Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Eco terrorism category

{{done}} Sea Shepherds is a part of the discussion on eco-terrorism in the media, as noted by the references in the article. Can we stop removing the category from the bottom of the page? This smells like pro-SS vandalism. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article eco-terrorism suffers from problems. Would anyone you energetic editors who worked on the section here like to duplicate the wording for the other article? The eco-terrorism article feels a bit anti-SS in it's wording and I like how non-POV this article reads. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is a tall word for adding the category. The problem is that being in a category or not cannot be qualified or explained. We just don't have the technical means to do that. There is a past Arbcom ruling about the analogous situation of Category:Pseudoscience. It said that Time Cube and astrology may be put into this category (as "obvious pseudoscience" and "generally considered pseudoscience", respectively), but psychoanalysis (as "questionable science") may not be characterised as pseudoscience. The argument about Sea Shepherd being part of the eco-terrorism discussion makes perfect sense. In the same way that psychoanalysis is part of the pseudoscience discussion. It's the subject that made Popper first treat the pseudoscience demarcation problem in a rigorous way, it's the test question whenever a new definition of pseudoscience comes up, and most authors who are not themselves psychoanalysts but write about the question seem to agree that it is a pseudoscience. But we can't characterise it as such since it would be read as Wikipedia's position being that it's neutral to say that it is a pseudoscience.

— Mdlawmba , — (continues after insertion below.)Thankfully eco-terrorism is more easily defined than pseudoscience. As the consensus on the eco-terrorism article indicates, eco-terrorism includes destruction of property, which this group clearly promotes. The only point of contention is whether they jeopardize life in the process, which is above and beyond the standard to be considered eco-terrorism on Wikipedia.Mdlawmba (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The eco-terrorism category on this article would be misunderstood in the same way. Therefore I must remove it. It could actually do real damage if an immigration officer of a small country looks up Paul Watson and comes to the conclusion that according to Wikipedia he leads an eco-terrorist organisation.

— Mdlawmba , — (continues after insertion below.)Paul Watson is only a member of the organization, and whether some fictional immigration officer determines his association with the organization affects his immigration status should not affect this organization's placement in this category. I'm sure there are many good people who do not like having Enron on their resume, but I'm sure Enron being in the "corporate crimes" category isn't affecting their job prospects. SSCS is not a living person and that standard should not be applied even if certain living persons choose to associate with it. I will only discuss this in the context of the other points I recently made, but felt I had to address this point you raised separately.Mdlawmba (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the eco-terrorism article. We had a problem with an extreme anti-Sea-Shepherd warrior recently, and it seems the other article hasn't been cleaned up yet. Hans Adler 08:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo, the second discussion. The one up above looks like consensus was to not include but it looks like that might be changing. I'm changing my thoughts on it anyway. It is mentioned plenty so I lean towards yes and Hans brings up some points that lead me to no. An editor just changed it again. I reverted since consensus is needed due to how contentious it is and to find consensus.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely. The issue is not about Sea Shepherd, it is about Wikipedia and Wikipedia standards, as Hans explained quite clearly above. It is not a popularity contest. Tranquillity Base (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So you aren't lobbying that people stop using the word in the Media. You are lobbying that ALL of wikipedia not repeat the word in it's articles. So my question would be how many notable experts would it take for you to agree that Wiki should be allowed to use the term? Or are you more like Hans who seems to be suggesting that English speakers should not use the term. And to bring it back to policy, my opinion is that we should not when the notable experts use the term. And not try to hide that fact. Hiding the fact that notable experts use this term or arguing that notable experts SHOULDN'T use this term as it seems HANS is doing has nothing to do being a wiki editor. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hans as well. WP:Terrorist is a very charged word, and we have to be very careful, especially in the context of something as official-sounding as a "categorizing the article". Sea Shepherd throws rotten butter, gets in the way of whaling ships and tries to temporarily foul propellers. Painting them with the same brush as those who bomb animal research labs seems flat out inaccurate. MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

edit: why sweeten the words? Why say rotten butter instead of Beuteric Acid? They throw glass bottles of toxic chemicals. Not old groceries. Can you see how changing the words in such a way makes it appear untruthfully POV? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The same wordwashing used when people ram and sink ships, if you call it ship cuddleing, no one takes it serious. The experts call it terrorism, the article should reflect that without us trying to change the wording to make it sound better. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So intentionally sinking ships is not the same as intentionally destroying buildings? If there is an issue with the term, discuss it at eco-terrorism. SSCS clearly fits the category on the basis of reputable source opinion. OUR opinion on whether or not they are naughty or nice is really irrelevant. In the discussion of the category, there are very few consistant organizations that are frequently mentioned. SSCS is clearly one of them and should be noted on that basis. Who are we to disagree with the sources? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

For refference notable experts in US, Japan, Canada, and Greenpeace all consider the SSCS eco-terrorists (or single issue terrorists), so OUR opinion is kind of irrelivant. Let the source documentation speak for itself.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm74-eng.asp http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/5166346/Paul-Watson-Sea-Shepherd-eco-warrior-fighting-to-stop-whaling-and-seal-hunts.html

--68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a reuters article referring to the SSCS as eco-terrorist. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS187688+29-Oct-2008+PRN20081029 --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional notable opnion that SSCS are eco-terrorist: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-spilman/whale-wars---eco-terroris_b_211993.html So I've noticed that at least 4 editors have agreed that this should be included or have edited the article to reflect it's inclusion. Here is alll the sources. What's the problem now? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The situation is as Hans has outlined it. Consider what Hoffman wrote about the use of the word 'terrorism'.

'On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, `'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.'Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.'

Hoffman is a world-leading scholar and expert on terrorism, If you consider the definitions of terrorism (for example in Vanderhieden's work), Sea Shepherd does not qualify. Eco-terrorism is an American word and is not in wide use elsewhere in the world, except by groups affiliated with resource industries and their lobby groups. If you consider what Jenkins wrote in the above quote, along with what Hans pointed out, categorising Sea Shepherd as putative 'eco-terrorists' is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Here's another use of terrorism for you to consider in light of Hoffman's writings:

Joseph Drick, who has quit as Joliet fire chief, and his wife committed "financial terrorism" by defrauding an elderly widow of at least $200,000, Will County authorities said Wednesday as they announced felony charges against the pair.[Chicago Sun-Times, 2004]

Tranquillity Base (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Watch the WP:3RR guys. Like I said, I don't care either way on this one. Find a way to find consensus even if that means asking the community. They have been called eco-terrorists. Are way protraying that or that they are with the catagory. I honestly don't know if they are or not but think if the charges were laid per the governments at List of designated terrorist organizations it would be a lock. Also, the edits are not malicious so don't throw vandal around. Opinion is divided on this so it is not common sense. Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hoffman's feelings are important but not to whether or not SSCS are to be included in a category or orgs that notable experts call "Eco-Terrorists". Simiilarly, Hans has some feelings that are valid but they do not affect the fact that there is a wiki category for groups known as Eco-Terrorists and that notable experts place them in this category. I have no knowledge of a wiki-category for "financial terrorism" nor do I see any notable experts placing them in that category. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In light of the fact that there is a wiki category for "eco-terrorist" and that we are following the wiki policy for maintaining good ciations on this page and the fact that the notable experts include SSCS in the category of "eco-terrosist" I think it would be nothing but POV pushing to try to hide that. Also, consensus means how do we as a whole fit this in to the policies, not "let's vote and majority rules". I see several people agreeing for this inclusion and no legitimate policy reason why it should not, other than "The SSCS are great people and shouldn't be called terrorist" type personal opinion. Peace and Happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Watson describes SSCS as ecoterrorist in his books (cited in the article) and specifically endorsed the use of monkeywrench tactics espoused by Dave Foreman in his book on the subject (also cited in the article), and Foreman has been prosecuted as an ecoterrorist, so what is the beef? Seems to me SSCS can legitimately be categorized as an ecoterrorist organization. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A consensus has already been reached on the eco terrorism website that eco terrorism for purposes of that article means destruction of property. It doesn't exactly make sense for this meaning to change for each group being evaluated. We have already reached the "destruction of property" standard and are only arguing whether they jeopardize life as well, which is above and beyond the minimum. This isn't a moral judgment, frankly the SS people seem quite proud except when being evaluated objectively as we are attempting to do here. Mdlawmba (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not particularly interested in the local consensus at the eco-terrorism article. If things are going in an odd direction there, I will get involved there once my internet access improves again. I don't think that a local consensus can invalidate an influential and frequently cited Arbcom decision like the pseudoscience categorisation decision that I base my main argument on; it can certainly not invalidate the obvious BLP concerns. (Remember that BLP has a special status, and that it applies everywhere, not just in biographical articles.) [Added a second copy of my signature here after editors apparently not familiar with WP:TALK split my post in an unacceptable way.] Hans Adler 08:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe there are any "obvious BLP" concerns. If this article references a person, then, yes, I can assume living person standards may apply to that particular comment, but please do not mention "obvious BLP" without addressing my comments to you regarding the same. A comment about an organization as a separate entity is obviously not a comment about any individual, no matter how involved that person may be. Placing an organization in a Wikipedia "category", which inherently cannot be connected to a single person, is about as un-BLP as you can get. If you feel you can provide some source stating otherwise, please do. Mdlawmba (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the pseudoscience decision, I feel I must include a copy here so we are not relying upon third-party interpretations:

Things which generally should be classified as pseudoscience—for instance, for categorization purposes—include

Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labelled and categorized as such without more justification.

Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Some things require a bit more care:

Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

Other things usually should not be called pseudoscience on Wikipedia:

Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics as opposed to dark matter, are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift had quite a lot of evidence, but was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move, and thus such evidence was dismissed. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics.

To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence which it is difficult to explain away, in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in basic scientific laws or reality in order to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology and homeopathy.

Obviously, this is not a science so some aspects of defining eco-terrorism will be in dispute. But, as such, we should be able to rely upon such things as FBI definitions of eco-terrorism and more importantly, what is "generally considered" eco terrorism here on Wikipedia. Destruction of property is "generally considered" eco-terrorism both in that article and by most authoritative sources, and, hence, you should care what the local consensus on eco terrorism is if you intend to continue relying upon the pseudoscience decision as your main argument. We should not have to redefine the term for each organization to be considered, but merely apply it using an analysis similar to that used for pseudoscience. Further, the eco terrorism article has included destruction of property for quite some time, and it will not deviate into an odd direction unless someone takes it upon himself to do such. Regardless, that will change neither the FBI nor the American Heritage dictionary's definitions which include destruction of property. Should you not feel eco-terrorism includes destruction of property, there is considerable argument the group at issue has threatened and caused the endangerment of human life, which unquestionably would be considered eco terrorism. If we need to build consensus then let's start. This group should be included in the eco terrorism category. Mdlawmba (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that HANS is saying that his reseach in Pseudo science and categorization leads him to believe that we should never use that term ever. I will have to disagree with that. We have notable expert citation calling the SSCS eco-terrorist and wiki policy says that's what's needed. So HANS's opinion doesn't really matter. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[Second part of my post that was split by others.] Mervyn, you say "Paul Watson describes SSCS as ecoterrorist in his books". I am not familiar with Paul Watson's books, and I am sorry to say that while I would trust you with a direct quotation from a Watson book, I won't simply take your word that this apparently vague paraphrase is an adequate rendering of what Watson tried to express rather than a malicious, out-of-context interpretation of what he wrote. The Sea Shepherd website has many statements similar to (I made this one up) "If being serious about protecting the environment is eco-terrorism, then Sea Shepherd is of course an eco-terrorist organisation" and free admission that Sea Shepherd uses certain methods which are interpreted by others as eco-terrorism. Hans Adler 08:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If governments and government officials start calling them terrorists I think people views of them as simply vigilantes is incorrect. Japan has assigned the label and it looks like they have put them on some sort of list. We are essentially taking Sea Shepherd's side over the Japanese now. Is that OK?

Also, a limited number of Dutch, Australian, American, and Canadian officials have all mentioned it. Some members also won't be going back to certain countries for fear of arrest. At what point is inclusion necessary?Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! I made a mistake. In my revert of HANS I said, don't remove content without reason. His reason was clearly due to the categorization being viewed by HANS as pejorative. To be clear though, it isn't a nice sounding word, but it's the word the notable experts ahve used to describe them and should stand as such. There isn't a more cuddly term that works to categorize ELF, ALF and SSCS. This is the word the experts use, we shouldn't rewrite it. Regardless, this article Should be included in the eco-terrorism category as there is no wiki policy against it and the experts all include them in that category allready. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

All the experts do not use the term, 68.41... and anyone working in the field knows this. What you call 'notabe sources' aren't and do not call Sea Shepherd eco-terrorists, which is a political word pecuiar to the USA and not used elsewhere. Inside the US, Sea Shepherd shares none of the characteristics of what sections of the American population call 'eco-terrorism'. Inside the US, Sea Shepherd is a legal charity and environmental organisation and is not considered as anything else. It is your opinion that they are, what is called in the US, 'eco-terrorists'. As I have written previously, this is not a popularity contest. This is about Wikipedia, not Sea Shepherd. The categories label what the Wikipedia article is. Including Sea Shepherd in the 'eco-terrorist' category is Wikipedia saying they are 'eco-terrorists'. This would be lovely for anti-Sea Shepherd people who want to slant the article against the organisation, but not good for Wikipedia's credibility. This is the point of Hans' reasoning and actions; like the pseudoscience category there is no professional, academic, legal, or policy agreement on Sea Shepherd as 'eco-terrorists' (whatever that word means). It is not for Wikipedia to be arbiter of international belief. By continually putting this category in you are pushing your own opinion and not acting as an editor of Wikipedia, that is, maintaining a critical distance and detachment and working to provide readers with the best and most neutral information about a topic. You are pushing your point of view, your opinion. This may be shared by others but is not the opinion of many. Therefore, labelling the group with your opinion is contrary to Wikipedia standards as determined by the pseudoscience decision which, by the way, constitutes binding policy on all Wikipedia articles, as Hans has explained. Therefore I am reverting your inclusion af this category (again).Tranquillity Base (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So the position of the Japanese government does not matter? They have issued arrest warrants through Interpol. Iceland and Norway have done this previousley as well. Wikipedia is not supposed to be US centric. What "field" are you referring to anyways? Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The position of the Japanese Govt does not matter. After 54 years in power (give or take 10 months) they have been removed by a new govt that is not supportive of whaling. Interpol notices were issued by a local police department, the Tokyo police, for interfering with a vessel at sea. Iceland issued a notice but declined to pursue it. Norway convicted Watson in absentia and the extradition notice was not enacted. Wikipedia is US-centric, check the error in the spelling of my name; it is correct according to NASA but is Americanised in the article, go figure. The field to which I am referring is international environmental law and policy, which is where I work. Tranquillity Base (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Japanese calling them eco-terrorists and issuing a warrant does not matter? I don't care who is in power it is still noteworthy. You are also skewing your reading of the sources it looks like. The blue notices were for collecting information for ramming vessels not interfering. The US was also willing to cooperate if red notices were filed. The blue notice through Interpol is significant enough as the coverage suggests.

News reports regarding the Icelandic government said or alluded to terrorism. Again, pursuing is not always possible so the issuing is enough. The Norwegian one led to arrests in two separate countries. The failure of the extradition process does not mean they are not at least considered violent extremists by the government. You really read the sources as you wanted to there.

Wikipeida is not supposed to be US centric. As I have said before, failure of other editors to be diligent does not preclude us from doing the the job correctly. You really need to look into the guidelines on that and should mention it at WP:FOOTY and see the response you get. Here's an assist for you, NASA is US related so it uses US spelling.Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, NASA follows the International Astronomical Union's direction. The name of Tranquillity Base follows the Latin. See NASA's 'Apollo Chronicles [1]. Wikipedia seems to follow Readers Digest or the American Heritage dictionary. As for your other comments, they do not bear up to scrutiny. Tranquillity Base (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the category, many reporters and editors disagree so maybe your scrutiny is flawed. I also think disregarding the Japanese government might border on being offensive to other editors and against Wikipedia policies. Step back and look at it for a second to be on the safe side.

In regards to English and Wikipedia being US centric, you are starting to look like you are just trying to win (see WP:PRIDE) since the US government is obviously deeply involved in a US government agency. Here is some wiki info that might help in the future: Wikipedia standard of no preference on variations of the English language at WP:ENGVAR and the project created to counter systemic bias at WP:WORLDVIEW.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tranquillity Base, which source are you saying isn't notable? There are many on the page that use the word "Terroist", major news sources quoting green peace & Japan, official documents from terrorism experts, etc. You seem to have two arguments you are pursuing (correct me if I'm wrong) 1. You claim the sources are not notable, therefore the label shouldn't stand. (You should easily be able to check notabillity to solve that argument really quick). and 2. You consider the term "Eco-Terroist" to be a psudo-science and therefore in violation of wiki policy, in which case I ask you to provide two things before removing content again. 1. Provide Wiki policy that says Psuedo-Scientific categories do not belong and 2. Provide a wiki description that calls eco-terrorism Pseudo science. We've allready answered the arguments that state "They are not nice people we shouldn't call them terrorist" by saying we are just quoting the sources and the arguments that claim BLP because this isn't about an LP. So you have only two more options left. 1. The sources are not notable (which a check will show you they are. and 2. The notion about Pseudo-science. Good luck on those. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comment reminds me of Plimer's Homework Assignment at Realclimate.org. Your comment also makes me think you do not understand the meaning of the pseudoscience decision. On it's face the decision is about what is pseudoscience. At the heart of the matter is how Wikipedia categorises articles. When an article is categorised, Wikipdia is saying that an article belongs in this category, there are no ifs, buts or maybes. Including the category is a way of defining Sea Shepherd as eco-terrorists, without qualification, and with the authority of Wikipedia saying that they are ecoterrorists.

The pseudoscience decision says that an article cannot be categorised into a category if there is debate about if the subject of an article fit that category. There is debate about Sea Shepherd as eco-terrorists. This is a debatable topic and thus Wikipedia should not categorise them as such. My opinion doesn't matter, your opinon does not matter, the opinion of the Japanese whaling industry does not matter. What matters is the issue is debatable and unresolved, not ony amongst Wikepedia editors but among the wider community. For instance, one of the sources you like presenting as notable and (almost but not quite) calling Sea Shepherd 'ecoterrorists' is the FBI agent Jarboe giving evidence before Congress. A recent peer-reviewed research paper has this to say:

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

The word 'eco-terrorism' is highly charged and often used in a perjorative way. It is a way of lining the morally outrageous actions of terrorism with the actions of environmental groups as Steve Vanderheiden explains:

The term ‘eco-terrorism’ has entered the public lexicon at a convenient time for those brandishing it as a legal and rhetorical weapon against their adversaries, but at a most inconvenient one for those against whom it is used. Coined and championed by anti-environmental activists with a keen sense for the propagandistic power of language and fervently received by legislators sympathetic to their deregulatory agenda, the term invites an association between terrorism and radical environmentalism, planting the spectre of another group of fanatics and mass murderers out to destroy ‘our’ way of life in the public mind.

In obscuring the moral distinctions between ecologically motivated sabotage (‘ecotage’) and genuine terrorism, opponents of environmental objectives have successfully directed the legal and normative force of antiterrorism against a tactic and, by extension, the cause with which it is associated, illustrating the perils of having such a powerful concept remain so poorly understood and ambiguously defined that it can be wielded with such indiscreet discretion by demagogues against those over whom they seek unfair legal, political, and social advantages. (Vanderheiden, S. (2009). 'Radical environmentalism in an age of antiterrorism'. Environmental Politics. 17:2 pp. 299-318)

As I have pointed out previously, Hoffman and others have stressed that the use of the word 'terrorism' is often used to demonise opponents:

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. Inside Terrorism by Bruce Hoffman, 2006

Linking terrorism to environmental activism is used in the same way. Categories in Wikipedia must be very NPOV in their use. The word 'eco-terrorism' is inherently not NPOV and, especially as the term is debatable in the case of Sea Shepherd, should not be used as a category.

I have removed this category again for these reasons and the reasons given by Hans Adler. I have also removed a non-existent category that you have put in. Tranquillity Base (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make sense that 'eco-terrorism' is inherently not NPOV. If you have an issue with any organization being considered an 'eco-terrorist' organization, then please say so. This should not be argued on a case-by-case basis. We are only dealing with this organization and should be applying the qualities of the organization, some of which no one here would disagree with, against what it takes to fit into a certain category. That's it. We still are not in agreement as to whether this group's actions are "Generally considered" eco-terrorism. I say it is, as I believe I outlined extensively above. But 'eco terrorism' is hardly a forbidden label when applied accurately. In the comment to the article revision today you cited Wikipedia policy, but that policy alone without being applied to a well-reasoned analysis provides an inadequate reason to alter the article. Of course, a revision comment cannot be too involved, but there clearly is no Wikipedia policy stating 'eco terrorism' cannot be applied to organizations. I've never edited ELF (Not to equate ELF with SSCS), but I'm sure there are people arguing 'eco terrorism' wouldn't apply to that group either. I'm not saying you would be one of those people, but my point is SSCS is still out for discussion.Mdlawmba (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We are in full compliance here. WP:TERRORIST: "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source". Are we not doing that? Also, the quote TBASE uses above further demonstrates that SSCS are part of the discussion on Eco-Terrorism. We wiki editors are not calling them terrorists. We are including AN ARTICLE in a category that demonstrates this article is part of that discussion, which clearly the sources (even the ones just shown by T-Base) indicate. On the other hand WP:Pseudoscience Categorization I'm still having a hard time finding this one. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mdlawmba, you wrote, 'but my point is SSCS is still out for discussion'. That is precisely my point, the issue is debatable. The issue is not that Sea Shepherd is/isn't an 'eco-terrorist' organisation but about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. To go back to the pseudoscience issue, if Wikipedia categorised psychoanalysis as 'pseudoscience' that would be taking sides, Wikipedia being partisan. There is considerable debate about psychoanalysis as a therepeutic science and if Wikipedia took the position that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience by categorising it as such, then Wikipedia itself is saying the debate is over and deciding on the outcome.

The same situation occurs here. Whether or not Sea Shepherd is an eco-terrorist organisation is an open question, particularly as the word 'eco-terrorism' is peculiar to America and American law. Particularly as the word is commonly used as a perjorative. Particularly as there is debate and dissension as to whether or not Sea Sheperd are 'eco-terrorists'. Wikipedia having that word as a category is unencyclopaedic as it indicates a position that Wikipedia has taken on a topic that is contentious and undecided in the wider community, a community that relies on Wikipedia being unbiased and neutral in its information.

I think there is some confusion here. In the article it can be noted that Sea Shepherd has been called, or considered, an eco-terrorist group by some sectors of the community. This can be referenced and contrasted against opposing viewpoints. What we are discussing is the category, which is what Wikipedia says an article is. For instance, the article is categorised as an organisation formed in 1977. That is beyond dispute. Sea Shepherd is also categorised as radical environmentalists, that is also beyond dispute. As for 'eco-terrorism' that is disputed in Wikipedia and in the wider community and for that reason should not be included or Wikipedia will be seen to be partisan. Categories say what an article is and have no references or qualifications. There is no category: 'Ecoterrorsm - some people think they are; some people think they aren't'.

It is a black and white situation, Wikipedia categorisiing Sea Shepherd as eco-terrorists is saying that they are. A partisan position in an open debate.

To say that the categories simply point to topics that form part of the discussion about the article topic is wrong, if you think about it. To say that, as an example, the category 'sea turtle' in the article on leatherback turtles simply points to further discussion on that topic is wrong. Leatherback turtles are sea turtles so that is how they are categorised. Please read Hans' reason for removal at the top of this thread as he puts it better than I.

To sum up, I am not actually taking a position on if Sea Shepherd is/isn't an eco-terrorist group. I am taking a position on Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and how it says what something is. This issue is not really about Sea Shepherd or eco-terrorism, it is about how an article is categorised. Since eco-terrorism is a contentious word, since there is no agreement in the wider community (UK, France, Germany, Australia, US, etc.), that Sea Shepherd is an eco-terrorist organisation it is not proper position for Wikipedia to take by categorising them as such since there is no agreement on the application of the term to Sea Shepherd.

Finally, 68.41... You have threatened to block me, that is both incorrect and unfair see WP:BRD. Your repeated inclusion of this category while is is debated is POV-pushing and a subversion of Wikipedia for you own ends.

Tranquillity Base (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned it being an American thing again. The government of Japan calls them eco-terrorists. A Norwegian and Icelandic whaling group also has an interesting take on it here. Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams called Watson a terrorist after some Sea Shepherd stuff in '08 {http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/414380]} and the Icelandic Minister of Fisheries called their acts terrorism. It isn't just the US that matters. I think it would be interesting to see how they were classified by other governments and international organizations but I still have a hard time completely disregard the Japanese classification of the group.Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, according to WP:TERRORIST we ARE following wiki proceedure in documenting the opinion of multiple notable sources that claim SSCS are eco-terrorists, making this article (according to the sources and by extension Wiki Policy) relevant to the discussion on Eco-Terrorism. Our inclusion therein does not imply agreement with the sources, only ackowledgment that that is what some experts believe. I don't want to fight, it just seems that strong feelings for the SSCS are interfering with the plain following of policy. So no spin, no POV of our own, what do those sources say and what does wiki policy say we should do with those sources? It appears we must include them and be careful not to make it sound any worse or better. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also to be clear, the agreement that some notable experts call the SSCS eco-terrosits doesn't even imply that we cannot find other experts who disagree. I am glad you are seeing this now not as a debate whether they are or are not but simply wiki policy. Thank you for that. On the note of what to do with that policy, some notable experts see them as noble environmentalists, some notable experts see them as eco-terrorists. I think you will find that there are enough notable people with both opinions that both opinions should be noted. Same goes for categorization. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As I explained again below, the SCCS/eco-terrorism situation is exactly analogous to the psychoanalysis/pseudoscience situation. Experts disagree whether SCCS is eco-terrorist / whether psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, not because they disagree about the character of SCCS / of psychoanalysis, but because they disagree about the correct definition of eco-terrorism / of pseudoscience. Psychoanalysis is generally the first test when someone comes up with a new definition of pseudoscience, and SCCS may well be one of the first organisations that come into mind in the context of the (eco-)terrorism demarcation question. It makes no sense to attack the applicability of the ArbCom decision in this case by mentioning facts that were equally true in the context of the decision. Anyway, the simple facts are that all the sources which call SCCS eco-terrorist are obviously partisan because they are SCCS opponents. The situation with the FBI guy is much less clear-cut, but apparently he was asking for money against eco-terrorism, so he needed examples. So he gave the impression of giving examples. But the FBI have shown themselves perfectly willing and able to pursue actual eco-terrorists; isn't it a bit odd that they are not even trying this with SCCS? Hans Adler 13:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The experts have differing opinions. It is a POV push on behalf of editors to only include the POV they happen to agree with. Please stop removing the half of the notable POV that you disagree with. This is against WP:NPOV. Including it the way we are is in compliance with WP:Terrorist. Please quit pushing your view. Include all the notable expert opinion. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The reasons why Sea Shepherd should not be categorised as 'eco-terrorists' are clear:

1.Categories are labels. Without qualification or citation. Categorising Sea Shepherd is labeling them 'eco-terrorists', is calling them 'eco-terrorists'. This is not something Wikipedia should do as there is no agreement in the wider community on this label and this would mean that Wikipedia is taking sides, setting the agenda, and deciding an issue. This is not Wikipedia's role and is the same as calling psychoanalysis 'pseudoscience'. The reasons for not calling psychoanalysis 'pseudoscience' apply across all articles and apply in this case.

2.Wikipedia:Words to avoid; 2.4 Words that label; WP: TERRORIST. The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are often particularly contentious labels that carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. The rules around using the term 'terrorist' in Wikipedia are clear. The word 'eco-terrorism' derives from 'ecological terrorism' and people and groups accused of this are called 'eco-terrorists'. It is a word to avoid. When it is used in an article, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. This cannot be done in a category, categories cannot be qualified or cited or attributed to a source. Categories label unconditionally, no ifs or buts. There is no agreement on the term being applied to Sea Shepherd and as a word to avoid it is not appropriate or correct for Wikipedia to use it.

3.WP:BLP; Sea Shepherd is a group comprised of thousands of supporters, volunteer crew, volunteer shore-based workers, and paid staff. For Wikipedia to categorise, to label, Sea Shepherd as an 'eco-terrorist' organisation is to label these people as terrorists. It is not for Wikipedia to label people with such a negative, perjorative, term when that term is not accepted as a term to describe Sea Shepherd in the wider community.

For these reasons, 68.41..., I am again reverting your repeated, POV-pushing addition of this term. You are not acting as an editor by your continued re-adding of this label. Tranquillity Base (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, the category is eco terrorism not eco terrorists. This is a huge difference, and the reason why "eco terrorism in fiction" fits perfectly fine within the category.

Categories are of two basic types:

topic categories – these contain articles on a particular topic; for example, Category:Music contains articles on subjects related to music.

list categories – these contain articles whose subjects are members of a particular set; for example, Category:Musicians contains articles on musicians.

Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "Civilization", "George W. Bush".

Names of list categories should be plural. Examples: "Writers", "Villages in Poland".

Please see Wikipedia:Categorization & Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories). From the beginning I believed this group could fit into the category because I never really saw the category as a list. Of course, most editors agree this group should fit in the category regardless of whether the topic category or a list, but it is possible everyone is working under an incorrect assumption that it is a list, when its actually supposed to be a more benign topical category, which even the IWC and other groups completely in disagreement with SSCS would qualify because it is relevant to a discussion on the topic of eco terrorism. Now, if someone wants to also start of list of eco terrorists I'll be right there with you on listing SSCS, but, frankly, I am going back to my original argument as well, that this is a nonargument. Mdlawmba (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Mdlwamba you are correct. Anyone who looks at the Eco-terrorism category can see that it is not a list of eco-terrorists. It is a list of articles that discuss the topic. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And T-Base, Eco-Terrorist is in the Terrorist category and covered in the WP:Terrorist nicely. I can't help you if you don't read it but your concerns of Pejorative terms and also BLP are covered therein. We are following the policy at WP:Terrorist just fine. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm a proponent of keeping all notable POV in the article. You keep removing the notbale POV you disagree with. Why are you calling me a POV pusher when I am trying to include both sides? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Mdlawnba, you write, 'Everyone, the category is eco terrorism not eco terrorists.' So members of a group whose activities are labelled bank robbery are... bank robbery-er-ists, just as the members of a group whose activities are labelled 'eco-terrorism' are called 'eco-terrorism-ery-ists'. People in groups accused of engaging in 'eco-terrorism' are called 'eco-terrorists'. Categories label.Tranquillity Base (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving beyond the edit warring

{{done}} Per WP:BRD it was OK to add the eco-terrorism category to this article once, under the assumption that there might be a consensus for it. By now it is clear that there is no consensus and that the discussion isn't going anywhere. In the absence of a compromise the traditional solution is to preserve the long-standing version. (Note that "BRD" means be bold, revert, discuss, not be bold, revert, be bold again, discuss.) Also, if one version is claimed by some to do actual damage while the other is merely argued to to be more complete, then it makes sense to preserve the harmless, incomplete version. According to both arguments the categorisation must stay out until dispute resolution has been successful.

I have given two reasons above why the categorisation is not appropriate:

The term eco-terrorism has definitional problems similar to the term pseudoscience. It is also similarly pejorative. If one of these terms is applied to an article about a subject that is sometimes argued to fall under the definition, the majority of our readers will read this as a statement that the subject does, according to Wikipedia's assessment, fall under the definition. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in the analogous case of psychoanalysis/pseudoscience that we do not categorise in this situation in order to prevent this misunderstanding.
There are WP:BLP concerns. The BLP policy is in effect in all articles, whenever we say something about living people. Many members, activists and supporters of SCCS are living people, and some are mentioned in this article. It is highly problematic if we imply here that Paul Watson leads, and the Dalai Lama supports, an eco-terrorist organisation.

— Anonymous , — (continues after insertion below.)So far I have not seen a single valid argument against these two points. (they are both adressed in WP:Terrorist as has been said before)

The argument that the Japanese government calls SCCS eco-terrorist is irrelevant. Karl Popper and many other leading experts on pseudoscience also call(ed) psychoanalysis a pseudoscience. And this was even outside a political context with transparent immoral motives.
Mervyn Emrys claimed "Paul Watson describes SSCS as ecoterrorist in his books". I challenged him to prove this by a direct, literal and complete quotation, but then my post was split in an unacceptable way (please familiarise yourselves with WP:TALK everybody) and hidden by a flood of subsequent comments. Hans Adler 08:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You could also look at that its removal is a concern. It takes more than 1 person to edit war. Consensus on a related page (whether you agree with it or not), a government of a country, and government officials from other countries is enough for inclusion for most editors commenting besides you and T-Base. You are going against consensus since you disagree with the definition. Also, I'm the one who removed it originally.Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the fourth time you have mentioned my editing error which I believe most would consider a minor error, but your manner of addressing it is neither minor nor in error. I have a pretty thick skin and don't mind personal attacks, but I hope you can treat other editors with more respect. In WP:TALK there is also a section regarding new topics stating "Never use headings to attack other users:". Further, your recent edits to [eco terrorism] was not only POV but bordered on vandalism in light of these ongoing discussions. If consensus across Wikipedia does not matter, then there should be no need to alter a major article to further SSCS's cause. I have addressed every point you have again raised in this new section in the prior and asked for any support that BLP applies to an article on an organization when not specifically addressing an individual. I assume this silence indicates it is unsupportable. Mdlawmba (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your post is formatted as a response to myself. After some thinking I guess that you are referring to splitting my post. While annoying, this was obviously not the point of this section, and in fact I had no idea who split my post. (Here is why it was so annoying: It happened while I was on dial-up. I couldn't find out who did it, and even fixing it was a big pain.) Hans Adler 13:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

After I finished the below response to Cptnono, I got an edit conflict with Mdlawmba. I am putting my response to Cptnono here, unindented, for improved readability.

Reality check:

The category tag was never present in this article between 1 July and 10 August, and I am not aware that it was present at any earlier point, although this question was discussed earlier. I have searched for "terrorism" in the talk page archives, and there seems to be a rough consensus that it's inappropriate to describe SCCS as eco-terrorist since they are clearly not committing violence against uninvolved civilians in order to create terror.
It takes more than one person to edit war. Unless there is a rough consensus and just one person is unwilling to accept it:
If you are referring to eco-terrorism as the related page, then there is clearly no such consensus. That article currently says: "In a 2002 testimony to the US Congress, an FBI official mentioned the actions of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in the context of eco-terrorism." I have no problem with this formulation, and it is in fact my formulation, [censored]. (Paragraph restored in slightly censored form after User:68.41.80.161 removed it without even leaving a note in its place. [2] Hans Adler 20:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC))
Government sources are not automatically NPOV. Otherwise all sorts of torture against "terrorist" bakers etc. would not have been torture last year, so long as they were committed by order and on account of the US government. I guess that when you say "government officials from other countries" you are referring to the FBI guy who was obviously desperate to find examples of "eco-terrorism" in order to justify the flow of money in that direction 5 months after the terrorist (not: "terrorist") attacks on New York City. And yet he did not even claim that SCCS is eco-terrorist; it would have been a bit silly in the complete absence of a US arrest warrant for Paul Watson, don't you think?
As shown above, whether there is a consensus or not at the moment, it's certainly not me who is going against it. Concerning you half-sentence "since you disagree with the definition", I would appreciate it if you could stop worrying about my motives and concentrate on my arguments instead. Hans Adler 13:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You consistently say it is not eco-terrorism and relate it to pseudoscience. I will concentrate on that if since your primary reasoning is that you obviously disagree with the definition of it being eco-terrorism. Wasn't meant to come across smarmy it is just the way it is.
In regards to the cat getting listed. It was accidentally listed here on the talk page during a discussion since editors kept on sticking it in the article inappropriately. It was removed but #68 was adamant about it. I removed it until we received more feedback and that is what we got. Now you and T-Base revert it every time relying on a)comparing it to an unrelated pseudoscience ruling (I get the what you are getting at but disagree with its relevance) b)The government of Japan along with leaders in Canada, Iceland, and Norway official position does not matter. Read the complete discussion next time. If it meets the definition of eco-terrorist at the related article and is labeled as so by government officials it makes sense to include it.
In regards to the FBI mention on the talk page, there is a fun essay here. I think the important thing to pull from it is that people will make changes when there is silence and that consensus can change. I for one have adjusted my position on inclusion. The FBI source has been used inappropriately in the article before but is important since it was used by an official to mark the start of eco-terrorism.Cptnono (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The FBI source is great because it defines eco-terrorism in terms of it's actions and then it goes on to say that SSCS does those actions.
Government sources are not NPOV. They don't need to be. WE EDITORS NEED TO BE. We report what all the notable experts say without adding our own POV.
I am adamant only that half of the story isn't getting left out. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

After a bit of searching on Google News:

"Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Earth First and Sea Shepherd Society are known for committing eco-terrorism." [3]
"The FBI dates the start of eco-terrorism - and the creation of the buzzword - to 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets." [4]
"The Sea Shepherds, infamous for aggressive "eco-terrorist" style tactics that include sinking whaling boats, sabotaging seal hunts and fishing operations to save marine animals around the globe, arrived in Cape Town in January." [5]
"But the group whose members have been labeled eco-terrorists won't have any backup this year" [6]
(On Paul Watson) "He's been jailed for eco-terrorism." [7]

More importantly, there is quite a bit of video of Sea Shepherd attacking and attempting to disable ships in the southern ocean. (Two seasons of Whale Wars make it abundantly clear what's going on, to anyone who took even the most simple of seamanship courses.) The group openly brags about sinking multiple ships. If SS isn't an Eco-terrorist organization, than there aren't any, and Category:Eco-terrorism should be sent to CfD. As long as that doesn't happen, SS should be included. — PyTom (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

All your sources are giving opinion not fact, except one which goes nowhere. Watson has never been gaoled for 'eco-terrorism'. "Eco-terrorism" is an American construction and applies only in American law. Today, ostensible "eco-terrorism" legislation exists exclusively in the United States. ... Today Americans tend to have a heightened, almost Pavlovian, sensitivity to any use of the word "terrorist". ... Therefore, Sea Shepherd's actions would not fall under the aim or jurisdiction of the American-made eco-terrorism laws. ... Accordingly, Sea Shepherd's legal authority appears sufficient to justify reasonably interfering with the Japanese whaling fleet in the Australian Antarctic Territory. (Roeschke, J.E. (2009). 'Eco-terrorism and Piracy on the High-seas: Japanese whaling and the rights of private groups to enforce international conservation law in neutral waters.' Villanova Law Review 20 pp. 99-136.) Tranquillity Base (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the edit warring ia still going on. It looks like there is reason for inclusion and only 2 editors remain inconvinced. Since it looks like that is where we stand Consensus clearly shows that editors believe including the catagory is acceptable. We cannot continue to beat the dead horse and need to bring this to the admins (more opinions is always appreciated and I could be wrong) or the two editors refusing to agree need to stop reverting.Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand consensus. The debate does not show a general agreement for inclusion. Reversion is accepatble as an anonymous IP continually puts the category in, ignoring the fact that the subject is debated and so should not be put in. Doing that is POV-pushing. Tranquillity Base (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the sources in the cold light of morning, two of them are opinion, three news. IMO, the opinion ones also help to show that SS is considered an eco-terrorist organization.

Tranquillity, I'd like to ask you what acts you believe are required for an organization to be added to Category:Eco-terrorism. Or do you believe that such a category simply shouldn't exist at all? — PyTom (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We’ve been over this so many times already. At this point, if anybody doesn’t understand that Sea Shepherd is at the very least relevant to the eco-terrorism category, then he either doesn’t understand the concept of terrorism, doesn’t understand the concept of the category or has some wicked cognitive dissonance going on. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all completely irrelevant to the dispute. We all agree that we need to report that Sea Shepherd has been called eco-terrorist by notable people, insofar as we have reliable sources for this. (Salix alba brings up a good point below, though.) What we can't do is say that they are eco-terrorist. By applying the eco-terrorism category to the article we would do precisely that. Which is why we can't apply the category.

My personal opinion is that categories for ill-defined and disparaging terms such as eco-terrorism and pseudoscience should not exist in the first place since they make more trouble than they are worth. As to conditions for inclusion, let me put it this way: If being legal and tax-exempt in the US, the major country that is pushing this new term and that introduces laws against this new crime, isn't enough to protect an organisation against inclusion based on unqualified opinion and qualified smearing that stays clear of actual accusations, then what is enough? Based on the standard that you are proposing here there would be no doubt whatsoever that George W. Bush belongs into Category:War criminals. (By the way, if you follow the link you will be led to a CfD that supports my opinion on the category.) Hans Adler 21:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your definition differs from that of many observers, commentators, and leaders throughout the world. Furthermore, stop viewing this categorization as a label. It is a navigation tool. If someone is researching eco-terrorism, Sea Shepherd is part of that discussion. The reader can gauge for themselves what they are but being able to see the different organizations and incidents is a preferred method of searching through wikipeida for some.Cptnono (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

My definition is a red herring in this context, and your first sentence is meaningless anyway: Since there is no generally agreed definition of "eco-terrorism", every definition "differs from that of many observers, commentators, and leaders throughout the world". That was exactly my point. Furthermore, stop claiming things are not true just because they make it harder to argue your position. It is a well-established fact that the pseudoscience category is being abused to label topics as pseudoscientific. That's the background of the Arbcom statement at WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. It is painfully obvious that the eco-terrorism category is being abused here in exactly the same way. After all, the attempts to push the category at this article only started after text passages that claimed that Sea Shepherd is eco-terrorist didn't stick for lack of adequate sources. Hans Adler 10:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No your definition is the problem since it is the only thing standing in the way of inclusion. And don't bring up red herrings unless we are talking about pseudoscience or Bush again. They have been called eco-terrorists by numerous reputable and not reputable sources. They are in the realm of the eco-terrorist discussion for anyone researching the topic. Also, don't you dare accuse me of pushing a thing when I have consistently removed poorly sourced material including the FBI source when it was used inappropriatley. You don't know because all you want to do is argue that the group is not an eco-terrorist organization. I on the other hand could care less if they are or are not. They have been labeled as one by certain sources and that needs to be represented. Make an edit to this article that isn't pro Sea Shepherd or edit warring. Cptnono (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re "your definition is the problem since it is the only thing standing in the way of inclusion" – please make sure not to use such ad hominem tactics on this talk page. It's not constructive, and it's not allowed. My definition is what motivates me to see the convincing, policy-based arguments not to apply the category, in the same way that your belief that Sea Shepherd are terrorists (I think you have stated this belief clearly in the past; correct me if I am wrong) makes you feel they are not important. It's not constructive at all to argue on the level of personal motivations of editors. A precise analogy is not a red herring. E.g. look here for pointers.

"You don't know because all you want to do is argue that the group is not an eco-terrorist organization." You really should know better than to construct such sentences in which you make a wrong claim about what I know, and then claim to explain this with another, technically incorrect, statement about myself. How much more often do I have to repeat that the eco-terrorism accusations are notable and belong into the article? The important point is that we, Wikipedia, must not claim that they are true, because the threshold for this has not been met. On the other hand, we also must not claim that they are false, because the threshold for that has not been met either. Is that so hard to understand? Hans Adler 15:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck it is probably a duck. It also wasn't meant to be offensive. Again, we aren't claiming it is true we are categorizing similar topics based on coverage that sources have applied the label eco-terrorism to. You can repeat yourself and I can too. Also, there are plenty of reliable sources. There is a huge list below and it can be added to if further proof is actually required.Cptnono (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"It's not constructive at all to argue on the level of personal motivations of editors." I'll take that as a retraction of all the things you've argued about me. I accept your applogy good sir. "your belief... makes you feel they are not important." Ohh.. I thought we weren't going to argue that anymore. DUDE. Let's stick to the facts of how WP:Terrorist fits in with the below discussion on who says what in the news. It seems to be productive. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant Wiki Policy in the argument

{{done}} There have been lots of arguments about who is violating which wiki policy for what reasons. Everything from BLP to Pseudoscience is being called upon to try to block the word "eco-terrorism" from appearing on this page. We don't need all that. Get yourself reeaally familiar with WP:Terrorist. This wiki policy answers all the questions about whether or not we should include the term and we are in full compliance with WP:Terrorist. If you want to block the word from getting on this page, at least use the appropriate Wiki Policy. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding BLP Concerns and Concerns of including contentious words like "terrorist": "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears." From WP:Terrorist. It's all still there. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the issue. This is not about whether we should mention that they have been called (eco-)terrorists. Yes, per WP:TERRORIST we should mention it, and we do. However:

These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article. ... If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears.

Guess where I found this? In WP:TERRORIST. If we apply the category to the article, that's using an unqualified label. Anyway, that text doesn't talk about categories at all. For categories we have WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:PSCI, which talk about analogous cases, and we have deletion discussions such as the CfD for Category:Terrorists. Hans Adler 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read WP:TERRORIST section of the WP:Words to avoid page, and it seems to indicate that we should avoid using the word "Terrorist" or any derivative of it.

The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are often particularly contentious labels that carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighter" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article.

Categorizing the article is applying an unqualified label at worst, and pushing the anti-SSCS POV at best. Either is a WP:NPOV violation. The WP:TERRORIST section of WP:Words to Avoid goes on to say

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source

. Obviously categorization does not give us an opportunity attribute the description of "terrorist" to its source. 68, What is the section of WP:TERRORIST that you feel permits us to apply an unqualified label (i.e., article category) to the organization? MichaelLNorth (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See my explanation below. Basically, they are called terrorists. This is not only by primary sources but independent secondary sources describing the organization. You can say that bombing boats does not make one a terrorists but if the sources lump them in with eco-terorrists we are simply providing a vehicle for the reader to navigate through the topic.Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

POV issue in the article

{{done}} OK, read this news article. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10363013 It basically says the SSCS intentionally used a "can opening device" affixed to thier hull and scored the side of a refueling vessel. Now read how we word it. "During the campaign, the Farley Mowat collided with a Japanese whaler supply ship called the Oriental Bluebird. No damage or injuries were reported."

Notice, intent to ram had been left out as had the fact that a large scrape damaged the hull. Anyone want to take a stab at fixing this? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what everyone's experience is with manufacturing but those boys welding can usually do some good stuff. I think that the "can opener device" has not received enough attention in this article. Plenty of sources cite it so maybe we should, too. I also think their pie cannon and electrified barbed wire should get a mention. We have been caught up on the Southern Ocean campaigns but they scared the hell out of the Indians in the Northwest, Russians, and plenty of others before Discovery paid them any mind. Metal welded on to the bow for the purpose of ripping apart the hull and/or defending the vessel is well documented (the New Yorker, National Geographic, English press, etc) so add it in.Cptnono (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention that T-Base's recent edits came across as pushing POV. I don't think it was intentional and am not trying to give too much of a hard time. Please be extra cautious when editing such contentious subject matter. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

T-Base reverts

Follow-up: and T-Base is going to start reverting it looks like. ~~The following line needs to be removed: " In a November, 2007, statement, Watson stated that Sea Shepherd 'has no intention of ramming any Japanese whalers on the high seas.'^[1]".~~ We need to watch how much we link the biased source. Watson has even admitting to working the press so I would prefer not to use anything he says but understand that may not be possible. Also, it doesn't matter what they intended. I intend to not getting any speeding tickets but I still drive too fast sometimes. Inclusion is not letting the facts speak for themselves but pushing his agenda. Does anyone see any reason it should stay?Cptnono (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow-upx2: The following does not belong "In early January, 2008, the Australian Federal Court ruled that the Japanese whaling program is illegal in the Australian whale sanctuary and issued an injunction ordering the Japanese company involved to halt the whaling.^[2] The Japanese whaling company, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, refused to accept the ruling.^[3]^[4]" This is again pushing an agenda and leading the reader to the conclusion that the whaling is illegal. Unfortunately it is a complicated subject and should be discussed in articles discussing international law. This is an article about Sea Shepherd not one governments nonbinding attempt to stop a company from another country from whaling. Any obejections to its removal. An editor just added in that the claim is disputed but that is not sufficient. The sources are discussing international law not Sea Shepherd. Australia's claim is given too much weight here since it is not recognized by most of the world. T-Bases assertion that Australia has jurisdiction in the area is simply incorrect and still has nothing to do with Sea Shepherd.

Follow-upx3: The primary purpose of boarding the Japanese vessel was to cause an internaitonal incident and revieve additional press coverage. A citaiton needed tag would have been more appropriate than removal since this is verifiable informaiton. Template:Cite episode could have also been used.Cptnono (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, warnings have been given and we have a talk page for a reason. T-Base has demonstrated that he/she prefers reverting edits after making changes and is begining to push POV. Requests have been made to watch 3rr so I am reporting.Cptnono (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

TBase claims that the reverts are per discussion and that a consensus should be reached before adding material. The reasons for including terrorism in the article are obvious to me. Many sources use the word and we are citing those sources. TBase should come to consensus before using dubious policies that hardly apply. My 2 cents. --69.213.86.67 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Any comments on the above three changes I want to make? They are honestly trivial but T-Base wanted to ontinue the reverts and I am not playing that game. You are also probably looking at a talking to fromt he admins also #68. T-Base and Hans are spitting in the face of consensus so let them do it. As Hans mentioned, we can bring this up for discussion. He feels that there will be a better outcome but that isn't an excuse for anyone edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not expressing yourself very clearly, and I am not exactly sure what the changes are that you are proposing. In the context of Sea Shepherd operations one needs to be careful about claims from both sides, which are sometimes repeated uncritically by neutral sources. In particular, the "can opener" thing sounds like typical Paul Watson hyperbole to me and intrinsically no more or less plausible than the claimed lack of intent to ram on the high seas. The purpose of the boarding seems obvious; whether we have sufficient sources to say it is another question, and whether it's appropriate and encyclopedic to stress the obvious fact by saying it explicitly and giving a citation is a third question. In general, we need to be very careful with the way we express most facts, because there is so much uncertainty. The current polarisation does not help to make this article NPOV and encyclopedic, so please try not to make it worse. Hans Adler 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As menionted, can opener is mentioned in several sources. Please begin to read them. You, T-Base, and #68 are only editin in a reactionary fassion. T-Base was doing good for awhile but it is clear now that you three are the problem. If all of you would actually attmept to expand the content in a neuteral fashion things would work out.Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes:

The following line needs to be removed: " In a November, 2007, statement, Watson stated that Sea Shepherd 'has no intention of ramming any Japanese whalers on the high seas.'^[5]". We need to watch how much we link the biased source. Watson has even admitting to working the press so I would prefer not to use anything he says but understand that may not be possible. Also, it doesn't matter what they intended. I intend to not getting any speeding tickets but I still drive too fast sometimes. Inclusion is not letting the facts speak for themselves but pushing his agenda. Does anyone see any reason it should stay?Cptnono (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The following does not belong "In early January, 2008, the Australian Federal Court ruled that the Japanese whaling program is illegal in the Australian whale sanctuary and issued an injunction ordering the Japanese company involved to halt the whaling.^[6] The Japanese whaling company, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, refused to accept the ruling.^[7]^[8]" This is again pushing an agenda and leading the reader to the conclusion that the whaling is illegal. Unfortunately it is a complicated subject and should be discussed in articles discussing international law. This is an article about Sea Shepherd not one governments nonbinding attempt to stop a company from another country from whaling. Any obejections to its removal. An editor just added in that the claim is disputed but that is not sufficient. The sources are discussing international law not Sea Shepherd. Australia's claim is given too much weight here since it is not recognized by most of the world. T-Bases assertion that Australia has jurisdiction in the area is simply incorrect and still has nothing to do with Sea Shepherd. An addition to help fix the weight was again reverted. International law and the Antarctica can fill a whole article's worth with sources and info (wikipedia's sucks in this case) but that will be just as bad as T-Base's original inclusion. It has nothing to do with Sea Shpeherd and needs to be removed. If it is really wanted, I will pull out some sources and add it in but it seems like a waste of time. Can anyone justify why this is in? If not I am reverting. If it gets reverted I'll add a few lines that really should not be in this article but will fix the weight concern.Cptnono (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

:*The primary purpose of boarding the Japanese vessel was to cause an internaitonal incident and recieve additional press coverage NOT to deliver a letter. A citaiton needed tag would have been more appropriate than removal since this is verifiable informaiton. Template:Cite episode could have also been used.Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Added with inline citaiton as required.Cptnono (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent talk page comments

{{done}} A bunch of comments recently needed to be removed from this page. (see history for details) There are two reasons which we should all recognise.

First, this is not a forum nor a soapbox. This isn't the place to shout "Sea Shepherds SUCK!" or "Whalers SUCK!". This is for disscussing the manner in which information should be present in the article, not your personal feelings about the issue for which the article was written. If it has nothing to do with how we process the information, (like a good faith conversation on how to handle the eco-terrorism allegations)then be bold and simply delete it please.
Second, no personal attacks. If you see a comment that says "user so and so sucks, they are here only to cause trouble" please delete it per WP:NPA. We are here to discuss issue not one another. We all have an opinoin and we all think our opinion is pretty important. If you notice one individual not getting it, take it to their talk apge and have it out there. Personal grudges should stay far away from this page. Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To be clear "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Have a read. :) Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

68.41.80.161 you can just delete anything or move it if you do not like it. That is sympomatic of your "reasoning".Delete this again and you will be pushing the 3rr rule. First set up a user page so we can keep our ""editing" on one page for some people to inspect. Terrorisme should not appear with sscs . Wdl1961 (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what you just did Wdl1961. Give some reasoning for removing well sourced and what looked to be properly balanced informaiton. I'll take a few day ban for reverting what looked like knee-jerk vandalism. Also, edit summaries such as "put these whale killers out of business are not OK. If you need me to list a few guidleines I will but I assume you understand the assumption thatyou can only edit in a disruptive fashion.Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring update

{{done}} Unfortunately there is still hardly any constructive discussion about whether Category:Eco-terrorism should be applied to this article or not. Instead there are claims of a fictitious consensus, claims that the categorisation is appropriate just because a tiny number of hand-picked sources claim something to that effect, and edit warring. Here is an update of the edit warring since my last list:

68.41.80.161 alias 69.213.86.67: You needn't bother to travel 30 miles and change your provider when going to the WP:3RR limit. You are not fooling anyone so long as your behaviour shows the same over-the-top accusations against editors who disagree with you. [8] Hans Adler 18:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Knock it off Hans. Report him or ask if he edited while at work. No need to be a jerk about it. Inregards toy our edit summary, it is also 4 or 5 editors wanting it included. You three are the only ones edit warring over it.Cptnono (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You have to put me in the list also. Delition by 68.41.80.161 do not help and it is pushing the 3rr rule. For terrorisme look in the japanese pow camps during ww2. Wdl1961 (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I like #68 and appreciate the work. He has done it too. I actually mentioned him (broke my heart to do so) at the 3rr noticeboard. Luckily, noone will be admonished or banned. T-Base is clearly edit warring but the 3rr says that edits done in a string without interuption are only considered 1 revert. If I would have popped one in without taking it to talk AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE T-Base would have been in violation.Cptnono (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I already admitted to going over yesterday. I also said it twice on this talk page if someone wants to report it. My defense will be that your edit was malicious but I honestly think you just jumped the gun. You also broke the rule so tread lightly. I can't believe T-Base didn't get a warning but maybe just the heads up that it could happen will be enough to remind us not to have knee jerk reactions. Also, I also reinsert plenty of things after summarizing them or finding new references.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

With regards to Category:Eco-terrorism, I agree with comments by 68. above at The relevant Wiki Policy in the argument. As a number of reliable sources (incl Reuters, FBI, CSIS, Japanese Gov ^{could be considered non-third party}; refs all linked to somewhere above or in article) describe the group as "eco-terrorist", the label should undeniably be mentionned per WP:TERRORIST. The only matters for discussion, then, are either the reliability of the sources or the policy at WP:TERRORIST itself. In my opinion, the sources are reliable enough (if the FBI cannot be considered reliable on terrorism labels, who can?), and I have no opinion on WP:TERRORIST policy. As such, I have reinstated Category:Eco-terrorism. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that in response to Hans' comment further above with regards to George Bush, if reliable third-party sources state that George W. Bush is a war criminal, then it would be appropriate to label him as such on his article (per WP:TERRORIST). -M.Nelson (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wdl1961 also mentioned Japan in WWII to try to prove a point. Stay on topic. Would someone researching eco-terrorirsm or even alleged eco-terrorism benifit from seeing information about SSCS?Cptnono (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono you better read the three rr rule carefully again . You are a master in deletion and spreading the remarks all over the place but your technique is readily apparent.Wdl1961 (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That was really cute. How about you go through the edit history and see how many positive and neutral things I have included about the group. I will remove garbage if it is garbage.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Telegraph ref

{{done}} A fair bit in the article quotes the telegraph reference [9] of 17 Apr 2009 and using that as a source for Japans and Greenpeaces accusing the SSCS of eco-terrorism. All the telegraph article says is

...and has been accused of eco-terrorism by both the Japanese government and Greenpeace.

This statement worries me as in this is just a single line with no source, no direct quote. It is also quite recent which makes me think that it could be a case of lazy journalism with the journalist reading this wikipedia article and loop without base.

Look further the Greenpeace terrorism claim seems to have root in this press release [10]. The two times terrorism is mentioned:

Some anti-environmentalists try to use the fact that an extreme minority in the environmental movement resorts to force and sabotage to brand the movement as a whole as "terrorist."

...

By making it easy to paint anti-whaling forces as dangerous, piratical terrorists, Sea Shepherd could undermine the forces within Japan which could actually bring whaling to an end.

Fall far short of GP calling SSCS terrorist.--Salix (talk): 19:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Or we can replace the reference. They certainly allude to it here. You can probably google around and find something more concrete.Cptnono (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Are you serious? Are you seriously arguing that because Greenpeace say it's a tactical mistake of Sea Shepherd to make it easy to smear them, and consequently others fighting the same fight, as "eco-terrorists", we are allowed to claim that Greenpeace call Sea Shepherd eco-terrorist? Salix alba's literal quotation is the closest I found to the allusion you mention. If you found something better in the text, please quote it. Hans Adler 21:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious. You don't need to freak out about it. If an editor questions the use fo the source a quick google search should present some new sources. The Greenpeace page was simply the first thing I saw. There are two mentions of terrorism on that particular page if you do a ctrl+f. Drop the attitude.Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly my point. Mere "mentions" of terrorism are obviously totally inadequate if they happen in the way that they happen in this text. No need to "drop" the attitude unless you find something better. Hans Adler 21:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If you prefer. It is not mere mentions. There is no reason to get pigeon holed into that one reference. Editors on this page need to start doing their own googling. You can also try finding different terminology or summarizing the source differently.Cptnono (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC) This is my favorite one from the page "By making it easy to paint anti-whaling forces as dangerous, piratical terrorists, Sea Shepherd could undermine the forces within Japan which could actually bring whaling to an end." I don't htink it matters since the Telegraph source in question was published before inclusion here. If attribution is a concern then the sentence needs to be reworked or another source found. both are easy enough.Cptnono (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So I tried to remove "Greenpeace called them eco-terrorists". Wdl1961 reverted for whatever reason. The wordin in now removes Greenpeace from what is essentially the eco-terrorism paragraph. Does it honestly hurt anyone's feelings as it is in now or was Wdl1961 overreacting to "put these whalers out of business"? Its my 3rr if anyone wants to report but that edit could not stand when simple editing of an edit was appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

^ Sea Shepherde News http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-071120-2.html Accessed 090906
^ BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7188674.stm Accessed 090906
^ USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/environment/2008-01-15-anti-whaling-ban_N.htm Accessed 090906
^ ABC News http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/23/2144854.htm Accessed 090906
^ Sea Shepherde News http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-071120-2.html Accessed 090906
^ BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7188674.stm Accessed 090906
^ USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/environment/2008-01-15-anti-whaling-ban_N.htm Accessed 090906
^ ABC News http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/23/2144854.htm Accessed 090906

[1] Sea Shepherde News http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-071120-2.html Accessed 090906

[2] BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7188674.stm Accessed 090906

[3] USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/environment/2008-01-15-anti-whaling-ban_N.htm Accessed 090906

[4] ABC News http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/23/2144854.htm Accessed 090906

[5] Sea Shepherde News http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-071120-2.html Accessed 090906

[6] BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7188674.stm Accessed 090906

[7] USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/environment/2008-01-15-anti-whaling-ban_N.htm Accessed 090906

[8] ABC News http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/23/2144854.htm Accessed 090906

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]