This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing
´Thanks very much for your interest in what we do as a company, and specifically for letting us know about this - I am the UK Sales Manager and wasn´t aware of this until we were emailed.
As you all may know, at Patagonia we give 1% of our sales to grassroots environmental organisations...to date we have given away $29 million. This is only one aspect of the many actions we do to fulfill our mission statement of "build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm to the environment". For example we have have been using 100% organic cotton since 1996 in all our cotton products; recycled polyester since 1996 in our synchilla fleece; and our goal is to be 100% by 2010 (Yvon Chouinard´s aim for us).
http://www.climbing.de/nc/artikel/article/patagonia-and-sea-shepherd/ --Veganbikepunk (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly unrelated
The article with the Kaiko Mairu seems to imply that the Sea Shepherd ramming was in any way related to the engine fire that broke out 3 days later and killed a crew member. According to the Japanese, the incident was completely unrelated. I changed it once and someone apparently edited it back: I know some of you hate Sea Shepherd, but that is irrelevant, we are being objective here, whether you like it or not. The Japanese whalers hate Sea Shepherd and even they did NOT try to blame the engine fire and death on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.231.68.81 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the reference supports the fact that the fire was in fact unrelated to the run ins with Sea Shepherd. So whomever is removing "unrelated" is basicly vandalizing. Personally though, since the fire was unrelated, I see no reason that the sentance is even in the article in the first place, it has no value for the subject since it is completely unrelated. Russeasby (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bombardier
Bombardier is was listed on the Sea Shepherd page of sponsors. -Willmcw 21:55, May 22, 2005 (UTC) I'm glad to see that the group has dropped them as a sponsor. -Willmcw 22:02, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Is Paul Watson a polygamist?
I came across this line in the text:
Sea Shepherd is supported by private donations and operated by volunteers and aid staff, including two of its founder's wives.
My first thought was that the apostrophe was misplaced, and that it should be "founders' wives". But the article lists Paul Watson as the sole founder of the organization. So does he have more than one wife? Are we talking ex-wives (or current and ex-)? Are there other founders who aren't mentioned as such? -- Coneslayer 21:15, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
I believe that Watson's marriages were sequential. If you can find a better wording then go for it. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I guess that depends on whether they're both ex-wives or if one of them is still his wife. Do you know? -- Coneslayer 23:44, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
He's still married to the second one, I believe. This sentence encompasses both wives: He was also incarcerated in 1999 for attacking Native Americans on a whale hunt; Paul Watson’s ex-wife Lisa Distefano, and current wife, Allison Lance Watson, were also charged in that attack.[1].
Thanks, I've updated the article accordingly. -- Coneslayer 00:09, 2005 August 4 (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 Mostlyharmless00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. [2] Hiro--216.75.93.11020:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Copyrighted material
The statement "After the sinking of the Icelandic whaling vessels in 1986, Sea Shepherd lost..." was a direct cut and paste from http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/pr2001/ocean_warriors_confront_lucian_fishermen.htm
the website of the Government of St Lucia. The material was in no way sourced or quoted, and violates wikipedia policy for this reason.
From Greenpeace. "Previously, the Commission has withdrawn the observer credentials of the organization called Sea Shepherd Society for its illegal actions against whaling vessels." http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0630-01.htm
Paul Watson and Greenpeace
Paul Watson's Wikipedia entry states "Watson resigned from the Greenpeace Foundation (some accounts say he was expelled)", whereas this article simply says he was expelled. I've updated the introduction to remain consistent with the article. If anybody knows for sure, feel free to change it back.
Paul Watson a Whale Killer?
Paul Watson has never fully explain his role in the death of an orca in Victoria, BC, Canada. Miracle, as the orca was nicknamed, was a juvenile orca found in poor health and near death in Menzies Bay. The whale was captured and taken to the oceanarium at Sealand of the Pacific. The orca had several close calls with death but managed top survive injury and infection. A failed attempt
to free the orca by two people using scuba resulted in Miracle being caught in the net pen and drowning.
Pressuring the US to declare SS a terrorist organisation
"Several nations including Japan have pressured the United States to declare Sea Shepherd a terrorist organization." - for the Dolphin drive hunting article this is an interesting statement, however I cannot find a source for this. Could anyone point me in the right direction? BabyNuke21:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
would be nice if there was a clear definition of terrorism in the first place. How does stopping a whaling ship from harpooning a whale strike fear and terror in the general population of the world?
Noserider15:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Sea Shepherd often threatens and attacks legitimate fishing boats and fishermen. The Pilot whale incident was just one of them. I do not have a source, but many articles have them quoted calling the pilot whales dolphins. Pilot whales are not intelligent like the bottle-nosed dolphin is. So yes, the SS IS a terrorist organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.31.41 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't have to be the general population of the world to be terrorism. They strike fear into many many nations including Japan, Iceland, and Norway to name a few. This group is ging to end up killing someone instead of just maiming or injuring them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sea Shepherd's submarine
I remember reading literature from Sea Shepherd about their pending purchase of a submarine, which they intended to paint yellow. No joke. Anyone know what became of that? This was about 10 years ago, I think. =Axlq00:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be a story concocted to get some exposure in the press and raise some cash?
I can't help but wonder if it's from the same place as the stories about the Life Story of Paul Watson that is always about to be made starring his usual celebrity supporters?
I have no idea. Rather than presume a motivation, one could ask them about it, I suppose. If Sea Shepherd cared about the sub, you'd think they'd mention it on their web site and supply some reason why they sold it (too expensive to maintain, unsafe, whatever). If they had actually used it in an operation, that would be noteworthy. From what I can determine, however, the submarine doesn't seem notable enough to include in this article. =Axlq21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an account of an incident involving the Sea Sherpherd ship Whales Forever and the Norwegian naval ship Andenes, during which the Whales Forever is carrying the submarine on deck here: [[4]]. There is some discussion of its nominal use when deployed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damian James (talk • contribs) 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:20000 Nemo North Pole flag.jpgThat article actually says it's a yellow submarine named the Mirage, and that the plan in Norway was that it would be "undetectable for 48 hours" and could "locate and dispatch" a couple of whaling ships. Though it seems out of place to paint it yellow - Captain Nemo's argent-on-sable colors would have seemed more appropriate... 70.15.116.59 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The submarine was painted black & white to resemble an orca. The sub was on display with SS's ship in the Los Angeles, CA Harbor area in the late
1990's. It was intended to be used in SS's campaign against whaling by the Makah tribe. The idea was to sail it in front of a whale
killing vessel, and play orca sounds underwater, in hopes that the whales would be afraid of their only natural predators. To my knowledge
it was never used. I presume it has been retired from service. This info comes to from a talk by Captain Watson, circa 1998.
Substar (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)substar[reply]
cited sources
This article is full of requests for citation- I know, because I made most of them. I see that there is a bibliography at the bottom, perhaps somebody involved in the writing of the article would care to implant the proper format for citations? Rudy Breteler23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is really "involved" in the writing of this article. The early edit history suggests that it was written by someone affiliated with Sea Shepherd, given all the praise and POV language used then. I and others have tried to clean it up since then. Now and then somebody (like you) comes along and makes further improvements. I only look at this article if it shows up on my watchlist due to someone else editing it.
Cited sources are fairly easy to find. Some of the things you tagged don't have a cite because this information is already documented on Sea Shepherd's web site, particulary the history concerning whaling. We can do searches for other sources, though. =Axlq06:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV
I think this article leans towrds the Sea Sheperd POV, e.g. in 'Background' (first line): "Sea Shepherd engages in a number of direct, law enforcement actions..." and at the end of the same paragraph: "No person has been injured, let alone killed, during a Sea Shepherd action."
While that may be factually correct, I think that the wording needs to be changed slightly. Also, is Sea Shepherd authorised by any government to enforce maritime law? And what about the cost of damages to other ships?
This is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article, not quasi-propaganda. I won't put an {{NPOV}} tag on this page for now, but can someone please touch up the wording? Sentinel7522:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to fix what you think needs fixing. If you think it's NPOV now, you shoulda seen it when I found this article. It read like a propaganda brochure. =Axlq22:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote for an {{NPOV}} tag being placed especially with the fact that there is a front-page link to this article. I don't know that I could produce an agreeable NPOV edit myself. --Firefeather (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sea Shepherd has zero law enforcement authority to enforce maritime law. And they have injured a handful of Japanese whalers among those of other nations
"Legal" Japanese whaling
Could you please explain why you deleted the mention of "legal" Japanese whaling on the Sea Shepherd entry?
The legality of the endeavour is either factual or not. It is in no way POV.
In this case, Japanese whaling operations are indeed legal as one can read at the IWC.
Just because the Sea Shepherd society attempt to portray it as illegal and themselves as mandated enforcers of irrelavant legislation does not make it so.
I'm surprised that someone who mentions NPOV is an inviolable pillar of Wikipedia could be so biased in their interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroTrash (talk • contribs) 13:48 2007-02-05 (UTC)
On the radio last week, I heard a representative from Japan's whaling industry admit that Japan takes more whales than their quota under the guise of "scientific" whaling. They self-allocate their own quotas regardless of moratoriums.[5] Therefore, some Japanese whaling is legal, some is not. A blanket statement that it's all legal isn't appropriate for this article.
Furthermore, I didn't revert the edit because of that. I reverted it because of the NPOV violation in this statement: "Sea Shepherd engages in a number of direct enforcement actions to raise its profile and marketability". The organization itself says they engage in such actions because they find other environmental groups such as Greenpeace to be ineffective. All organizations strive to raise their profile and marketability. Sea Shepherd is hardly unique in this regard, and implying that this motivation is the sole reason for their actions promotes a POV that has no basis.
Reverting your edit had the side effect of restoring a statement you deleted about injuries resulting from Sea Shepherd actions. You are correct, this should probably go, because you can't prove a negative, although in all my searching I have found no reports of any injuries, just "terrorist" acts. You'd think if injuries occurred, these reports would surely mention them. =Axlq16:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now there are reports about people getting injured because of SSCS. According to this Jiji Press news (http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20070209-00000114-jij-int), two Japanese whalers aboard the Nisshinmaru have been lightly injured by glass bottles thrown from a SSCS ship. One got hit by a piece of glass, the other one has had some liquid substance in his eyes.
I'm shocked. Surely if I referenced a source on Wikipedia as "something I heard on the radio" it would be removed in a flash. No?
Indeed I have had additions to the Sea Shepherd article for less (sources provided and entire contribution removed for improper formatting).
As I understand it, you are correct in that Japan creates its own quotas but it does not automatically follow that exceeding its own quotas is therefore illegal and I would like to see a direct reference to the legislation that is supposedly contravened as a source.
"Iceland and Japan both conduct scientific hunts, which are allowed for regardless of Schedule amendments such as the zero catch limit, as stated in Article VIII of the ICRW. As well as allowing for scientific whaling permits to be granted, Article VIII also recognises that as
"continuous collection and analysis of biological data in connection with the operations of factory ships and land stations are indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments will take all practicable measures to obtain such data."
Thus, not only is scientific whaling legally permitted, it's expressly encouraged by the ICRW. It's remarkable that Japan and Iceland are accused of illegal whaling despite the fact that the convention under which whaling is carried out is so unambiguous on this point.
Traditionally the claim of illegal whaling has been made by both anti-whaling governments and anti-whaling NGOs, but in recent times governments have dropped this rhetoric from their repertoire."
On this basis I would like to reinsert my initial addition of the word legal before Japanese whaling.
Also it should go without saying that one can be terrorized without being killed or maimed and having a ship equipped with a "can opener" puncturing device and bows reinforced with concrete with the express intent of ramming other law abiding vessels should qualify.
If you can assert that "All organizations strive to raise their profile and marketability" then how can you remove the statement that Sea Shepherd indulges in the same marketing? It was not meant that SS "only" markets itself nor does it do us any good to automatically assume such organizations are purely altruistic and are not motivated in either policy priorities or public statements by the almighty dollar (not to mention the benefits to Paul Watson's brand name dollar value).
Radio broadcasts are citable. The fact that I don't remember the exact broadcast doesn't change the fact that the Japanese admit to taking more than their quota. Note that my report of the radio broacast only exists in this talk page. It does not belong in the article without a verifiable source.
If, as you assert, "it does not follow" that Japanese whalers violating their own country's quotas are illegal (which may depend on whether the quotas are tied to regulations; i.e. laws), then it certainly doesn't follow that such violations are perfectly legal either. One cannot justify a claim of "legal" on that basis.
Inserting the word "legal" before Japanese whaling presents, as fact, a contentious claim under dispute. Taking advantage of a loophole about scientific whaling, which is unnecessary according this physorg article, may violate the spirit of the law if not the letter. Having a claim of "legal" in this article without explanation promotes one particular point of view. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote contentious claims. You can, instead, fit in a paragraph that explains the point of view that it's legal, as that blog does. That would be better than inserting an adjective as if it were fact.
The statement about marketing was removed because it's irrelevant. The way you wrote it, the statement implied that all of Sea Shepherd's actions are motivated by marketing rather than the organization's stated purpose. The statement was not only factually incorrect (or at least undemonstrable) but also violated WP:NPOV.
You can't justify using a radio broadcast as a source and then throw out my suggested blog entry and throw out the fully verifiable content within that in my opinion described the legal staus quite succintly.
This is surely a bit if a double standard no?
Just because The Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace refer to illegal whaling doesn't mean it is as you write "a contentious claim under dispute".
The legality of Japanese whaling is a verifiable fact. It either is legal or it is not.
Can we at least agree on that?
Just because I say you're a criminal doesn't mean that your honesty becomes "a contentious claim under dispute". You have either contravened the law or you haven't and I could end up in jail for slander.
I haven't used a radio broadcast as a source in the article anywhere, I brought it up to demonstrate that Japan itself admits to violating its own rules. I would never propose to add such a statement in the article unless I could back it up with a verifiable source. If I knew the NPR program that aired it and the time, it would be citable.
I referred you to WP:V because it specifically mentions that blog entries aren't acceptable, and I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) that you intended to use that as a source in the article. I apologize for my presumptiousness.
Legality isn't necessarily a binary condition, sorry. When other governments don't even agree that it's legal, we can't have Wikipedia taking a stand to state outright that it is. As I said earlier, there's no problem with including a paragraph explaining the viewpoint that it's legal. But any bare assertion won't fly.
If the IWC currently has a moratorium on whaling, but allows an unlimited number of whales to be taken for scientific purposes (which are vague and ill-defined), what else would that be but a loophole?
My own POV is irrelevant; I'm not the one trying to insert a viewpoint into this article. If you look at the edit history of this article, it was a POV mess full of promotional dross about Sea Shepherd before I and others began cleaning it up; you can hardly accuse me of promoting a POV.
You have a valid point about legality, but having the article state it is a bare assertion won't work.
More to the point, what possible purpose is served by inserting the words "legal Japanese" in front of "whaling" in that sentence? Why not just say "whaling"? It's clear, unambiguous, and refers only to Sea Shepherd's activities, expressing no viewpoint about whaling. Why is there a need for any adjective to describe whaling? And that's my point: The use of any adjective constitutes POV-pushing. Inserting "legal" is equally as bad as inserting "illegal." The NPOV solution is to omit the adjective.
I would not use any word - either "legal" or "illegal" - in a combo with Japanese whaling phrase. Both legality and illegality can be claimed. It depends on what intentions one goes with - if one's intention is to prove its lawfulness, then he will find an appropriate law; and vice versa. This is an issue and the cause why even not anti-whaling media frequently calls Japanese whaling controversial. There is a number of laws which regulate 'use of living resources'. They are contradicting with each other on a frequent basis.
Here they are:
there is an International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling, but Japanese do hunt whales.
but there is an opportunity for Japanese to hunt whales under a scientific permit issued by IWC (despite moratorium). Since Japanese claim their whaling is scientific, they agree with the law here. But the problem is that whale meat ends up in the market. While this is allowed by an IWC regulations that a meat from research goes to market, the obvious question should be asked: is the whale meat that goes to market a by-product of true scientific research or is it a commercial whaling under cover of scientific research? This is the principal sticking point and reason of Japanese whaling being called controversial.
there is an Antarctic Treaty (and some other treaties that go in a bundle with Antarctic Treaty) that stresses up the necessity of conserving living resources of Antarctica, where Japanese whaling fleet is hunting. But the conservation stands for rational use in Antarctic Treaty. So, it doesn't prohibit any hunting at all.
there is an IUCN Red List which lists fin whales and humpback whales (species that are hunted by Japanese) as threatened meaning they should not be hunted under CITES, which is signed by Japan.
Instead of 'Japanese whaling' ('legal Japanese whaling' or 'illegal Japanese whaling') I suggest to use 'Japanese scientific whaling' or 'controversial Japanese scientific whaling'. In my opinion, the latter is the best as it stresses the fact that it's controversial, but controversial over the name of science. Ollyn21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would just like to clarify something here concerning this : But the problem is that whale meat ends up in the market. While this is allowed by an IWC regulations that a meat from research goes to market, the obvious question should be asked: is the whale meat that goes to market a by-product of true scientific research or is it a commercial whaling under cover of scientific research? .
ARTICLE VIII, Paragraph 2 - 2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.
Regarding "commercial whaling " Commerce requires a profit to be made - The program has run at a loss since it´s inception ... any income from whale meat sold goes to offset the research program as required by IWC regulations SammytheSeal (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third Opinion
To help out with this discussion, I would like to first ask for a specific reference for the inclusion of the word "legal" in the phrase in question. Second, the non-inclusion of the word isn't saying that it is illegal, it would be only admitting that we don't have a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources) that answers the question "is it legal?" If we can't find a reliable source that answers that question, the article shouldn't make a statement that answers that question. Sancho McCann07:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by "reference" you mean the edit under contention, it's referenced in the third opinion plea, and here. If you mean instead an authoritative source stating that Japanese whaling is legal, all I can find are opinions and the rationale quoted from a blog above. =Axlq07:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, I mean we should find a reference (reliable source) that states, "Major campaigns include interdiction against legal Japanese whaling in Antarctic waters" (not as a quote necessarily, but one that basically says this without us having to bring in information from multiple sources). One that said Japanese whaling is legal wouldn't be enough, because this statement says more than that, which would be original research (see Wikipedia:Original research) if the statement was reached by our aggregation of information from various sources. Sancho McCann07:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I agree, if such a reference can be found, I'd have no problem adding it. At the moment I have a problem describing whaling with any adjective, legal or illegal, right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or evil, etc. I will wait for a response by User:Eurotrash before responding again. =Axlq07:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, evil, or moral would be subjective. The legality of the japanese whaling program is not subjective. It either is legal or it is illegal. Which is it? No laws have been broken and no legal action has taken place. I think an entry on the legality of the Japanese program is required as the SS group is basing it's justifications for itself and its actions on just such a fact. It is not beyond comprehension that it pays SS to vilify the Japanese whalers and to portray them in a negative light for promotion and fund raising purposes. According to Watson, Greenpeace make millions from posturing aboiut "saving whales".
Animal rights groups raise millions of dollars and are constantly launching legal actions. Why no case against the Japanese if their super high profile actions are illegal?
This whole thing just stinks of defamation by the SS which Wikipedia is now amplifying uncritically.
The question isn't subjectivity, the question is one of original research and/or verifiability. Please read WP:Original research, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Reliable sources. Again, if we can't find a standalone reliable source that answers the question, "Do major campaigns or the Sea Shepherd include interdiction against legal Japanese whaling in Antarctic waters?", then the article must not pose an answer this question. It is important to remember: we don't have to answer this question; it is completely reasonable to leave it unanswered in the article. It would do all editors a benefit to put each statement that they write to this test. It will automatically avoid subjectivity and many a dispute regarding appropriateness of content. Sancho McCann18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we need a paragraphe that details under what permits the japanese whale and an examination of Sea Shepherd's claims that also acknowledges their mission in putting as much negative light on the issue as possible as well as their fund raising needs for good propoganda.
Without either, this article runs the risk of uncritically adding credence to Sea Shepherd's claims.
EuroTrash19:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eurotrash: Your contention that "it is either legal or it is illegal" constitutes a false dichotomy. See Ollyn's comment directly above this Third Opinion section; clearly the legality is a gray area subject to interpretation, and the regulations that could clearly define what is legal or not are ambiguous. A Wikipedia article should not take a stand one way or another, without a verifiable reliable source. Synthesizing a conclusion from sources, such as one would do in a school term paper, constitutes a violation of WP:Original research, as Sanchom describes above. =Axlq19:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a false dichotomy here at all. There has either been broken laws or there hasn't.
Even New Zealand's Chris Carter (Minister of Environment) a rabid anti-whaler himself has conceded that there is no case to bring.
Should this article itself not acknowledge the possible Sea Shepherd explioitation of legal ambiguity if indeed such ambiguity exists?
EuroTrash19:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Acknowledging an ambiguity isn't the same thing as outright asserting "legal", which is what you originally wanted to do. It would be appropriate in a criticism section. =Axlq19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, I have added references for the lead section. Where my source is a fact-checked third party media organization, I simply re-state what they have said. Where my source has not been checked by an independant third party, (like the sea shepherd web page itself), I've included wording such that it is apparent that what we've included in this article is a claim. As per the policy on reliable sources, if we use a source that is written by the subject of the article, we can only include non-contentious statements. One way to do that is to write that a certain statement is a claim of the subject. For something certainly non-contentious, like "The Farley Mowat is part of the Sea Shepherd fleet", we can reference Sea Shepherd's self-published material without a problem. Hope this can be a starting point to making this a great article. Sancho McCann19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing
However, Ray Gambell has been reported as having told the BBC in 2000 that "It would be much better if Japan and Norway were brought within the process", a position inconsistent with international law.
I don't really understand the above sentence. Either there isn't enough of Ray Gambell's quote or I'm just stupid. What exactly did he mean Japan and Norway should be brought within the process and why is this inconsistent with international law (and what the heck does this have to do with the Sea Sheperd organisation) Nil Einne13:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conservationist pressure
I changed the sentence [6] here because the original one didn't really agree with the reference. Firstly, it makes no mention of landlocked Eastern European countries. Indeed, the only 2 examples it gives of countries, Slovenia and Crotia are neither landlocked or Eastern Europe (at least geographically). Also, whether or not they've been pressured depends on many things like what do you mean by 'pressured' and who you speak to, therefore I think the word allegedly is necessary (just as we speak of Japan's alleged buying of Pacific votes as allegations) Nil Einne13:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sustainable whaling
I removed the word sustainable from here [7] because it's an issue of dispute. Supporters of whaling argue it can be done sustainably. Opponents dispute this saying it can't. Therefore, it's best IMHO to just mention they're supporters of whaling (which is definitely true). They claim it's sustainable, opponents say it's not, this whole issue is presumably covered in other articles as it should be Nil Einne13:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It might be true that it is disputable if it is possible to hunt whales sustainably (even though I don't understand how), but the countries that support whaling in the IWC only support sustainable whaling, not unsubstantial whaling. Other countries are opposed to whaling for moral, economic or other reasons even though whales could be hunted sustainably. gumol16:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree with you, especially with your phrase "...the countries that support whaling in the IWC only support sustainable whaling..." Japan has specifically targeted a number of whale species that are globally recognized as being endangered, including the Fin whale [8]. Pre-whaling estimates put the population of the Fin at about 50,000 to 100,000 in the North Atlantic alone [ibid], but recent estimates put the total number of Fins in the world at only 2,000 to 3,000[9]. The IWC has specifically banned the taking of Fins [10], but the Japanese have said that they will kill ten of them regardless[11]. There is nothing "sustainable" about killing .5% of an endangered species population, especially considering the other risks that population faces from toxins and other factors contributing to its reduction. Clearly, the global scientific consensus is that the Fin should not be killed. Japan is unilaterally defying that consensus, and NOT "sustainably whaling". Bricology22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for raining on your Parade but " but recent estimates put the total number of Fins in the world at only 2,000 to 3,000 " is false. See here [[12]]SammytheSeal09:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IWC's member countries support a principle of sustainable whaling, not the practice. If you read about history of whaling, then you'll learn that USSR, a signatory to ICRW, had hunted dozens of thousands of whales over some decades, but reported few thousands to IWC. Unfortunately, IWC has no real power over such things. Though the word sustainable is on the paper, there was no sustainable whaling until the morratorium in 80s which banned commercial whaling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ollyn (talk • contribs) 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Videos
I made direct links to the videos instead. I think they are informative and deserve some sort of link and the videos themselves have no commercial content. /Fifo17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Butyric Acid charges
The first paragraph originally read "...two Japanese crewmen reportedly splashed with the foul-smelling butyric acid during Sea Shepherd's recent (February 2007) action in the Ross Sea. The Sea Shepherds have denied this." This is incorrect; the Sea Shepherd crew has never denied that they threw six, one-liter bottles of butyric acid onto the deck of the Nisshin Maru. Their website acknowledges this [13]. However, the use of the term "acid" is loaded and has negative -- even frightening -- associations. If the Sea Shepherd crew had thrown bottles of "citric acid", it would give the impression of it being more dangerous than if it was described as "lemon juice" (which can indeed be described as citric acid). Butyric acid is a naturally-forming acid that occurs in fermenting sugars and starches, and is present in kombucha tea, among other ingested products, and is present in cheeses and in rancid butter[14]. Since representatives of the Nisshin Maru have not demonstrated any damage from the butyric acid, it may be that the acid was nothing more dangerous than food-grade butyric acid, which would be too dilute to burn the skin or cause permanent eye damage. On their website, the Sea Shepherd's founder and leader Paul Watson described it as being "a simple non-toxic butter acid, basically rancid butter. It will not cause eye injury." I have changed the passage to read "...two Japanese crewmen reportedly splashed with the foul-smelling butyric acid during Sea Shepherd's recent (February 2007) action in the Ross Sea. The Sea Shepherds have admitted throwing six one-liter bottles of butyric acid onto the deck of the Nisshin Maru, but have claimed that it was "a simple non-toxic butter acid, basically rancid butter", and incapable of causing injury. Bricology19:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fits my experience when I was a crew member on the Sea Shepherd II. We had a supply of butyric acid to be used as a tool to discourage certain ecologically dangerous activities. It smelled horrible and even a small amount was quite unpleasent. However, I spilled some on my hand while transferring it from on container to another and suffered no ill effect other than a strong and persistent desire to wash my hands. Adistius19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it is still an acid. The proper name for it IS Butyric acid. I am sure it is more than capable of damaging the eyes. This was basically a terrorist attack. Civilians can not simply throw an acidic substance at another man. I only wish that they were officially charged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.31.41 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think almost all acids are harmful for you eyes at a high concentration. The material safety data sheet (MSDS) states that butyric acid can burn your skin and eyes [15][16]. When it comes to chemical safety, quoting a non chemist (Paul Watson) and to give an impression that it's correct is misleading and dangerous. Adistus, did you have it on you eyes, or on a wound? Unless we can prove that it is actually harmless (I doubt that we can reverse MSDS), or the condition (concentration, temperature) in which it was used is harmless, we have to be very careful about this. BTW, I think lemon juice is also harmful if you squirt it into your eyes even though it is just (?) 5% citric acid. Luvfacts11:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the MSDS reference because the wording of the sentence implied that Sea Shepherd used the acid at full strength. We don't know this. The MSDS applies to full strength concentration, not necessarily what was used in the attack. The way the MSDS is referenced in the article amounts to synthesis of a conclusion, which violates WP:NOR.
Your right. We don't know the concentration. But it is Paul Watson's comment that generalizes the danger of butyric acid without mentioning the condition or concentration. I don't have any problems if he said "the way we used the substance should not cause any harm", but he didn't. And we don't know whether it was diluted to a very very low concentration. Just like the news source [17], I think we need the scientific fact (about butyric acid) or otherwise the article would look like Sea Shepherd's propaganda. Luvfacts21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the article on butyric acid to include the pKa (4.82). This is very slightly weaker than acetic acid, which is present to 5-8% in vinegar. Because butyric acid is heavier than acetic acid you can't make it as concentrated as pure "glacial" acetic acid, but pure butyric acid is still 10.9 molar vs. 1.3 molar for vinegar or 17.5 for glacial acetic acid. To work out initial pH of pure butyric acid (for example), take the geometric mean of the Ka and the concentration: square root of 10-4.82 molar * 10.9 molar) = square root (10-3.78) = 10-1.89 molar i.e. pH 1.89 (see [18] for a good explanation). The bottom line is that like acetic acid, when concentrated enough butyric acid strays from being a very acidic food into being just plain acid. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Why don't they outsource their operation to some people who like the smell of durian fruit and use an organic approach? (they might even find some people from the region with piracy experience...) 70.15.116.59 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coronado
Linking from this article to Rodney Coronado is somewhat provocative. Yes, Rodney was once a crew member. So was I. But Rodney is more (in)famous for his activities outside of Sea Shepherd. Linking him here implies some connection between his later felonious behavior and Sea Shepherd, which simply isn't NPOV. Adistius19:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to profoundly disagree here.
Mr Coronado is (in)famous for two things: one being the sinking of whaling vessels in Iceland and the other for lecturing animal rights fundamentalists on how to conduct a firebombing.
Paul Watson has used his association with Coronado and the sinking of the icelandic vessels prominently in his literature, books and even keeps the score of vessels by way of painted flags on his vessels.
Coronado's actions and rhetoric at the time fit the same rhetoric as Wartson at the time.
There is a very solid connection and Coronado was a little more than "just a crew member" unless adistius is trying to tell us he's sank a few ships in his time with the sea sheps.
I think the paragraph on Coronado should be reinstated.
EuroTrash13:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ramming/Sinking Vessels?
How did these guys get off ramming and sinking other vessels? Isn't that extremely dangerous for the victims crews? What were the circumstances of these confrontations? --Arrowhead200623:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the ramming, but the incident is probably described on the Sea Shepherd web site. The sinking of ships involves sneaking aboard a docked ship and sabotaging it so it sinks right where it's tied up. Sinking by means of ramming hasn't happened, AFAIK. =Axlq22:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On July 16th, 1979, the Sea Shepherd found the Sierra and chased it into the port of Leixoes. Captain Watson rammed the Sierra twice in harbor, tearing the hull open to the waterline and forcing the ship into port for repairs. After a million dollars of uninsured repairs, the Sierra was sunk by Sea Shepherd operatives in Lisbon harbor in Portugal on February 6, 1980. Sea Shepherd permanently retired the pirate whaler Sierra and prevented anymore whales from being taken by her."
So SS certainly attempted to sink the sierra by ramming - The fact that they were unsuccessful is neither here nor there - the intent was there. SammytheSeal20:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make this statement before my comment, that I have never really commented on anything environmental before, and I am more involved in terrorism articles, hence my following comment.
According to World Net 3.0 (grabbed from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism)
Terrorism is:
"the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear "
I think that this action makes them responsible for terrorism. I am putting this here though instead of on the page, because I am afraid it may be "personal research" (or w/e its called) and not sourced fact. Can somebody help clarify me. Thanks. BCapp 03:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the definition isn't as clear as you make it out to be. Sea Shepherd proponents would claim that Sea Shepherd is simply acting as an enforcement organization, enforcing international maritime law. They do have an "ends justifies the means" attitude at times, though, which result in some governments (particularly Norway) labeling them as terrorists. =Axlq23:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the Sea Shepherds have any recognised mandate to enforce international maritime law? If not, they are international vigilantes or terrrorists.
Under any definition this group are terrorists, never mind that ramming a ship laden with fuel leads to the possibility that that fuel will leak and cause untold environmental damage, precisely the sort of thing this sort of group wants to stop. May I suggest that this group are catergorised under Environmental terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.167.109 (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sabotage and extreme acts? Who is doing that? Japanese whaling ships? Fisher men in Futo and Taiji? Seal killers nin Canada an Namibia? What's you point? And who are you??
John Pearson, Atlanta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.215.51 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-09 (UTC)
Ignoring how creepy and stalkerish that last comment is. I have to agree with the need for a criticism section. Although the criticism is spread out through the article, it needs a specific location. I base this also on other articles I have seenBCapp 03:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCapp (talk • contribs)
Host: snobbinn.com;
Local Time: 2007-07-09 07:34
Any more questions???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.215.51 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-09 (UTC)
Who ever took down the criticisms section put it back up. and I deleted that IP information left by SS supporter
I doubt that would be recognized on the high seas. The Mohawk/Iroquois are actually subject (in Canada) to the Crown, and are not sovereign. Nor are they sovereign in the United States, at least not to negotiate with foreign powers. V. Joe (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Worse, what are the risks for the Indian nations? For example, the Lockerbie bombing was somehow used to drain money from the Libyan government. If an organization like Sea Shepherd racks up liability under the Iroquois flag, I'd think a similar lawsuit could be attempted, and the Iroquois aren't in as good a position to refuse or delay settlement. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is heavily slanted in one direction.
This article is entirly slanted in the positive aspects of this orginization. I'm marking it with a neutrality tag. Please discuss it here, unfortunaly I am not up to date on this article or i would make the changes myself... I will also add to the list of tasks so things I think would make this article less POV and more neutral.John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it looks reasonably balanced, and to claim that it is "entirely slanted" is absurd. Criticism from a number of nations, individuals, and organizations is included, including charges of piracy and terrorism. Possible hazards resulting from their use of butyric acid are listed. It is made clear that the legal foundation for their operations is questionable, as the article states "the organization has no official mandate or authorization to enforce any legislation". If you think the article is POV, you're going to have to be a lot more specific, and not use ridiculous language like "entirely slanted" when there's plenty of negative statements about the organization. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A year or so ago, this article was slanted, giving the impression that it was written by Sea Shepherd itself. It has greatly improved. I don't know why you bring up Greenpeace; the criticism section in that article is 1 or 2 sentences with a link to a main article on criticism. While I can find sources highly critical of Sea Shepherd, I am not seeing sufficient volume or discussion of criticism about Sea Shepherd to warrant a separate article. The criticism described in this article covers the controversies about Sea Shepherd reasonably well. It could be expanded further, but doing so would violate Wikipedia:Undue weight, I think. I recommend removing the POV tag. It simply isn't warranted here. =Axlq (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Sea_Shepherd/se-sh-re.htm article says that Watson has comfirmed that the sea shepherd has weapons and will use them to intimidate. Isn't it illegal to carry weapons into international, and other countries waters? This scares me even more that they will actually use them one day. I think fishing ships really need to start arming themselves to protect themselves now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not illegal for merchant vessels to carry arms. My father is a Mariner, and virtually every merchant ship at least carries small arms. A few even carry naval caliber anti-aircraft guns and heavy machine guns. V. Joe (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In May 2007 Farley Mowat was claimed to be heading toward Iceland in response to the 2006 hunting of 7 fin whales out of an estimated population of 28,500. The ship never arrived, because Iceland suspended its whaling operations for the year due to a huge drop in demand for whale meat[1].
I´ve removed the text in bold as its not substantiated by an independant source ( as opposed to an SS press release ) It suggests that there has been a huge drop in demand for whale meat in Iceland, which is not the case. The author may be referring to the meat from the caught fin whales, which had been earmarked for export to Japan and not the home market. Iceland did not drop it´s whaling operations in 2007, and in fact extended them well past August 2007. Also, the press release is factually incorrect - Both Japan and Iceland have legal objections to Fin whales ( CITES ) and can therefor trade in the products if they so wish.
Sea Shepherd crew detained on Japanese whaling ship
There are anon editors from Japan reverting this information, please discuss here. Also as this is a breaking story I am putting the information into its own section for the time being.RomaC (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on a neautral version of the section, I was trying for that by I am not much of a writer, your version is an improvement. Fortunately the POV pushers are not over the top revert warring, shouldnt be too hard to keep it neautral. Russeasby (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just submitted this for In The News on the main page now thats its NPOV, if it gets accepted you can be sure to see a lot more editing! Russeasby (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand from the article is why were the crewmembers detained at all? If they came aboard with permission of the ships Master, why were they detained? V. Joe (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know the circumstances when these two came aboard, Sea Shepherd and the Japanese descriptions vary widely. Better to just write what we can source, sounds like the two may be released in a few hours and there should be further statements and more info then. RomaC (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, they tried the old feign-distress-get-rescued-and-vanadalize-the-ship routine. Kudos to the japanese crew for exercising restraint (pardon the double meaning). — NRen2k517:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to step out of NPOV, but legally had they shot them, they'd be ok. Flying a false flag of distress is a crime. I think you can get 10 years for that... but am pretty sure UCMJ doesn't apply V. Joe (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone point out how to edit the references list? - I don´t believe a link to Seashepherds donations page is relevant and would like to remove it SammytheSeal (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You edit the reference by going to the section that makes the reference and changing it there. Though in this case the cited reference directly supports the claims made in-article: scroll to the bottom of the page and you'll see "[...] Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit in the United States, and a registered Stichting in The Netherlands. [...]" mdf (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but that does´nt help - all that comes up is ==References== reflist ( symbols removed ) With no list below .... soliciting donations does´nt support the article - it´s simply solicitation SammytheSeal (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, find where the reference is made in the article text -- in this case, the first sentence -- and you'll find the object to change. It's blocked inside a "<ref> [...] </ref>" element. For more, excruciating, detail see WP:CITE.
Your contention that the article is "soliciting donations" by making reference to this isn't making much sense. The article has made a claim, and the claim is supported by this reference. As per NPOV, that is as far as it goes as far as Wikipedia is concerned, otherwise, by trivial extension of your logic, we are not allowed to reference any pro (or anti) SSCS material at all ... which is silly, no? What all this means is that I will object to the removal of this reference for as long as the in-article claim exists. I suspect this will limit your editing choice to 1) complete removal of the claim (with cogent rationale offered in advance) or 2) find an equivalent reference that makes you feel more comfortable. A reasonable middle ground might be to move the claim to later in the intro, or perhaps into the main body of the article. mdf (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum, you´re reading quite a lot into my statement above. Does a link to seashepherds own donations page prove either of the above? no - I have no intention of removing the text at the beginning of the article. Merely the donations link if I ever figure it out. This would be a good external source [20]SammytheSeal (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That would be fine for the US claim. Is there another for the Netherlands? If so, feel free to update the reference. mdf (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition to seal hunting
I'd like to know why this organisation opposes seal hunting. I certainly understand why they're against whale hunting because they see it as unsustainable. The populations are at an all time low so even hunting just of few of them per year, for certain species, can hurt the population badly. But why seal hunt? And I'm referring to the one in Canada since that's the one they talk about the most. The seal population there has never been so high and clearly that hunt is not unsustainable, in fact it helps preserve some fish species. --74.56.237.80 (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whaling is sustainable according the Icelandic Maritime Research Institute for example. Fact is the SS take no heed of scientific research that doesn't conform to their world view. Thus they are unable to believe that seal hunting is sustainable and act accordingly. -Kjallakr (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time to death? I'm not sure what that has to do with cruelty. I imagine that the cruelty lies in the clubbing, shooting and skinning of seals, and in the harpooning of whales. To emphasize that the opposition isn't due only to sustainability, I will note that the very first reason that Sea Shepherd gives on their website for opposing the seal hunt is this : "The slaughter of seals is incredibly cruel." This isn't the place to debate what is cruel and what isn't, anyway. We're here to talk about what Sea Shepherd thinks is cruel, and what other important people or institutions have said about what Sea Shepherd thinks is cruel. Djk3 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh, by time to death do you mean the time that elapses between being harpooned and dying, in the case of a whale, and the time that elapses between being clubbed and dying in the case of a seal? Sure, I suppose that has to do with cruelty. Regardless, I don't think that Sea Shepherd would accept that there is any way to kill a healthy, normal seal or whale humanely. (Note that humane means "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals") Djk3 (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer, I agree that Sea shepherd would not accept "any way " whatsoever, even if it was 100% instantanious in all cases.It does raise interesting ethical questions though.Here´s some old correspondence between the High North alliance and the (then) British IWC commissioner [21] Interesting stuff SammytheSeal (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addition of Quote and Reference to Lead
I added a referenced quote from a Greenpeace representative regarding their opposition to Sea Shepherd. As it stood, it appeared to be a deliberate whitewash (or lie of omission) since it suggested they had minor ideological differences ("Sea Shepherd is more confrontational than Greenpeace.") as opposed to Greenpeace completely disavowing them. It also bothered me that I had to read down three paragraphs to even identify that their primary trait is a willingness to sink or sabotage whaling ships. If I was describing Abraham Lincoln, would I say "He was a tall man with a hat who didn't agree with the South."? Bullzeye (Ring for Service)22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just removed another sly POV-pushing mention of Greenpeace "disapproving" of Sea Shepherd, like they disagree with their choice of paint colors for their boats or something. Again, this completely obfuscates the fact that the organizations have essentially identical ideology and mission (as well as springing from precisely the same source), but Sea Shepherd endorses and utilizes violence and Greenpeace refuses to and has publically condemned them for it (in no uncertain terms). To call it a "disapproval" when it's quite obviously a major ideological schism is a classic and deliberate whitewash. Bullzeye (Ring for Service)02:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MSDS reference to butyric acid
The article contains the sentence:
"However, industrial safety data sheets warn of the corrosive properties of the acid, which can burn skin and eyes[11] and harm aquatic organisms."
... right after an SSCS description of some actions, intent, and their version of the properties of butyric acid (at least as deployed by them).
Someone had added "scientific" before "safety data sheet". I corrected this to "industrial". But I am now calling into question the entire sentence. While it is true this sentence is supported with an MSDS citation, I can not find any reference that connects the SSCS's statement with any MSDS in the manner being done here. This smells like original research to me, in the sense someone is attempting to construct an argument here at Wikipedia that has not been made elsewhere. But if this manner of OR is permitted anyways, then before we can allow the above, we will need to have yet one more reference that documents that the butyric acid exposure created by the SSCS was on a scale where the gory details described in the MSDS is pertinent.
I'll also note that the article on the MV Steve Irwin had exactly this same statement up into a few days ago, when someone (in my opinion, properly) removed it on the grounds of WP:NOR. There is also some commentary on this subject at the talk page of that article too. mdf (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked through the Web again and still don't see any good indications of the concentration. Jumping from a statement that they tossed butyric acid to saying it can be "harmful to aquatic organisms" does go against WP:NOR - after all, we have no idea whether the stuff washes off the deck into the ocean or a bilge system, whether the rapid dilution into ocean water brings it instantly to harmless concentrations, etc. But when one source says it burned people and the other says it's harmless butter acid, there's nothing wrong with citing the MSDS to give people a tool to start evaluating these claims. Wnt (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Watson's leaving Greenpeace (intro)
The text that was removed was cited to a National Geographic article. In it, it says
But his critics include prominent members of the mega-environmental organization Greenpeace, which Watson co-founded in 1972 and whose board he left five years later because, he says, "they wanted to 'bear witness' and protest. I didn't want to protest anymore. There were international laws, regulations, and treaties I wanted to enforce."
If other reports say that he was expelled, add them. But make sure that you cite it, and that you don't just replace what's currently there. If there are two accounts, include both accounts. Djk3 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's directly relevant to the topic of the article. Paul Watson forming Sea Shepherd because Greenpeace is inadequate is much different from Paul Watson forming Sea Shepherd because he was kicked out of Greenpeace. Djk3 (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the New Yorker article cited in the Paul Watson article makes it pretty clear that Watson was expelled from the board after they rejected his tactics-- and that he wasn't really that keen to go. In theory, it shouldn't be hard to find a primary source to support that, provided Greenpeace actually had some kind of proper organisation back then. The two accounts are not really contradictory, it's just Watson glossing over those little minor inconvenient facts. John Nevard (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he seems to admit to being expelled from the original Greenpeace organisation, though not to the degree that the New Yorker article documents, in this hate piece on the SS website. John Nevard (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrity supporters
So I added a bunch of celebrity supporters to the "Criticism and support" section. Now the celebrities have been removed from the section, exept one surfer guy. I want to put them back, so I wonder if anybody has any objections to it and why. Bib (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to add back the names, but per WP:BLP and WP:V, you need to cite reliable source(s) for each claim. Contentious unsourced claims about living persons need to be removed promptly. --Rob (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this deleted? [22] It appears that a company put out a press release announcing that they were donating to the Sea Shepherd. Since it refers to their own actions, and is not self-serving, it would appear to be a reasonable use of a source. ·:· Will Beback·:·19:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I think this is self-promotion on behalf of Dave Rastovich. I mean just read the release, and you'll see it's blatantly promotional. Obviously Sea Shepherd has numerous supporters. Will we name all of the people who announce a donation. Can I add my name to articles on charities that I donated to? Coverage in a third-party source not only proves something is true, it also helps proves it's notable. If nobody other than Dave Rastovich and Sea Shepherd have noted this support, it's probably of no interest to anybody but them. --Rob (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note: I did revert myself, since there was a source (albeit poor) and there is no issue of defmation. So, given that, it's obviously open to debate, about what to do. --Rob (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rob's argument (if I understand it correctly) is that the material is barely sourceable, but not notable. The lack of notability is more compelling to me than the sourcing issue. If I recall correctly the subject lists numerous corporate and private sponsors on a non-prominent page. Unless the sponsorship were newsworthy I don't see any reason to mention it. If it were so large or controversial that it made the news then that would be different. We should probably stick with 3rd party reports, as a filter for non-notable support and sponsorship. I'll re-delete it myself, pending an independent source. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed the section to a more neutral and generic "reception", but without any supporters mentioned it doesn't tell the whole story. How about something like, "Its website lists a number of supporters and sponsors, including celebrities and corporations"? Otherwise it appears that it only has critics. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boarding and arrest of Farley Mowat
I´ve added this :
The Ships Captain further stated after his release on Bail : "It's an absolute outrage," Mr. Cornelissen said. "How dare they board a foreign vessel in international waters, a Dutch-registered vessel with a Dutch captain? They held the entire crew at gunpoint." [1] The irony of the boarding of a Japanese whaling vessel in the antarctic a few months earlier by Sea Shepherd crewmembers notwithstanding.
I believe it gives an insight into an aspect of how this organisation works - It´s already been deleted once without comment - I won´t go into an edit war over it but I´d like to see some sort of justification for its deletion - on the other hand, the last sentence may be better placed at the end of the boarding of the japanese whaler paragraph.SammytheSeal (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason the FACT that the Sea Shepherd vessel Farley Mowat rammed a Coast Guard vessel keeps getting removed. If you need a link to this, I can give it to you.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.198.151 (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, that information is in the article. "On March 29, 2008 the M/V Farley Mowat collided with a Canadian Coast Guard ship, while observing the Canadian seal hunts." That comment is sourced and neutrally worded. Second, your additions were removed because they were not neutrally worded, and you added unsupported material. Adding that Sea Shepherd is a "terrorist" organization is going to have to be very well sourced. Please post the link that you have and we'll see if there's anything more to add to the article at this point. Djk3 (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of this section of the article indicates that the Farley Mowat rammed the Canadian Coast Guard ship. The cited newspaper article states that SS claims one thing and the CCG claims the opposite. Therefore the wording of the article should reflect the fact that there is no proof that either claim is true. --Migglesworth (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will, why don't you go ahead and do it? I can't (and neither can Bib, I suppose). The target is a redirect with (minimal) history. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the changing 'non-profit, registered tax-exempt' to 'terrorist' is just vandalism. At best its not NPOV.
The second bit revolves around this FBI page http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm and its use to support a claim such as "FBI, in its congressional testimony, denounced and recognized Sea Shepherd as a terrorist organization." This page states no such thing. What that FBI page does say is the following "Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe." This is the only mention of Sea Shepherd on the page, and after this mention it goes on to criticise the ALF. There is no accusation that sea shepherd is a terrorist organisation, there is not even an indication that the founding of sea shepherd has caused acts of eco-terrorism to increase. The assertion is only that acts of eco-terrorism have increased since 77. It's not a causal statement about Sea Shepherd so has no place here.
