Jump to content

Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 9 hits (talk | contribs) at 05:48, 19 March 2009 (→Putting Pictures to the Story: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 [1]. 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[2]. Since representatives of the Nisshin Maru have not demonstrated any damage from the butyric acid, it may be that the acid was nothing more dangerous than food-grade butyric acid, which would be too dilute to burn the skin or cause permanent eye damage. On their website, the Sea Shepherd's founder and leader Paul Watson described it as being "a simple non-toxic butter acid, basically rancid butter. It will not cause eye injury." I have changed the passage to read "...two Japanese crewmen reportedly splashed with the foul-smelling butyric acid during Sea Shepherd's recent (February 2007) action in the Ross Sea. The Sea Shepherds have admitted throwing six one-liter bottles of butyric acid onto the deck of the Nisshin Maru, but have claimed that it was "a simple non-toxic butter acid, basically rancid butter", and incapable of causing injury. Bricology 19:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[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. Adistius 19:07, 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]
Nonsense. If one man throws a glass of orange juice at another, it is not a "terrorist" attack with citric acid. And while you may wish they were officially charged, many feel that the Japanese whalers, supporters and gov't officials should be charged for their crimes. Everyone has an opinion.Woody Tanaka (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[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 [3] [4]. When it comes to chemical safety, quoting a non chemist (Paul Watson) and to give an impression that it's correct is misleading and dangerous. Adistus, did you have it on you eyes, or on a wound? Unless we can prove that it is actually harmless (I doubt that we can reverse MSDS), or the condition (concentration, temperature) in which it was used is harmless, we have to be very careful about this. BTW, I think lemon juice is also harmful if you squirt it into your eyes even though it is just (?) 5% citric acid. Luvfacts 11:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the MSDS facts after Paul Watson's statement and moved the MSDS link after this. Luvfacts 00:06, 24 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 [5], I think we need the scientific fact (about butyric acid) or otherwise the article would look like Sea Shepherd's propaganda. Luvfacts 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me delete the part I added. "My thought" was inappropriate for wiki. Luvfacts 07:13, 27 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 [6] 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]
I'm really getting tired of removing "harmless" wording on this. Please stop re-adding it without baking it up. The opinion of Paul Watson does not count as an expert reference. --BarkerJr (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is now prooof that SS uses commercial grade acid in their attacks [7] and [8] This should be proof enough that they are using dangerous chemicals in their attacks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk • contribs)

Well the fist picture is a screenshot of some random forum, no way that meets WP:RS, and the second is a picture of a label.... And the significance of that is? It's pretty well established what they are throwing, but I don't see how the links you added show a "commercial grade" acid (whatever that means). Not really sure what point you are trying to make, but I don't see how those sources provide any reliable insight into the actions of SSCS.--Terrillja talk 05:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a FACT that they use commercial acid. Look at the photos. It is clear that they are commercial bottles of the acid. Please stop using the propaganda put forth by Watson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 14:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the rancid butter statement. There is no proof that it is simply rancid butter. It simply smells similar to it. I also removed the stink bomb portion. The facts about the acid make it much more dangerous than a simple stink bomb. There needs to be a statement of facts, and avoiding the propaganda put out, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put it back in, since it explains why you don't want to work around the stuff. It is one of the compounds in rotting butter that makes it smell terrible, just as acetic acid is the compound in vinegar that makes it smell terrible. As far as commercial or not, not really relevant. Sodium Bicarbonate is commercially produced, but if someone threw it on you, you wouldn't be burned alive. It is commonly known as baking soda.--Terrillja talk 16:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant. You are implying that they set some butter out until it rotted. This isnt true at all. Photos from the SSCS have shown it is commercial bottles, clearly labeled as Butryic acid. Reading the proper sources, Butryic acid can main and kill. Calling it rotten butter is simply playing it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Eco-terrorist organization

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

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

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

Category:Eco-terrorism

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

(additonal) Large portion of their NOTABILITY is based on the extreme action. The categorize is reasonable. I think.--9 hits (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Eco-terrorism" is a political term that has intentionally been defined so broadly that most instances of it are by no means terrorism. The statement which we are quoting seems to be highly questionable. I know it's from a government source, but it's one from a very small and insignificant country. I just don't believe that the IWC formally condemned Sea Shepherd actions as "terrorism", as this would be totally the wrong word. That's not the kind of mistake that international committees make.
We are quoting a St Lucia government source that appears to be quoting a Norwegian news agency that quotes Ray Gambell who quotes the IWC. That's quite a bit of indirection. It seems plausible that St Lucia actually got the phrase from this source, which does not seem to quote Ray Gambell literally.
Even if it were true that the IWC called Sea Shepherd actions "terrorist", that would be no base for us to "correct" this obviously wrong claim to "eco-terrorist" and use that as an excuse to label (and possibly libel) Sea Shepherd.
Apart from the sourcing issue, which definition of "eco-terrorism" are you using? The one from our article eco-terrorism? Here it is:
"the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature"
Note that in general acts against property don't count as terrorism, only acts against people do. That's why most "eco-terrorism" is not terrorism. Surely you can see the difference between physically hurting random people and sinking an empty ship. And illegal or pseudo-legal whalers are clearly not "innocent victims".
What remains is that Japan, using the transparently counter-factual claim that their whaling operations are "research" and therefore legal, regards the whalers as "innocent" so that any violence against them, however marginal when compared to their crimes, becomes "eco-terrorism". And that Japan can exploit the sloppy phrasing of this FBI definition to call actions that target the instrument of the crime (in order to prevent the crime) "eco-terrorism". Calling Sea Shepherd "eco-terrorist" is contentious and disparaging. It follows from unrelated findings of the Arbitration Committee (see WP:PSCI) that Sea Shepherd cannot be categorized in this way. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that "only acts against people" count as terrorism - by the very definition you quote above ("innocent victims OR property"). By your reasoning, blowing up a building/bridge/etc. would not be terrorism if the perpetrators phoned their threat in, such that the building could be evacuated. Disagree further with you that whalers are "clearly not innocent victims" - whatever you think about the "research" loophole that the Japanese use to justify whaling.. these people do not deserve to be harmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.27.241 (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly confusing "terrorism" and "eco-terrorism". It's logically impossible to refute what I said (that eco-terrorism is in general not terrorism) by quoting a definition of eco-terrorism and applying it to terrorism. Apart from that, yes, your "phoning" example is sound and actual correct definitions of terrorism are more subtle. See terrorism. But as Wilhelm meis observes below, it's not helpful to continue the discussion whether it is true that Sea Shepherd fall under terrorism or eco-terrorism or neither. For Wikipedia it's just a question of sources. --Hans Adler (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we may think about the Sea Shepherds, "ecoterrorists", whaling, etc., I see only two issues that matter here: 1) can this categorization be backed up by reliable sources? and 2) is the category appropriate? If reliable, scholarly, published sources have identified X as Y, then X is Y as far as WP is concerned, whether or not User:Idisagree agrees with their conclusions. On the other hand, any categorization is pointless if the category itself is inappropriate to WP. Wikipedia:Categorization#In general - specifically no. 7 - indicates that categories must remain neutral. Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating categories explicitly states "Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy." If the category itself is inherently non-neutral, it should be listed at WP:CFD. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this approach (i.e. deleting the category) in principle, but I don't think it has a chance. Category:Pseudoscience, a similar case, played an important role in an Arbcom decision. WP's current approach is to apply disparaging categories sparingly, not to delete them. --Hans Adler (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses.:

  1. NPOV
    In my opinion, this definition (that they are terrorist) is not my definition, not Japanese government’s or not yours or yours government’s. It is from international organization. If you can say it is non-neutral point because of your opinion, your neutral view point is not really neutral?
    Additional opinion, the action is important whether someone is terrorist or not. Even if their purpose is right, they are terrorist if the action is illegality and violence. (You understand it, because you know WP:POINT.) And the target is not important; certainly SSCS's target is people or ship of some government. If a group attacks Whitehouse or the former-president to solve some problem, it is a terrorist group?
    But the Category:Eco-terrorism itself is problem. I will withdraw this suggestion.
  2. Reliable source
    I think this page already have enough sources to say they are terrorist. But if it is not enough to categorize, I will withdraw it.
  3. Word choose
    I simply think the word "eco-terrorist", who is terrorist to solve some environmental problems. And whaling problem is included in it.
    But you say this using is not natural in English. I will withdraw, or change the category to suitable one.
  4. Category
    As I said, their Notability is almost based on their extreme action. I think this categorizing is natural.

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

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

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

Please note that article talk pages aren't general discussion forums. I believe this comment is straying a bit off-topic. We actually have a guideline for this, WP:TALK, which is (correctly) not usually enforced and therefore not very well known. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Though it can be difficult to edit an article without discussing it first. It's appears though that this subject is perhaps a big enough one to hash out somewhat on the talk pages since it seems to pop continually by those with an agenda to smear. 63.196.193.80 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this kind of discussion is that it's very unlikely to result in a consensus. People from opposite ends of the world, and also people from the same city but with opposite political convictions, come here and must somehow get along. Surprisingly often they can find a compromise, but usually that's because of the trick of focusing on the article content and not trying to show each other the errors of one's ways. Oh, and one of the most important principles is never to explain with malice or an agenda what can be explained with stupidity or a completely different world view. See WP:AGF, the guideline that is supposed to lubricate Wikipedia. (I say "supposed to" because it's so often ignored.) --Hans Adler (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to play a part in Japanese Government, and I don't want to discuss whaling problem ("research", "HELLO" or something) in this talk page. If you want to discuss whether Japanese Government or Japan is terrorist or not, go to talk page of Japan. I know the existence of anti-whaling's opinions, and I can understand them even if I live in Japan. (Of course, I can understand anti-anti-whaling's opinion, too.) I'm just a wikipedian, I think you are too. If you really want to discuss whaling problems indetail with me, please send me a wikimail, IPUser-san. If my poor English made your angry, so very sorry. --9 hits (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 9 hits-san but I've no need for a private discussion. Understand that while I take exception to what Japan and the whalers are doing with regard to this issue, and with regard to other threatened and endangered species I do not include all Japanese in my disapproval. There are in fact many Japanese who are anti-whaling [9]. By the way your english is not that bad, nor does it make me angry. 4.246.202.82 (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Whaling problem
    I know the importance of protection of threatened and endangered species. But I think this problem is not a simple problem of the protection of them, including many problems (nationalism, taboo of eat, business, discrimination and so many speculations). I think both sides lose cool. I don't want to be rolled by these confusing problems now.
  2. SSCS
    But that SSCS is a terrorist (or an eco-terrorist) was an unquestionable sense for me. JPN govt are attacked by them every year. They ignore all JPN govt’s cautions even if it is just for safe. They just attack, attack and brag as if SSCS were a crusade to take Holy land from evils. Therefore JPN govt regards SSCS as fanatic terrorist. And almost JPN mass media supports the govt’s stance. And I (or we) believed so unquestionably. (Because we don’t accustom these extreme actions, SSCS’s attacks may stimulate our patriotic feeling.) I believed almost fair people around world think SSCS is terrorist group or (at least) pirate, even if they are anti-whaling. Like Greenpeace.
    Although I know any govt and any mass media are always one-way, and though I was just reading this page to know neutral opinions or facts, I believed it is a clearly common sense to regard them as terrorist. So I suggested it.
  3. My stance
    If you reject this suggestion with WP's reason, neutral view, cool and good conference, I will esteem the conclusion. I don't trust my own sense about SSCS, but I always trust you, if you are wikipedians.--9 hits (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)--M--9 hits (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying no to get into another big philosophical discussion here but I'll say this. In 1988 I've read, the IWC placed a moratorium of whaling. Since then more than 25,000 whales have been slaughtered, mostly by Japan. Not only harpooning whales which suffer a long tortuous death but also electrocuting them to death which is truly barbaric. People can justify anything. Whaling is justified by some as a Japanese tradition (though most Japanese rarely eat whale meat). Sometimes though it turns out that those traditions we grew up with are wrong and should be ended. Slavery and racism was one of those. It's roots go back thousands of years. The SSCS is trying to defend those which cannot defend themselves, and where the law cannot short of war, baby harp seals and whales are two of those. Somehow I suspect that if Godzilla was really attacking Japan the whalers would (justifiably) be all for destroying it. For some reason though some people think that if it's not human it has no inherent right to exist nor does it feel pain, family love etc. It's very convenient. This kind of thinking is driving many species over the edge into extinction. Peter Raven, past President of AAAS or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's premier science organization, has predicted the loss of "the majority of all species" by the end of this century based on current trends [10]. it's call the sixth extinction (the last one being that of the dinosaurs). It's time we realize that we are not the only species on the planet. Following are some links to short videos of whale hunts. [11][12]more here. 63.196.193.166 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew almost things as you said. They don't permit SSCS's terrorism to attack JPN. Then can I attack the solders of US to defense the people in Abu Ghurayb? If I attacked them, I would became a terrorist (or be killed soon.)
You said people justify. Yes I think so. How about you? Can you easily make a justice to attack JPN? I can make easily a justice to defense Foie gras or to prohibit meat, pigs, fish or turky or anything to keep spies.
I (or JPN) know the importance of keeping spices. i.e. We love tuna, but I and JPN agree the control of hunging them to keep them.
And it is not good to discuss whaling in this talk pages as you said firstly. Go and disscuss in talk pages of whaling or suitable pages, if you want.--9 hits (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9 hits-san, Sea Shepherd is not trying to attack Japan, just the whalers. The comparison to abu ghraib doesn't really hold up. It's true that Bush illegally held and tortured people there, however those against it did all in their power to stop the injustice while that administration held power. And abu ghraib, among many other issues, cost the Republicans dearly in this past election. Furthermore AFAIK the torture has ended and prison is to be shut down (using your analogy that would be synonymous with ending the whale hunt). Thus in this case public outcry is ensuring that justice is being done. Would that were true in the Southern Ocean Whale Sancturary. About the hypocrisy of eating meat by western countries, yes that exists. However you should know that the Sea Shepherd Society's "pirates" eat an all vegetarian diet. 4.246.204.215 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know SSCS are vegetarians. I feel their fairness about this, and some of their opinions are sympathized. But I cannot agree their extreme actions themselves and the justification. I have wanted to say only one thing.
You know many vandalists attack to WP or to some users every day. Some of them have reasonable opinions, and I sometimes sympathize their opinions. But we should defense from the action. All vandalists are vandalists even if they have any justice. You never distroy wikipedia to illustrate a point. And terrorists have their justice. Some of them are sympathized. But all terrorists are terrorists even if they have any justices for people, country, independence, philosophy, their God or whales.
If you say “Certainly their action is extreme, but not enough to call terrorism.” or “However It is difficult to use Category:Eco-terrorism because of WP: (something).”as other people wrote so, I would want to say "I see." I also have a pride for one of wikipedians. But I feel your opinions that their justice is right then their extreme actions are not terrorism to attack JPN govt. If so, I cannot understand the logic. --9 hits (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(additional) And if you are really a wikipedian, see not only SSCS's opinions, but also the other side's (JPN govt's) ones. (i.e.[13]) To keep neutral sense. (I usually take care of not believing all of one side.) --9 hits (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"All vandalists are vandalists even if they have any justice" "all terrorists are terrorists even if they have any justices for people, country, independence, philosophy..." Does this also apply to the whalers in your opinion? Are they also vandals and terrorists? I understand your viewpoint that directly obstructing the whalers is going too far (though I don't agree with it). You need to realize that the SSCS is doing this in support of international law not against it. It is Japan that is the scofflaw here. In this case there unfortunately does not appear to be any other choice for caring people. The IWC has ruled against whaling [14], yet that hasn't stopped it, Australia and New Zealand have demanded that it cease in, yet that hasn't stopped it, the vast percentage of public opinion is against it, repelled by the slaughter of these gentle giants (just as they are appalled by the slaughter of harp seal pups just so the rich can wear their fur), yet that hasn't stopped it. In spite of all of this it continues unabated at a rate of around 1,300 whales a year (by japan alone), again in an established whale sancturary. It's true that other nations also hunt whales yet Japan insists on doing it in the whale sancturary. The sancturary was supposed to be a safe haven, at least one place where the whales could go and be free from fear, hunting and harrassment to eat and breed and parent their young in peace. Yet no, they are not allowed even this area. So who's the real eco-terrorists here?

Many whale species are endangered. According to the IUCN 36% of all whale and dolphin species are threatened with extinction [15]. Notice this comment "Two other Orders with more than 100 species and a significantly higher than average level of threat are the Cetartiodactyla (whales and dolphins) and Diprotodontia" [16]. Yet Japan is fighting to resume commercial whaling and is using this "research" farce as an excuse to continue until that day. For example, they comtinue to hunt endangered fin whales and want to take threatened humpbacks as well.

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

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

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

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

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

Collision vs Ramming

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

You are right. If you look at all three videos you can tell that Watson deliberately steered to the left into the harpoon ship. There is NPOV and then there is avoiding the facts. Watson is known for lying and twisting facts yet what he claims is on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen the video, but it's not exactly news that the Sea Shepherd sometimes collides and even rams whaling ships in an attempt to stop illegal whaling. Sea Shepherd has no problem with admitting to ramming a whaling ship involved with illegal whaling, if we had in fact done so. We have always accepted responsibility for our actions[17]. The fact is that it's not with an intent to sink it while people are on board and as previously stated many times no whaler has been hurt. The ramming goes both ways by the way. 4.246.204.215 (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are refering to this video from February 6th? I watched it several times. I don't see the Sea Shepherd ramming the harpoon ship at all. The harpoon ship is in front of them. It's an accompanying Japanese ship which is trying to stop them that is coming from the right. At first it looks like the Sea Shepherd is turning into them but if you watch to the end, specifically from the 56th second on you will see that the ship that the Sea Shepherd collided with is now much closer to and now almost parallel with the harpoon ship. In other words, they intentionally cut across the Sea Shepherd's path to stop them getting close to the harpoon ship and that's what caused the collision. Is there some other video I'm missing? 4.246.204.215 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just watched another video of the same incident from a Japanese camera. At first watch it looks like the Sea Shepherd is steering into the other ship (maybe it is another whaling ship). But what it looks like was a unified effort by both of the Japanese ships to vere suddenly to the left at the same time. I say that chiefly because if you look at the ocean horizon, just above the water, on the right side you will see a dark blob which may be clouds. Watch them and you will see them disappear out of sight simultaneous to the "ramming". It's clear that the Japanese ships are turning left, which for the ship closest to Sea Shepherd would be directly in front of her. Also the path of the water cannon also moves as I imagine it would if the ship were suddenly turning left. I wasn't there so I can't say definitively but it looks to me like an attempt to frame the Sea Shepherd by making a quick move before she could respond. The other video above seems to corroborate that. 4.246.204.215 (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the first video: The prop wash off the rudder of the Japanese ship in front goes straight back. Doesn't look like it's turning. Second, the comments by the crew, just as the "collision" becomes apparent it's going to happen: "Careful if you don't have your helmets on, eh? Hang on... Ok, here we go..." All in a flat, prepared voices. Not "Oh my god, they're turning into us! We're going to collide! Everyone watch out!" I'm sure that if the 20 previous seconds had been included in the video it would make Watson's intentions even clearer.
From the second video: I think the "blob" clouds you refer to on the right disappear because... the camera pans left. You can tell because you can read the word "RESEARCH" on the Japanese ship by the left edge. When your blob disappears, more of the left side is visible. Also, it would be difficult for two ships to perfectly time their turn as you suggest. Also, you can tell by the side wake of the vessel.
As much as I'd like to admire Sea Shephard's dedication to a worthy cause, as a professional mariner it's hard to watch video like this and read comments from non-mariners who casually dismiss Sea Shephard's dangerous tactics. Sea Shepherd calls their ships "yachts" to evade international satefy standards and then violates the rules of the road by interfering with the Japanese ships, endangering everyone involved. POV editing with a mission to defend the group's actions weakens the credibility of Wikipedia. ~PescoSo say•we all 15:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's certainly subject to interpretation. We're both second guessing here but I would think that had the Steve Irwin been planning and expecting to ram the other ship we would not have heard that voice telling people onboard to be careful if they don't have their helmets on. They would have been all been prepared beforehand. The camera angle from the Japanese ship seems to be going to a pulling back kind of wide angle like which could explain the larger view. Yet still the clouds disappear. And rudder trail does look to me like the ship was turning left. It maybe though that while the collided ship was going left that Sea Shepherd was turning right. It's hard to tell. A mutual collision. But what is evident from the first video is that the collided with ship is much closer to the other whaling ship at the end of the video so that it does indeed look like it was trying to cut off the Sea Shepherd. And the first ten seconds of that video definitely show the whaler turning left (though that may be from an earlier time). Apparently there is some issue with the legality of the other ship passing that close.
I note the Sea Shepherd's comments on the situation, "The Steve Irwin collided with two whaling ships when they illegally passed the Steve Irwin and created the conditions for the collisions" [18]. Captain Paul Watson's comments from the article say that he believed that the other ship cut in front of him. "We were in the process of blocking the transfer from the Yushin Maru 2 when the Yushin Maru 1 moved directly in front of the bow to block us. I could not turn to starboard without hitting the Yushin Maru 1. I tried to back down but the movement of the Yushin Maru 2 made the collision unavoidable." Additionally the Japanese are using sonic blasts which SSCS says is also illegal and which Watson says "I was dazed by the sonic blasts being used on us at close range." said Captain Watson. "I have to admit it was difficult to concentrate with that devise being focused on us" "I've never felt anything quite like it," said Emily Hunter from Toronto, Canada. "It penetrates the body and you can feel your muscles vibrating. It made me dizzy and left me somewhat dazed." [19]
In any case we all know that the situation is heated and rather touch and go. The fact is that if Japan respected international whaling laws, Australian territory and the whale sancturary and stopped whaling as the IWC has been urging all these many years NONE of this would be happening. Note these comments "I wish we did not have to be down here in this dangerous situation," said Captain Watson. I've said repeatedly that if Australia or New Zealand would agree to take Japan to the international court on this than we would back off. Because international law is not being enforced, we have no choice but to do what we can with the resources available to us to defend these endangered whales in this established international whale sanctuary." 63.196.193.54 (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting Pictures to the Story

Very sad. [20][21][22][23].

An endangered fin whale caught[24].

What whales should be doing [25].

Harp seals slaughtered [26][27][28]Truly a sad picture [29]

What the pups should be doing [30][31]

The capacity for human cruelty makes us not much more than intelligent chimpanzees. No wonder that the world's is in the shape that it's in. 4.246.207.154 (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Advice) Not only whales' lives, but all lives are noble. I sympathize with you holding them dear. It's absolutely free to think whaling is cruel. But all your behaviors are not absolutely free. For example, the SSCS's extreme actions are blamed by also Australian govt and all IWC members? A silly friend is greater plague than a wise enemy. You should become a wise enemy of whaling, if you are anti-whaling.
(Comment) Wikipedia is not a SNS site, but an encyclopedia. We should always behave for improving this encyclopedia. Smart you should not campaign something in talk pages without WP's purpose. (See also WP:TALK, WP:NOT) If you blame JPN govt, you should do in your web page, send an e-mail to JPN govt, or support some reasonable anti-whaling groups with wise means.
If you really wanted to support improving this encyclopedia, discuss this issue in Talk:Whaling or Talk:Whaling in Japan. And control your own emotional expressions not to lead our purpose, even if you consider the person in argument as a cruel whaler or a chimpanzee. At least, these putting pictures are not useful for this page at now. I think you will be able to use suitable ones for Whaling in Japan with reasonable sources and reasonable preparations.
--9 hits (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments 9 hits-san but you will note that my few comments above are on the talk page - not included in the article. Your comments in response are more volumnous but I won't tell you how you may or may not comment. That's your business. As long as it's not over the top and is on topic such comments are common on Wikipedia. They get people thinking. Also, while you may not think the pictures are useful I do (note: I have added a few pictures). 63.196.193.94 (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say you can use these pictures for suitable pages with WP:RS. At now, few sources, not suitable. My business is just improve this page or WP. I think you want to talk about whaling (not about SSCS). here is not suitable. (Terrillja-san, you can remove my comments with this sentense.) --9 hits (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Bans Baby Seal Hunting

"'The bloody sight of the hunting of seals, the slaughter of these defenseless animals, which you cannot even call a real hunt, is banned in our country, just as well as in most developed countries, and this is a serious step to protect the biodiversity of the Russian Federation,' Minister Yuri Trutnev said in a statement.... According to the state-run newspaper Rossisskaya Gazeta, Putin told a Cabinet meeting Feb. 26 he considered seal hunting a 'bloody industry and it's clear that it should have been banned long ago.'" [32].

Would that the rest of the so-called civilized western world would follow suit. 63.196.193.94 (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user Terrillja has deleted my comments above. Please do not do so. See Wikipedia Behavior that is unacceptable. Quote: "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission." My comments are on topic and therefore valid. You do not have the right to remove them just because you don't agree with them! 63.196.193.94 (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox. If you wish to express your views on whaling/sealing, animal rights, that's fine, but talkpages are intended for on topic discussion about the subject of the article. This article is about Sea Shepherd, not whaling in general.--Terrillja talk 05:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society&oldid=278279633"