals only in terms dollar signs) to protect those who cannot protect themselves from greedy exploitation I consider the Sea Shepherd Society to be nothing less than war heroes. Environmental groups that critisize them are cowards IMO, because deep down they know that Sea Shepard is right. Keep up the good work Sea Shepherd! 4.246.207.220 (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with your feeling strongly about this issue. At the same time, the Talk page for a Wikipedia article is not meant to be used as a general forum for discussion of the article's subject. Instead, it is intended to be used as a forum for discussing improvements to the article. You made some comments about the article's being "unbalanced". Are there specific parts of the article that you can point to that fall short of specific Wikipedia policies? --John Callender (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The article comes across as taking the Japanese side of the issue that Sea Shepherd is a terrorist organization while the Japanese are just honest fisherman who are being unjustly victimzed. For example in the Background subsection the statement "As a result of such activities, several nations, including Japan, have pressed the United States to declare Sea Shepherd a terrorist organization". In the Operation Migaloo subsection it says "On September 17th, 2008, Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department has announced that the Interpol has put three Sea Shepherd members on an international wanted list on suspicion of interfering with Japan’s whaling activities in the Antarctic Ocean in February 12th, 2007". In the Criticism subsection it says "Sea Shepherd has been described by the Japan Whaling Association as an eco-terrorist group". This leaves one with the impression that the Society is a purely outlaw organization. There is no mention of the fact of the illegal hunts by the Japanese that many nations condemn and which is what the Sea Shepherd is responding to [5][6].

Note Paul Watson’s comments that "the Japanese ... are in blatant violation of international conservation laws." [7] "The Japanese whaling fleet is targeting 935 threatened Piked whales plus 50 endangered Fin whales in an established Whale Sanctuary in violation of a global moratorium on commercial whaling." [8]. "We are down here to enforce international conservation law and to stop the illegal whaling operations." [9].

The Sea Shephed Society sees themselves as enforcers of these international whaling laws which are on the books to protect these animals, "Sea Shepherd, guided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature, is the only organization whose mission is to enforce these international conservation regulations on the high seas". Unfortunately these regulations are not enforced by governments except by obviously weak and ineffective hand slapping. Note this comment from another wiki article Whaling in Japan, "Any directives from the IWC are undertaken on a purely voluntary basis as state sovereignty means that there are few avenues by which international law can be enforced". Without enforcement these laws are toothless gestures.

It is those violating these laws who are the outlaws, says Sea Shepherd, and as such they have to assume the risk inherent in their illegal shenanigans. "Yes we have sunk whaling ships, rammed whalers and drift netters, boarded poaching vessels and destroyed equipment used for illegal exploitation of the oceans and we believe that these are valid tactics" [10]. "It's hard to renounce violence when we have never been violent,' said Captain Watson. 'In our entire history of over three decades we have never caused a single injury to a single person. As for property damage, Sea Shepherd has never damaged any property that has not been used in a criminal activity. That is why we have never been convicted of a felony or of any property crime, nor have we been sued" [11]. Don't you think that they would have long ago been up the legal creek without a paddle or even blown out of the water like some Somali pirate ship if they were attacking ships that were engaged in legal activity? Sinking ships is a big deal yet they continue, even making television documentaries for Animal Planet. The Sea Shepherd Society gets away with it for the most part because they are very careful to make sure that they have firm legal grounds for what they are doing and that their opponents are flagrantly breaking the law, and also by documenting everything.

"I stand in honorable company as a modern-day pirate, though I've not shot anyone, burned any ships, looted any cargoes or kidnapped anyone. We are also pirates with a sense of humor and a moral code of non-violence. In 30 years of eco-piracy we have never injured a single poacher, though we've sent nine whalers to the bottom. Instead of cannon balls, our guns shoot coconut cream and chocolate pie-filling. We toss stink bombs instead of grenades and we are so non-violent we don't even eat meat or fish on our ships. No fish, fowl or mammals have died in the making of our high seas campaigns. What we do is defend the whales from illegal slaughter by ruthless and merciless killers. If people want to call us pirates for that, we're proud to be so. We have whales to save and Japanese ships to attack" [12]. Somewhere the reason why the Society is doing what they do, the philosophy behind their actions needs to be mentioned. The sad fact is were it not for Sea Shepard and Greenpeace the world wound not even know about the brutal massacre of baby seals and whales.

A few other things.

• Under the Operations subheading is the line "the ship Robert Hunter was renamed the Steve Irwin". The article mentions this fact twice in as many paragraphs.

• Under the subheading Operation Migaloo I found the following sentence about the Arctic, which is in the northern hemisphere, within a section about an operation in the Antarctic, which is in the southern hemisphere. As such it doesn‘t make sense: "The arctic territory is not at all internationally recognized. This sentence by the Australian court is based on a wrong assumption." The link connected to it for me doesn‘t translate to english and I can‘t find this comment elsewhere on the web except in this article and in copies of it in other places.

• The Supporters section is brief and fails to mention some other notable people such as the former Australian Minister of the Environment Ian Campbell, the former Vice Chair of the IWC Horst Klienschmidt which sit on the Shepherd's advisory board.

• In the Background subsection is the sentence "Critics refer to the organization as "Pirate[s]" and "Terrorist[s]", and consider Sea Shepherd's harassment of targeted Fishing and resource-extraction operations to be outside the law." "Resource extraction operations". That seems a funny way to talk about whaling and sealing. 4.246.203.68 (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The article cannot be a propaganda piece for the Sea Shepherd Society. That simply is not it's purpose. There are many criticisms of their tactics because they choose to engage in controversial tactics, but both sides are represented in fairly neutral terms. There is always room for improvement, but if cleansing an entire POV from the article is your version of "improvement," then that is not an improvement at all. A bunch of people worked hard and compromised on a subject they have strong feelings about in order to reach a consensus. I appreciate that you have strong feelings on the subject. So do I. But I check them at the door, because strong feelings are not proper encyclopedic material. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, nobody said anything about "cleansing an entire POV from the article". One point of view is presented several times - that Japan asserts that the Sea Shepard Society is a terrorist organization. That's a strong allegation. For such a strong allegation the other side of the story needs and deserves to be presented as well, especially since there is another side in this case. It's not about "strong feelings" but about fairness and facts. That, BTW, is Wikipedia policy. 4.246.203.198 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I think I'd support an edit to reduce or consolidate the number of mentions of terrorism, given that it does appear several times in the article, and seems to me to be inherently a fairly POV-ish accusation under the circumstances. To my mind, "terrorism" has a connotation of organizations that are willing to pursue the death of innocent civilians as an explicit goal (or, I guess, that are willing will to define "innocent" in such a narrow way as to exclude people whose only crime is to be indirectly complicit in some perceived wrong, making those people legitimate targets in the eyes of the terrorists). Even taking the statements of the Japanese whalers at face value, I think it's a pretty big stretch to conflate Sea Shepherd with that sort of terrorism.

I think it's probably relevant to the article that Sea Shepherd has been accused of that, so I'd probably stop short of removing all mentions of the terrorism charge. And I agree that the article should contain information that allows an interested reader to see what Sea Shepherd's response to that characterization is. At the same time, I think we should be careful not to get too caught up in "he said/they said" formulations. I think it's partly the history of edits churning back and forth across the NPOV no-man's land that has left the article in its current somewhat jumbled state. -- John Callender (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would obviously be a biased POV to let the comments of the whalers and sealers themselves go unbalanced. I mean of course they are not going to say good things about Sea Shepherd. It's standing in the way of their illegal hunts and causing them embarrassment worldwide. So naturally they are going to choose the worst, most politically charged adjectives they can think up. I'll make some changes/additions soon unless you'd like to. 4.246.204.218 (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes. Everyhing is based on reliable and primary sources. It still needs the chore of Wikifing the links.4.246.205.240 (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments may be sourced, but that does not mean the comments are appropriate or balanced. The whole intro section about the Canadian seal hunt better belongs in an article about seal hunting, not in this article. And the repeated comment you added about that "Sea Shepherd Society has assumed the role of defender of last resort" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia; it's self-stylized POV that has no legal meaning from what I've been able to tell. Also, third party secondary sources are better than primary sources. See WP:RS. Thank you. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 22:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The intro section provides basis for the Sea Shepherd's actions. The comment sbout "last resort" was mentioned two times. That was an error on my part. Once is appropriate. And while it may have no legal meaning, again it is context for the Sea Shepherd's philosophy and thus appropo. Otherwise it's just statistics without meaning. 63.196.193.165 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting a cabal of editors, Pesco, Axlq, and Igoldste are censoring a single explanatory paragraph on sealing. In the last case, Igoldste reverted my last edit instantly after I made it. Whaling has many paragraphs while the seal section only a few. Apparently though that's too many for this trio. For the record here is the paragraph they are attempting to censor.

"Each year up to 350,000 baby harp seals are clubbed to death for their fur, usually in front of their mothers [13][14]. The hunt has been criticised by scientists,The risk to the seal population is alarmingly high. The study demonstrates that the government may not know that the seal population is at a critical level until it is too late for anything but drastic action. That means they would continue to set high quotas for hunting when the seal population is in serious decline" [15]. Additionally, polls have revealsed that the majority of citizens who are aware of the issue are against sealing [16][17]. As with whaling, the Sea Shepherd Society has assumed the role of defender. As such, they have been attacked, sometimes physically by the sealers [18].

4.246.205.212 (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello 4.246.205.212 (I shall call you "4-Dot"): I've never been part of a "cabal" before, so it's an interesting honor. Having examined the user contributions of the other members you've grouped me with, Axlq and Igoldste, I see that they both have a diverse field of editing and aren't prone to being zealots of any particular POV. Please consider that three unassociated editors all agreed that the edit was not appropriate for the article. It's ok to be bold and I appreciate that you've taken the time to add text you think makes the article better. Other editors have disagreed about parts of your edits, so please take a moment and try to understand what people like us are saying. When I'm making substantial edits I try to consider what others with a critical eye might think, anticipate why they would want to remove my edit, and pause to consider whether they have a point. And finally, please assume good faith and don't accuse other editors of censorship. I'm not limiting your free speech, and I happen to despise actual censorship. Thank you. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Accusations of Terrorism Section

I just made a series of what I admit are fairly bold edits, mostly removing information that I believe mires the article in a lot of pro/anti-Sea Shepherd advocacy. As I worked my way down through the article I came to the "Response to Accusations of Terrorism" section toward the end, and was tempted to remove the entire section outright, but decided that I'd been bold enough for one night, and didn't want to offer reversion bait to the pro-Sea Shepherd editors. So I left the section, but I wanted to solicit opinions from other editors on whether it is really helping the article in its current form.

My reasons for wanting to remove it are that at least as currently written, it reads like an extended Sea Shepherd press release. The information in it is valuable, I think, and it's thoroughly sourced (I didn't check the sources to confirm they support the quoted material, but I assume they're okay), but I worry that in its current form it strays across the line into giving undue weight to pro-Sea Shepherd advocacy.

I think I'm going to take a step back for a while myself. But I encourage others to think carefully about the needs of the article as a Wikipedia article, as distinct from the interests of those advocating on either side of the whaling/anti-whaling controversy. Obviously, this article is going to attract editors who feel very strongly on both sides of the issue, which is both a blessing and a bit of a curse. But I sincerely believe that a good, well-sourced, neutral presentation of the subject is something we should all be willing to work towards. Thanks. -- John Callender (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur. There is a prolonged and heavily POV counterpoint with no real point made in the section. Not that I want to see the point made that they are terrorists, beyond a passing quote, mind you. That's an insult to the victims of ACTUAL terrorism. I say, keel-haul the section and put in a quote in the "criticism" section, with a brief quote countering the charge. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an inherent problem with Wikipedia: it's truth by how many supporters a particular POV can muster. I reliably sourced everything I added. Nothing was contested on the facts, and it was all relevant. But we don't want to upset the apple cart. Anyway, I only removed some of the four different times that the Society was referred to as a terrorist organization and links that either did not state what the comments said or that went to a page of unreadable gibberish. I can only conclude that the article was not well maintained before. I hope that in the future it will be a fairer article. People need to understand why they are doing what they do, and why good people support them. The story of the Sea Shepherd is a quintessential David v Goliath struggle. They, and the helpless wildlife they are defending deserve better. By the way, one can be passionate about something and still be right. Thanks and adios. 4.246.206.103 (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the efforts to generally remove redundant terrorism charges. This would also apply to recurring discussions about using the term "piracy". ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Boarding of ships?

As someone somewhat familiar with Sea Shepherd's operations, I'm a little confused as to when they have boarded any ship. Perhaps someone could point this out. Thanks Mostlyharmless 00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you Sea Shepherd is not harmless. Here's a recent boarding incident which the japanese call piracy. Best part is that the Japanese whalers end up having to go save their stupid asses. [19] Hiro--216.75.93.110 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The tone of this comment is unacceptable. Please remain civil. Sancho McCann 21:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true though. unwelcome boarding of a vessel at sea is an act of piracy. The pirates are very lucky, the Japanese treated them like kings on the boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 14:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... no. Merely boarding a vessel without permission is not piracy by any definition. It is trespass. According to international law, Piracy involves taking property or hostages for personal gain without a national endorsement. Boarding a ship for a political statement (misguided or otherwise) with the full expectation of being captured and held against your will is not piracy by any stretch of the imagination.76.27.193.128 (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only is Hiro not NPOV, his link is bogus. So, is there any news on them boarding vessels? Noserider 15:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the story the dude was talking about: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Feb09/0,4670,AntarcticWhaleProtest,00.html[20] "Boarded" is a misleading word; the activists were rescued by the whaling ship and boarded it in that capacity. 67.168.65.207 (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not even that - the Nisshin Maru took part in the search, but the men were rescued by the Farley Mowat. The Sea Shepherd account and the Japanese ICR account don't differ at all in their facts, but the Japanese account takes great liberties with language, in effect is all weasel words. This is borne out in the foxnews account listed above, as it is in the accounts on Sea Shepherd's own websites. Just a little googling turns up many others, and discussion. Using the term "acid" on it's own to describe the relatively harmless butyric acid stinkbombs used by the protestors shows how the whalers and their defenders will twist words here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damian James (talk • contribs) 05:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact remains that boarding a ship without permission is piracy, as this article states. There can be no justification for boarding another's ship without permission, it is a criminal act. --210.54.5.194 (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

They were arrested for trespassing. As simple as that. "hostage" or "terrorist" are all commonplace rhetorics of propaganda and should not be in wiki in the first place (neutrality policy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.52.32 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you implying that Sea Shepherd are not terrorists? Are you serious? — NRen2k5 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

According to law of the Sea, boarding a ship for political purposes is not piracy. (see Galvao affair, 1961). Sea Shepherd has definitely boarded a a whaling ship on January 15th. Does this find its place in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarypoppins (talk • contribs) 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Law is too open to interpretation. I think including sourced accusations made is okay, but its not WPs place to suggest what the letter of the law is and if they are or are not guilty of anything, let a court decide that then we can say here. Russeasby (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Restraining somebody who has boarded your ship without permission is not "hostage" taking either. Were the Japanese supposed to assume that the Irwin crew would not sabotage their ship after they attempted to do so with the prop foulers and butyric acid attack? After having been boarded were they then supposed to allow the Steve Irwin to get close enough for a ship to ship transfer which would have left them open to ramming (a tactic Sea Shepherd is known for)?I Art Laughing (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Both sides engaged in over-blown rhetoric. The boarders were not "pirates" but nor were they "hostages." A property owner has the right to detain trespassers for prosecution. Whether it's a smart idea is another story entirely. The Japanese were wise to release them without further escalating the episode - it would only have harmed them in the court of public opinion.76.27.193.128 (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Watson clearly stated that his intention for boarding the Yushin Maru in January of 2008 was to create an international incident by instigated the Japanese into a "hostage" taking position in the Whale Wars footage (specifically Episode 2). The genesis of the letter's was clearly stated in discussion in that same episode by the crew as cover for their boarding in the event that the two Steve Irwin crew who "volunteered" were taken back to Japan and charged with piracy. Those interviews and that footage needs to be cited since it gives Watson's line of thought and motive behind the boarding and also casts some serious doubts on his honesty in regards to his manipulation of the media —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Art Laughing (talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To suggest that their actions rise to the definition of terrorism (even if illegal and reckless as some legitimately believe) is an abuse of the English language and an insult to the victims and survivors of actual terrorism. It is akin to the PETA crowd calling backyard BBQs a "holocaust." It is beyond inaccurate; it is spiteful, harmful rhetoric. I agree with almost zero of Sea Shepherd's political agenda, but I don't regard them as evil people. Confused, maybe. Mistaken probably. Reckless for sure, in my opinion. But evil, which a terrorist IS by definition??? That is overheated rhetoric. It's unfortunate that some people feel the need to go to the furthest extremes in their heated rhetoric, and that simply and earnestly disagreeing with the group's goals or tactics is not sufficient for them. People need to back off the "scorched earth" mentality toward every little thing they disagree with, and apply themselves to disagreeing in a respectful, gentlemanly or ladylike fashion. That's my lecture for today.:) 76.27.193.128 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Using violence or the threat of direct violence to achieve a political end through intimidation, harassment and potential bodily harm (disabling ships in Antarctica for example) is not terrorism? Just because the term "terrorist" carries heavy connotations does not mean it is inappropriate. Are they suicide bombing markets? No, but the are still using terror (fear of harm) to achieve their goals. "Direct action" is clearly violent, and the Sea Shepherds are clearly motivated to perform violent acts. Gandhi's these guys are not. Continued attempts by Sea Shepherd to escalate the boardings and disable Japanese ships is upping the ante. Paul Watson clearly wants a violent response and is pushing the Japanese into defending themselves so he can mount a PR campaign (HIS crew by damned). When (not if) someone under the command of Paul Watson does die they will not be "whale martyrs" they will be Paul Watson's idiocy/criminal negligence victims I'll wager. The man is going to kill somebody, he's always getting his crews permission to kill them and pushing them to stupider and stupider stunts to do just that. Barring that he'll just lie about the Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Art Laughing (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Fear of harm?" Fear of "harm" to a ship's prop is hardly terrorism. Who is "fearing?" They do not threaten to harm any persons. Their actions are in no accurately describable way "terrorism." Anyone who uses the term in that context is intentionally misusing the word for dramatic effect. I think tree-huggers like these who engage in "direct action" are fascists. Just my opinion. Mussolini and Hitler were big, big fans of "direct action." But, you won't find me editing the article to say that. Because it's MY OPINION and I'm much more interested in seeing ACCURACY than a reflection of my opinion in an ideological mirror called "Wikipedia." I have little use for tree huggers. But liars are even lower in my book. Anyone who calls these people terrorists is a liar. So in order of priority, I would bitch-slap the liar first, then the tree huggers. But I would slap the liar harder.24.21.105.252 (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to say how fearful the Japanese are of these dangerous attacks on them? Their actions are terrorism by definition. Watson even said he would "sink every ship in the "Australian Antarctic waters". This shows he intends to do harm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco-terrorist organization

Sea shepherd society has been accused of being an eco-terrorist organization by Japan.. this is nowhere in the article, yet when I added it someone else removed it saying it's "already there". There is only a section "response to accusations of terrorism" - which is clearly unbalanced and apologist of the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.217.67 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At the IWC Meetings in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the International Whaling Commission condemned Sea Shepherd's actions. In 1994, IWC Secretary Ray Gambell stated "the IWC and all its members ardently condemn Sea Shepherd's acts of terrorism.

As I had said before, already stated in the article. --Terrillja _talk 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Eco-terrorism

I have one suggestion. As Terrillja-san said, International organization (IWC, not we) recognized their action terrorism. And their action does not stopped. Then we should categorize this page Category:Eco-terrorism.--9 hits (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(additonal) Large portion of their NOTABILITY is based on the extreme action. The categorize is reasonable. I think.--9 hits (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Eco-terrorism" is a political term that has intentionally been defined so broadly that most instances of it are by no means terrorism. The statement which we are quoting seems to be highly questionable. I know it's from a government source, but it's one from a very small and insignificant country. I just don't believe that the IWC formally condemned Sea Shepherd actions as "terrorism", as this would be totally the wrong word. That's not the kind of mistake that international committees make.

We are quoting a St Lucia government source that appears to be quoting a Norwegian news agency that quotes Ray Gambell who quotes the IWC. That's quite a bit of indirection. It seems plausible that St Lucia actually got the phrase from this source, which does not seem to quote Ray Gambell literally.

Even if it were true that the IWC called Sea Shepherd actions "terrorist", that would be no base for us to "correct" this obviously wrong claim to "eco-terrorist" and use that as an excuse to label (and possibly libel) Sea Shepherd.

Apart from the sourcing issue, which definition of "eco-terrorism" are you using? The one from our article eco-terrorism? Here it is:

"the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature"

Note that in general acts against property don't count as terrorism, only acts against people do. That's why most "eco-terrorism" is not terrorism. Surely you can see the difference between physically hurting random people and sinking an empty ship. And illegal or pseudo-legal whalers are clearly not "innocent victims".

What remains is that Japan, using the transparently counter-factual claim that their whaling operations are "research" and therefore legal, regards the whalers as "innocent" so that any violence against them, however marginal when compared to their crimes, becomes "eco-terrorism". And that Japan can exploit the sloppy phrasing of this FBI definition to call actions that target the instrument of the crime (in order to prevent the crime) "eco-terrorism". Calling Sea Shepherd "eco-terrorist" is contentious and disparaging. It follows from unrelated findings of the Arbitration Committee (see WP:PSCI) that Sea Shepherd cannot be categorized in this way. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree that "only acts against people" count as terrorism - by the very definition you quote above ("innocent victims OR property"). By your reasoning, blowing up a building/bridge/etc. would not be terrorism if the perpetrators phoned their threat in, such that the building could be evacuated. Disagree further with you that whalers are "clearly not innocent victims" - whatever you think about the "research" loophole that the Japanese use to justify whaling.. these people do not deserve to be harmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.27.241 (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly confusing "terrorism" and "eco-terrorism". It's logically impossible to refute what I said (that eco-terrorism is in general not terrorism) by quoting a definition of eco-terrorism and applying it to terrorism. Apart from that, yes, your "phoning" example is sound and actual correct definitions of terrorism are more subtle. See terrorism. But as Wilhelm meis observes below, it's not helpful to continue the discussion whether it is true that Sea Shepherd fall under terrorism or eco-terrorism or neither. For Wikipedia it's just a question of sources. --Hans Adler (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever we may think about the Sea Shepherds, "ecoterrorists", whaling, etc., I see only two issues that matter here: 1) can this categorization be backed up by reliable sources? and 2) is the category appropriate? If reliable, scholarly, published sources have identified X as Y, then X is Y as far as WP is concerned, whether or not User:Idisagree agrees with their conclusions. On the other hand, any categorization is pointless if the category itself is inappropriate to WP. Wikipedia:Categorization#In general - specifically no. 7 - indicates that categories must remain neutral. Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating categories explicitly states "Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy." If the category itself is inherently non-neutral, it should be listed at WP:CFD. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this approach (i.e. deleting the category) in principle, but I don't think it has a chance. Category:Pseudoscience, a similar case, played an important role in an Arbcom decision. WP's current approach is to apply disparaging categories sparingly, not to delete them. --Hans Adler (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses.:

1. NPOV

   In my opinion, this definition (that they are terrorist) is not my definition, not Japanese government’s or not yours or yours government’s. It is from international organization. If you can say it is non-neutral point because of your opinion, your neutral view point is not really neutral?

   Additional opinion, the action is important whether someone is terrorist or not. Even if their purpose is right, they are terrorist if the action is illegality and violence. (You understand it, because you know WP:POINT.) And the target is not important; certainly SSCS's target is people or ship of some government. If a group attacks Whitehouse or the former-president to solve some problem, it is a terrorist group?

   But the Category:Eco-terrorism itself is problem. I will withdraw this suggestion.

2. Reliable source

   I think this page already have enough sources to say they are terrorist. But if it is not enough to categorize, I will withdraw it.

3. Word choose

   I simply think the word "eco-terrorist", who is terrorist to solve some environmental problems. And whaling problem is included in it.

   But you say this using is not natural in English. I will withdraw, or change the category to suitable one.

4. Category

   As I said, their Notability is almost based on their extreme action. I think this categorizing is natural.

Certainly they are most famous eco-terrorist in Japanese daily life (i.e. in jawp, this page categorize eco-terrorism, ja:シーシェパード, ja:category:エコテロリスト). Therefore I always suspect my own sense on talking about SSCS. So I will esteem the conclusion of your discuss.--9 hits (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)--add--9 hits (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are some people SO hellbent on describing the Sea Shepherd Society as "terrorist", as being in the same category as mass-murderer Bin Laden? It's quite obvious why. The word was SO overused and SO politically charged (as was the intention) during the Bush years that people were (and some are still) frightened of anyone who did not fall into a neat WASP category or who disagreed with hard-rightwing policies. It's use was often intended to ensure conformity through fear, either real or imagined. And unquestioning conformity by anyone with a progressive or reformist bent through fear of being labeled "terrorist". Thus I believe it's insistance here is none other than a broadbrushed attempt to capitalize politically on the manufactured fear connected with this word, the worst pejorative currently in the public mind that the whalers can come up with, and as such is manipulative, dishonest and very POV.

But using their definition, that we can call SSCS terrorists, who in their entire history has never caused any harm to anyone, simply because they have sunk empty ships used illegally to hunt in an established whale sanctuary (HELLO!) and have thrown stink bombs made of rotten butter then we should also be allowed to call the Japanese whalers terrorists, because they are doing actual physical harm. First, their actions are certainly terrorizing to the whales which should be allowed to live their lives unmolested in a whale sancturary for Chrissake. Next they are certainly terrorizing to Australia which has seen it's territorial waters invaded and laws flagrantly violated over and over again, terrorizing enough that some there have called for war against Japan because of it. And third, it's certainly terrorizing to scientists and others who are enraged at this savage disregard of law and of life which they've been trying hard to protect simply because some uncaring people in Japan completely unnecessarily want to eat whale meat and are using a completely frauduent "research" excuse to continue the practice. So you want to call the SSCS terrorists for trying to enforce international whaling law where no one else short of war can, then call Japan's actions terrorism as well. 63.196.193.80 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that article talk pages aren't general discussion forums. I believe this comment is straying a bit off-topic. We actually have a guideline for this, WP:TALK, which is (correctly) not usually enforced and therefore not very well known. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Though it can be difficult to edit an article without discussing it first. It's appears though that this subject is perhaps a big enough one to hash out somewhat on the talk pages since it seems to pop continually by those with an agenda to smear. 63.196.193.80 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this kind of discussion is that it's very unlikely to result in a consensus. People from opposite ends of the world, and also people from the same city but with opposite political convictions, come here and must somehow get along. Surprisingly often they can find a compromise, but usually that's because of the trick of focusing on the article content and not trying to show each other the errors of one's ways. Oh, and one of the most important principles is never to explain with malice or an agenda what can be explained with stupidity or a completely different world view. See WP:AGF, the guideline that is supposed to lubricate Wikipedia. (I say "supposed to" because it's so often ignored.) --Hans Adler (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to play a part in Japanese Government, and I don't want to discuss whaling problem ("research", "HELLO" or something) in this talk page. If you want to discuss whether Japanese Government or Japan is terrorist or not, go to talk page of Japan. I know the existence of anti-whaling's opinions, and I can understand them even if I live in Japan. (Of course, I can understand anti-anti-whaling's opinion, too.) I'm just a wikipedian, I think you are too. If you really want to discuss whaling problems indetail with me, please send me a wikimail, IPUser-san. If my poor English made your angry, so very sorry. --9 hits (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 9 hits-san but I've no need for a private discussion. Understand that while I take exception to what Japan and the whalers are doing with regard to this issue, and with regard to other threatened and endangered species I do not include all Japanese in my disapproval. There are in fact many Japanese who are anti-whaling [21]. By the way your english is not that bad, nor does it make me angry. 4.246.202.82 (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Whaling problem

   I know the importance of protection of threatened and endangered species. But I think this problem is not a simple problem of the protection of them, including many problems (nationalism, taboo of eat, business, discrimination and so many speculations). I think both sides lose cool. I don't want to be rolled by these confusing problems now.

2. SSCS

   But that SSCS is a terrorist (or an eco-terrorist) was an unquestionable sense for me. JPN govt are attacked by them every year. They ignore all JPN govt’s cautions even if it is just for safe. They just attack, attack and brag as if SSCS were a crusade to take Holy land from evils. Therefore JPN govt regards SSCS as fanatic terrorist. And almost JPN mass media supports the govt’s stance. And I (or we) believed so unquestionably. (Because we don’t accustom these extreme actions, SSCS’s attacks may stimulate our patriotic feeling.) I believed almost fair people around world think SSCS is terrorist group or (at least) pirate, even if they are anti-whaling. Like Greenpeace.

   Although I know any govt and any mass media are always one-way, and though I was just reading this page to know neutral opinions or facts, I believed it is a clearly common sense to regard them as terrorist. So I suggested it.

3. My stance

   If you reject this suggestion with WP's reason, neutral view, cool and good conference, I will esteem the conclusion. I don't trust my own sense about SSCS, but I always trust you, if you are wikipedians.--9 hits (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)--M--9 hits (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Trying no to get into another big philosophical discussion here but I'll say this. In 1988 I've read, the IWC placed a moratorium of whaling. Since then more than 25,000 whales have been slaughtered, mostly by Japan. Not only harpooning whales which suffer a long tortuous death but also electrocuting them to death which is truly barbaric. People can justify anything. Whaling is justified by some as a Japanese tradition (though most Japanese rarely eat whale meat). Sometimes though it turns out that those traditions we grew up with are wrong and should be ended. Slavery and racism was one of those. It's roots go back thousands of years. The SSCS is trying to defend those which cannot defend themselves, and where the law cannot short of war, baby harp seals and whales are two of those. Somehow I suspect that if Godzilla was really attacking Japan the whalers would (justifiably) be all for destroying it. For some reason though some people think that if it's not human it has no inherent right to exist nor does it feel pain, family love etc. It's very convenient. This kind of thinking is driving many species over the edge into extinction. Peter Raven, past President of AAAS or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's premier science organization, has predicted the loss of "the majority of all species" by the end of this century based on current trends [22]. it's call the sixth extinction (the last one being that of the dinosaurs). It's time we realize that we are not the only species on the planet. Following are some links to short videos of whale hunts. [23][24]more here. 63.196.193.166 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew almost things as you said. They don't permit SSCS's terrorism to attack JPN. Then can I attack the solders of US to defense the people in Abu Ghurayb? If I attacked them, I would became a terrorist (or be killed soon.)

You said people justify. Yes I think so. How about you? Can you easily make a justice to attack JPN? I can make easily a justice to defense Foie gras or to prohibit meat, pigs, fish or turky or anything to keep spies.

I (or JPN) know the importance of keeping spices. i.e. We love tuna, but I and JPN agree the control of hunging them to keep them.

And it is not good to discuss whaling in this talk pages as you said firstly. Go and disscuss in talk pages of whaling or suitable pages, if you want.--9 hits (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

9 hits-san, Sea Shepherd is not trying to attack Japan, just the whalers. The comparison to abu ghraib doesn't really hold up. It's true that Bush illegally held and tortured people there, however those against it did all in their power to stop the injustice while that administration held power. And abu ghraib, among many other issues, cost the Republicans dearly in this past election. Furthermore AFAIK the torture has ended and prison is to be shut down (using your analogy that would be synonymous with ending the whale hunt). Thus in this case public outcry is ensuring that justice is being done. Would that were true in the Southern Ocean Whale Sancturary. About the hypocrisy of eating meat by western countries, yes that exists. However you should know that the Sea Shepherd Society's "pirates" eat an all vegetarian diet. 4.246.204.215 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I know SSCS are vegetarians. I feel their fairness about this, and some of their opinions are sympathized. But I cannot agree their extreme actions themselves and the justification. I have wanted to say only one thing.

You know many vandalists attack to WP or to some users every day. Some of them have reasonable opinions, and I sometimes sympathize their opinions. But we should defense from the action. All vandalists are vandalists even if they have any justice. You never distroy wikipedia to illustrate a point. And terrorists have their justice. Some of them are sympathized. But all terrorists are terrorists even if they have any justices for people, country, independence, philosophy, their God or whales.

If you say “Certainly their action is extreme, but not enough to call terrorism.” or “However It is difficult to use Category:Eco-terrorism because of WP: (something).”as other people wrote so, I would want to say "I see." I also have a pride for one of wikipedians. But I feel your opinions that their justice is right then their extreme actions are not terrorism to attack JPN govt. If so, I cannot understand the logic. --9 hits (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(additional) And if you are really a wikipedian, see not only SSCS's opinions, but also the other side's (JPN govt's) ones. (i.e.[25]) To keep neutral sense. (I usually take care of not believing all of one side.) --9 hits (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"All vandalists are vandalists even if they have any justice" "all terrorists are terrorists even if they have any justices for people, country, independence, philosophy..." Does this also apply to the whalers in your opinion? Are they also vandals and terrorists? I understand your viewpoint that directly obstructing the whalers is going too far (though I don't agree with it). You need to realize that the SSCS is doing this in support of international law not against it. It is Japan that is the scofflaw here. In this case there unfortunately does not appear to be any other choice for caring people. The IWC has ruled against whaling [26], yet that hasn't stopped it, Australia and New Zealand have demanded that it cease in, yet that hasn't stopped it, the vast percentage of public opinion is against it, repelled by the slaughter of these gentle giants (just as they are appalled by the slaughter of harp seal pups just so the rich can wear their fur), yet that hasn't stopped it. In spite of all of this it continues unabated at a rate of around 1,300 whales a year (by japan alone), again in an established whale sancturary. It's true that other nations also hunt whales yet Japan insists on doing it in the whale sancturary. The sancturary was supposed to be a safe haven, at least one place where the whales could go and be free from fear, hunting and harrassment to eat and breed and parent their young in peace. Yet no, they are not allowed even this area. So who's the real eco-terrorists here?

Many whale species are endangered. According to the IUCN 36% of all whale and dolphin species are threatened with extinction [27]. Notice this comment "Two other Orders with more than 100 species and a significantly higher than average level of threat are the Cetartiodactyla (whales and dolphins) and Diprotodontia" [28]. Yet Japan is fighting to resume commercial whaling and is using this "research" farce as an excuse to continue until that day. For example, they comtinue to hunt endangered fin whales and want to take threatened humpbacks as well.

Is direct action always terrorist in your view? There is a philosophy called "civil disobedience" founded, I think, by Henry David Thoreau which basically says that when a wrong is being perpretrated by a governmental authority the people have a duty to oppose it. One sub-method is called direct action. It's usually employed as a last resort (and no BTW, I don't think that all direct action is justifiable). For example if we saw a child being viciously beaten on the street most people would intervene to try to stop it. In fact in some places they could be legally considered accomplices if they saw and could yet did nothing. On a much larger scale many people feel that if a dictator or country is oppressing its or another people those who are free and can help are morally obligated to do so. WWII is an example of that. What if the western world just allowed Hitler to do whatever he wanted? What would the world look like today? A thousand year fascist reich? That's what he wanted. About NPOV, yes we should try to be as neurtral as possible, but that doesn't mean distorting the facts. 4.246.206.116 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. Although I don't agree all, I understand your opinions. If JPN govt's whaling is illegal as international law, I don't agree the JPN's action. Of cause JPN govt has said counter opinions of illegal issue (,and I know them), but it's not my business any more.

If you say about moral, I want to say mine finally, too. Whale is not a seed, but include many seeds. All seeds of whales are not threaten (, really threatened whales are hunted by anti-whaling country's people (i.e.US)). I just eat or use animals. But I agree with the control or stop of hunting them to keep threatened ones, like tuna or elephant. If you try to stop our any culture because of your philosophy, I just feel western selfishness. So a lot of JPN people may be anti-anti-whaling with the feeling (,and I was one of them). Therefore I think SSCS's purpose will not be achieved, if SSCS's action become more extreme. --9 hits (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion has been going on long enough now. I understand the urge for it, and it is fantastic that Wikipedia gives the two of you this kind of opportunity to exchange your minds. But it looks like your dialogue has come to its natural end, and it's really time to stop now. If you want to continue, perhaps you can find a discussion forum somewhere, or use email. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to say "withdraw" with last comment... Sorry my poor English. I finish. Thank you for your all comments.--9 hits (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for yours. Like Hans Adler says these things can tend to get away from us. 4.246.200.164 (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Collision vs Ramming

The 2009 incident claims of a collision, but the videos available of the incident clearly show a deliberate ramming. There is supposed to be NPOV, but it is a fact that Watson has, and did deliberately ram the YM1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right. If you look at all three videos you can tell that Watson deliberately steered to the left into the harpoon ship. There is NPOV and then there is avoiding the facts. Watson is known for lying and twisting facts yet what he claims is on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the video, but it's not exactly news that the Sea Shepherd sometimes collides and even rams whaling ships in an attempt to stop illegal whaling. Sea Shepherd has no problem with admitting to ramming a whaling ship involved with illegal whaling, if we had in fact done so. We have always accepted responsibility for our actions[29]. The fact is that it's not with an intent to sink it while people are on board and as previously stated many times no whaler has been hurt. The ramming goes both ways by the way. 4.246.204.215 (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are refering to this video from February 6th? I watched it several times. I don't see the Sea Shepherd ramming the harpoon ship at all. The harpoon ship is in front of them. It's an accompanying Japanese ship which is trying to stop them that is coming from the right. At first it looks like the Sea Shepherd is turning into them but if you watch to the end, specifically from the 56th second on you will see that the ship that the Sea Shepherd collided with is now much closer to and now almost parallel with the harpoon ship. In other words, they intentionally cut across the Sea Shepherd's path to stop them getting close to the harpoon ship and that's what caused the collision. Is there some other video I'm missing? 4.246.204.215 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just watched another video of the same incident from a Japanese camera. At first watch it looks like the Sea Shepherd is steering into the other ship (maybe it is another whaling ship). But what it looks like was a unified effort by both of the Japanese ships to vere suddenly to the left at the same time. I say that chiefly because if you look at the ocean horizon, just above the water, on the right side you will see a dark blob which may be clouds. Watch them and you will see them disappear out of sight simultaneous to the "ramming". It's clear that the Japanese ships are turning left, which for the ship closest to Sea Shepherd would be directly in front of her. Also the path of the water cannon also moves as I imagine it would if the ship were suddenly turning left. I wasn't there so I can't say definitively but it looks to me like an attempt to frame the Sea Shepherd by making a quick move before she could respond. The other video above seems to corroborate that. 4.246.204.215 (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

From the first video: The prop wash off the rudder of the Japanese ship in front goes straight back. Doesn't look like it's turning. Second, the comments by the crew, just as the "collision" becomes apparent it's going to happen: "Careful if you don't have your helmets on, eh? Hang on... Ok, here we go..." All in a flat, prepared voices. Not "Oh my god, they're turning into us! We're going to collide! Everyone watch out!" I'm sure that if the 20 previous seconds had been included in the video it would make Watson's intentions even clearer.

From the second video: I think the "blob" clouds you refer to on the right disappear because... the camera pans left. You can tell because you can read the word "RESEARCH" on the Japanese ship by the left edge. When your blob disappears, more of the left side is visible. Also, it would be difficult for two ships to perfectly time their turn as you suggest. Also, you can tell by the side wake of the vessel.

As much as I'd like to admire Sea Shephard's dedication to a worthy cause, as a professional mariner it's hard to watch video like this and read comments from non-mariners who casually dismiss Sea Shephard's dangerous tactics. Sea Shepherd calls their ships "yachts" to evade international satefy standards and then violates the rules of the road by interfering with the Japanese ships, endangering everyone involved. POV editing with a mission to defend the group's actions weakens the credibility of Wikipedia. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 15:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it's certainly subject to interpretation. We're both second guessing here but I would think that had the Steve Irwin been planning and expecting to ram the other ship we would not have heard that voice telling people onboard to be careful if they don't have their helmets on. They would have been all been prepared beforehand. The camera angle from the Japanese ship seems to be going to a pulling back kind of wide angle like which could explain the larger view. Yet still the clouds disappear. And rudder trail does look to me like the ship was turning left. It maybe though that while the collided ship was going left that Sea Shepherd was turning right. It's hard to tell. A mutual collision. But what is evident from the first video is that the collided with ship is much closer to the other whaling ship at the end of the video so that it does indeed look like it was trying to cut off the Sea Shepherd. And the first ten seconds of that video definitely show the whaler turning left (though that may be from an earlier time). Apparently there is some issue with the legality of the other ship passing that close.

I note the Sea Shepherd's comments on the situation, "The Steve Irwin collided with two whaling ships when they illegally passed the Steve Irwin and created the conditions for the collisions" [30]. Captain Paul Watson's comments from the article say that he believed that the other ship cut in front of him. "We were in the process of blocking the transfer from the Yushin Maru 2 when the Yushin Maru 1 moved directly in front of the bow to block us. I could not turn to starboard without hitting the Yushin Maru 1. I tried to back down but the movement of the Yushin Maru 2 made the collision unavoidable." Additionally the Japanese are using sonic blasts which SSCS says is also illegal and which Watson says "I was dazed by the sonic blasts being used on us at close range." said Captain Watson. "I have to admit it was difficult to concentrate with that devise being focused on us" "I've never felt anything quite like it," said Emily Hunter from Toronto, Canada. "It penetrates the body and you can feel your muscles vibrating. It made me dizzy and left me somewhat dazed." [31]

In any case we all know that the situation is heated and rather touch and go. The fact is that if Japan respected international whaling laws, Australian territory and the whale sancturary and stopped whaling as the IWC has been urging all these many years NONE of this would be happening. Note these comments "I wish we did not have to be down here in this dangerous situation," said Captain Watson. I've said repeatedly that if Australia or New Zealand would agree to take Japan to the international court on this than we would back off. Because international law is not being enforced, we have no choice but to do what we can with the resources available to us to defend these endangered whales in this established international whale sanctuary." 63.196.193.54 (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

neutrality and old headers

Hi all

I am concerned that this article is in need of some clean up

I am a neutral party in this matter

First of all it is bizarre to have a banner saying "Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page" and then to come to a blank talk page ?!?!?

Secondly it seems that this is laid out like a trial - counsel for prosecution and counsel for defence having bigger sections than the actual entry about the organisation

Thirdly it is not relevant to include such phrases as "for his comments see here"

Can someone start to correct this page ? I am not available to edit this yet but will return and see how it is going on soon

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussions you're referring to were archived, perhaps a little too quickly. Se Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society/Archives/03/2009.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I just upped the archive interval from 31 to 90 days. --Terrillja _talk 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Content

Some felt it absolutely necessary to remove discussion (actually photos) from this talk page. For any interested it's here [32] starting with Putting Pictures to the Story. Hopefully this tiny comment and link won't be too upsetting and can remain. 4.246.200.198 (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A few topics, especially controverisal ones, tend to generate discussions of the topic in general rather than improvements to the article. For example, the Russian ban on seal hunting isn't related to improving this article (though it might be relevant to the article on Seal hunting). Likewise, pictures of a seal hunt are more relevant to that topic. Pictures that show the activities of the SSCS itself are a different matter, and discussing those would definitely be on topic. Wikipedia is a large project, with literally millions of articles. Some discipline is required to keep it from becoming a tangled mess. Thanks for understanding.   Will Beback  talk  17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand but don't fully agree. The reason that SSCS is doing what it is doing is precisely because of what is happening in those pictures. It's central to understanding why they are doing what they are doing. This has been a problem I've had with this article. It's become essentially a dry recital of negative information about the SSCS without any real context. Look at the pathetic "Canadian Seal Hunt" section for example. A real encyclopedia would explain why they say they are taking those controversial actions because that is a vital piece of the information puzzle, information that an encyclopedia should provide, it would simply be incomplete to leave it out. The definition of "encyclopedia" from wiktionary.org is "A comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics" [33] (emphasis mine). Yet when I tried a couple of months ago or so to add some context to the seal section with RS it was immediately deleted.

With explanatory context there people can make some sense of SSCS' actions, not just scratch their heads and make ignorant comments as has occurred in this article on many occassions asserting that the SSCS must just be a bunch of terrorists that like to sink ships for frivolous reasons. With nothing but negative information it's no wonder that that's the only conclusion they can draw. Without the why all the article is is a list of boring and misleading statistics about numbers of ship rammings, sinkings etc. Without that context all people are reading is negative information about the society, and that makes it non-NPOV. Do you get my drift? I do feel that a least one whaling or sealing picture would be appropriate in the article as a picture is worth a thousand words, but the pro-whaling/sealing people here know that too so they simply won't allow it. I mean, we can't even link to any on the talk page for crissakes. 4.246.207.70 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but when I look across all of the articles we have on advocacy groups I think that it would set a bad precedent. Should Mothers Against Drunk Driving be illustrated with a car wreck? Should articles on anti-abortion groups be illustrated with aborted fetuses? Should the NAACP article be illustrated with lynchings? Or, or on the flip side, should NAMBLA be illustrated with sexy young boys? Should an article on the latest US government stimulus bill be illustrated with people lined up at an unemployment office? It's a Pandora's Box. But again, we link to seal hunting and pictures of a seal hunt are on topic there. Likewise of whale hunting.   Will Beback  talk  05:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i am editing the Criticism/Canada section after checking the sources and seeing no direct citation for the claim that Watson's comments diminished the sealers' deaths. he said it was a "tragedy but the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of seal pups 'is an even greater tragedy'." [34]. later Hearns is the one who says he was triviliazing it. (her previous quote here was a personal attack & not a statement about the accident). the two articles correctly describe that part of the aftermath as an accident due to the Canadians' own negligence. i think this is an important distinction & perhaps an example of how these short criticism sections could (& should) be more balanced.Fhue (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Balance is not the goal. Balance is the objective of POV pushers who’re grasping at straws. Take the Zeitgeist, the Movie article for example. The movie just plain doesn’t have any positive reviews; of course that isn’t a valid reason to throw away negative ones. Same thing here. Just because anybody whose say is worth a damn condemns Watson’s actions doesn’t mean that we should tone down their words. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Balance apparently has a different meaning for you. let us see what the policy is: "The ideal Wikipedia article is well-written, balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing comprehensive, notable, verifiable knowledge." [my emphasis] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About) << this page has earlier references to balance, as well. By the way, your analogy is weak; the SSCS receives a wide range of both support and criticism. Fhue (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In regard to Loyala Hearn's comments, I went onto the Fisheries and Ocean Canada's website and copied and pasted the direct statement that Hearn posted. This is the best source that we can use in regard to what Hearn said. Since I've used a direct quote, with reference, let's let the public decide what Hearn meant and end the editing war.DivaNtrainin (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No other criticism section here has such an emphasis on direct quotes. They are all summaries of various incidents with references to the news stories. Isnt that enough? I think the previous version is more balanced than yours. If the reader wants to learn more about it, they can follow the links. (btw, my dispute of the actual quote is not about Hearns but the other guy, Jenkins). And since Hearn's quote is about Watson personally, it is more appropriate to wiki's page on Watson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watson#Controversy where it already appears. Fhue (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I include direct quotes is because we can't seem to agree on how to summarize Hearn's comments. The fact that other criticism section doesn't have direct quotes is irrelevant. It obviously not been needed in the past.

In addition, previous edits included irrelevant information. Of course Hearn is going to be sympathetic to the dead sealers' families and be concerned about ocean safety. Do you expect her to say otherwise? If we can't seem to find a common ground, then the next step is to remove the section "Chriticism in Canada" from the wiki page altogether which is fine by me.DivaNtrainin (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, since you feel so strongly about including her quote & my resolve is waning, i'll leave the meat of her quote. I've tweaked the lead-in based on the source material (from Thestar.com) and simplified her role/title. However i still think that her comments are more appropriate to the Paul Watson page than to the SSCS (i know some folks feel Watson is SSCS, but i consider the dinstinction important enough). Fhue (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What I had in mind was maybe something like this or even this or this (uh oh, I linked to them again. I'm not trying to be sneaky here, if the above link to yesterday's censored text can remain then I can remove these links if you insist). Except for the second one they are not quite as bloody as some of the others. But even with it I don't think people would be as repulsed as they would be by, say, seeing human fetuses in trash cans. The MADD site with a car wreck I don't think would be inappropriate. A couple of cars smashed up is not an uncommon sight. The lynchings pictures you can find on web or literary based history books already. Unemployment pictures, why not? NAMBLA photos would obviously be a no since those boys have no say in it and, some would argue, are not mature enough to make any such decision anyway. Additionally we wouldn't want to give fodder to online pervs. But a good history is both black and white (written text) and color (photos, video) especially when the photos capture real life events. But most of my comments above were as relates to the written article as it is. Photos or not it is presenting a distorted picture of the SSCS by not allowing them or their supporters a chance to explain the reasons why they are doing what they are doing. Lastly I note this comment from Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial under Information Supression "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV ... Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: ... Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors ... Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds) ... 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." 4.246.204.96 (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone trying to give this (or any) article a more neutral balance, nor do I think Terrillja or Will Beback have any political agenda. We all just wanted to see the discussion here stay on the topic of improving this article. I'm not even sure that this photo would be entirely inappropriate to some article - maybe here, maybe at Yushin Maru No. 2, maybe somewhere else - if it is not subject to copyright (since most photos on the web are, it most likely is). So I won't give it the green light, but I won't say no way either. I am just glad to see that the discussion has now turned to criticism of this article and what we can do to improve it. Do you see anything specific in this article that you think does not belong here? Is there anything specific, apart from these photos, that you think should be added here? Regarding any photos you wish to add to Wikipedia, please consult WP:COPYVIO, and you might wish to discuss specific photo(s) at WP:NFCR. Thank you for your thoughts and contributions. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that I've accused Terrillja or Will Beback of having a pro-whaling or sealing agenda, in fact from the history Terrillja looks more balanced than most. I was upset that my comments and the links to the photos on the talk page were deleted, and so quickly, something I consider a no-no except in extreme cases. Yes I know I did not use the words "let's discuss including this in the article". I figure it has a lot to do with it so I put it out there on the talk page in a few sentences. It was not as if I suddenly included a section on Iraq or or dog grooming. I think it's clear though that some here DO have an agenda toward the negative considering they seem to be searching for and only add negative information (people will notice that, except for the removing three of the four instances that the article referred to SSCS as terrorists, I've not removed it though). In fact I see where the one section that allows the SSCS to somewhat explain themselves legally has been tagged (and even though the tag says "Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page" there is no discussion about placing that tag) more than likely by someone who feels that the section is not negative enough. My general issue is that, as I stated above, the WHY of what they are doing has been carefully disallowed reducing it to mainly a negative article. Who's not going to react negatively to the SSCS when the article is mostly a recital of negative incidents? Why are some here so officious when it comes to putting in positive information but not negative? An example of the omitting of explanation, a couple of months ago I put in the following paragraph to the seal section:

Each year up to 350,000 baby harp seals are clubbed to death for their fur, usually in front of their mothers [5][6]. The hunt has been criticised by scientists, "The risk to the seal population is alarmingly high. The study demonstrates that the government may not know that the seal population is at a critical level until it is too late for anything but drastic action. That means they would continue to set high quotas for hunting when the seal population is in serious decline" [7]. Additionally, polls have revealed that the majority of citizens who are aware of the issue are against sealing [8][9]. As with whaling, the Sea Shepherd Society has assumed the role of defender. As such, they have been attacked, sometimes physically by the sealers [10].[35]

Rather than suggesting perhaps some different wording (though I didn't see anything wrong with it as it was) it immediately removed and the following comment made: "The irrelevant paragraph about about seal hunting promotes a point of view and fails compliance with all the policies I mentioned, especially WP:IINFO. It's gone now, and will stay gone" [36]. See what I mean? there is an inherent bias here. Why not allow the SSCS to speak a few words about why they are doing what they are doing? Why not allow some scientific facts in about the killing, things like that? And, yes, why not allow in a photo or two as visual evidence? Side question: how did Terrillja find that those photos were copyright protected? 4.246.207.219 (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly cannot speak for all the editors who have contributed to this article. I am only discussing the removal of comments that were about topics related to the subject, but not about the article itself. As to the photos, let's take a look at the three linked above. The first one (which looks photoshopped, by the way) came from some guy's blog, and he may not even be in compliance with copyright law. Any possible copyright issues regarding this photo are virtually unknowable, unless that is your blog and you know the original source of the photo. The second photo came from the image server of the Time Magazine web site, and is definitely owned by them. Uploading this photo to WP's server would violate their terms of service, which indicate "Time Inc. owns, solely and exclusively, all rights, title and interest in and to the Web Site, all the content (including, for example, audio, photographs, illustrations, graphics, other visuals, video, copy, text, software, titles, Shockwave files, etc.), code, data and materials thereon... including but not limited to any copyrights... Your use of the Web Site does not grant to you ownership of any content, code, data or materials you may access on or through the Web Site." While permission to reproduce this photo for noncommercial use may be obtainable, this may involve a lot of work. I would suggest first discussing the photo on the talk page of the article where you want to use it, to show that there is a consensus that the photo is appropriate for the article (you wouldn't want to go through all this for nothing). Then see WP:PERMISSION for a guideline on how to obtain the necessary permission. The third photo came from www.greendiary.com, and their TOS agreement indicates that all content is owned by Instablogs Sites under a Creative Commons 2.5 attribution. This is much easier to work with. The photo can be uploaded to WP or WM Commons with the proper attribution. Just be sure to select a CC 2.5 attribution and properly indicate the photo's origin (with a link to the originating web page). Piece of cake! Getting consensus on the other hand, that can be more difficult on such a controversial topic. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well as I've never uploaded an image to Wikipedia before (does that involve registering? I have chosen not to register here) perhaps someone else would be kind enough to do it? Provided of course that it is agreed upon. Somehow though I suspect getting that agreement would be well nigh impossible. But maybe I'm wrong. The third picture, BTW, is found on more than one site so maybe it is without protection as you indicate. There are plenty of other whaling pictures out there. Question: if one finds the same picture on several or many sites would that indicate that there is no copyright protection? 4.246.202.167 (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, almost forgot this. No, I had nothing to do with the first picture (if it is photoshopped) and no that's not my blog.

The issue is a perpetually recurring one with articles on controversial subjects. The people most motivated to edit the article are the people with the strongest emotions, pro or con. Such strong emotions make it very difficult to adhere to the requirements of WP:NPOV. Inevitably, the article becomes a forum for arguments over the underlying controversy, rather than efforts to improve the article itself. Through a number of years' experience editing controversial articles on Wikipedia, I've come to the following conclusion: The people who are the biggest pain in the ass are often the people with whom I actually agree in terms of the underlying controversy. I've wasted way too many hours trying to achieve consensus with people who are advocates for keeping Christian dogma out of public school science curricula, who think the Bush administration was dishonest and guilty of war crimes in how it pursued the invasion of Iraq, and, in the case of the current article, who think Japanese whaling is an abomination. I happen to agree with all of those positions. But by virtue of the strength of the emotions involved, allowing those views to color Wikipedia editing decisions is a recipe for endless churning back and forth over the same muddy patch of ground.

If you feel strongly about some subject, the best thing you can do for Wikipedia is to leave the editing of articles on that subject to people who don't much care either way (but who understand and are committed to maintaining WP:NPOV). I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. But that's what would be best for the article. While I'm generally opposed to removing content from Talk pages, I think the removal that happened here was probably for the best. The removed content was POV-bait. POV-bait that I happen to agree with. But POV-bait all the same. -- John Callender (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The reason why is because I have also edited articles here for years and I've discovered that the distorters, who often have a business or political reason for slanting an article (even when it's religious), never give up, never go away, never stop trying to spin lies. Sometimes it's because they are actually being paid to do this - it's their job[37]. George Monbiot called these spinmeisters "fake persuaders". Thus for those who realize that a distortion is occurring to just walk away is hand the distorters the whole platter to do with as they will. Then, of course, Wikipedia will be turned into a nothing more than a mouthpiece for industry. I do usually give up after trying really hard to provide some balance to a particular article but just can't get past Wikipedia's versions of The Soup Nazi. They are usually very good at throwing around Wiki acronyms, at finding all kinds of reasons why the truth cannot be told, and at censoring information in the guise of editorial purity. But, as I stated yesterday or the day before, I would like to let it go for awhile. I do plan to as I have too many other things to do as well. BTW, I'm not as emotional as I apparently sound. Oh, and sorry for being a pain in the ass. 4.246.203.212 (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)