Talk:Paul Watson/Archive 1

Old comments
As written, this article has a strong anti-Watson slant throughout the entire article. I would do an NPOV rewrite myself (as I did for the Paul R. Ehrlich entry, which also had a strong anti-Ehrlich slant before the rewrite) except I don't know enough about Watson or enough biographical info to do a good article. This article definitely needs some attention. Kaibabsquirrel 15:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Since no one is disputing this article's contents, I'm going to change the tag from NPOV, which is used for disputes, to "Biased", which is used for articles where there is no active dispute. Regardless of the tag, it does need work. -Willmcw 06:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I did a complete rewrite today and removed the tag. Kaibabsquirrel 01:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, much improved. The only significant thing that I notice missing is an account of the Makah whaling matter. Watson got a lot press coverage over it and even still the pro-Makah webpages are among the top Google hits for Watson. It probably deserves a paragraph. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:37, May 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought of that but wasn't sure whether it should go here or in the Sea Shepherd article. Kaibabsquirrel 21:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Either one. I note that you, citing duplication,  deleted a reference to the Norwegian conviction which said he served jail time. Now references in both articles imply that he did not. Is that correct?  Cheers, -Willmcw 22:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Best I have been able to find out, Norway sentenced him to 120 days in absentia, Dutch authorities at first detained him because of the Norway sentence but then refused to extradite him. So he never served any of the sentence.  He did spend 60 or so days in detention in the Netherlands before being released.  Relevant articles:    Kaibabsquirrel 22:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could add that as well. If the time was only a detention while extradition was being considered, then it would be helpful to have that stated. Watson himself mentions his jail time with pride, so some mention should be in the bio. Thanks for the research. -Willmcw 22:52, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

On the 1998 Makah whaling issue this sentence does not make historical sense: "anarchists associated with Indymedia supported the whaling." The first Indymedia centre was not established till the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999. Therefore the description is inaccurate. Does it mean "anarchists who would later become associated with Indymedia?" --Takver 06:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Now it just says '...and anarchists supported the whaling' which makes it sound like all anarchists. Could this be made a bit more specific by adding something like 'anarchists who would later become associated with Indymedia'? I don't know anything about the groups so I hope someone else can make it more accurate. 81.109.115.135 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

marriages
A question came up on Sea Shepherd and I noticed that neither of Watson's wives are mentioned here. That's a significant oversight, as at least one has gained media and legal attention for her activities. -Willmcw 00:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Presence at Wounded Knee contested
I have removed this sentence and the note by Paul Watson as the information in the note provides more than enough evidence of his participation at Wounded Knee.--Takver 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "but his presence there is contested by a number of Native American participants who write of his claims as further grandstanding."

Note added by Paul Watson


 * (3) During the summer of 1999, there was much discussion on Native American internet chat sites that Paul Watson did not participate in the occupation of Wounded Knee. Evidence that he was a participant at Wounded Knee in March 1993 can be found in reports filed to and published in the Vancouver Sun newspaper. Specifically these reports were published on March 14, 1973 and March 23 1973 by Robert Hunter. The reports were filed from Paul Watson to Vancouver Sun Columnist Robert Hunter during March and April 1973. Both Paul Watson and David Garrick (who was also a participant in the occupation) wrote and published accounts of their experience at Wounded Knee in the Vancouver weekly newspaper the Georgia Straight.
 * In the book – Voices from Wounded Knee 1973, published by Akwesasne Notes. This was a publication by the Mohawk Nation in Rooseveltown, New York. © 1974. ISBN 0-914838-01-6. Library of Congress Catalog Number 74-82402.
 * The author is pictured on page 65. 2nd person from bottom left of the picture: wearing a Cowichan woolen sweater, seated with chin resting on right hand. The author is also pictured on page 76. Upper right corner of picture: Last person in row of people marching. Wearing Cowichan sweater and hat. Page 201 Center rear of picture. Wearing Cowichan hat, appears between a woman in a long coat and man with cowboy hat. Page 245 – David Garrick appears (1st person on left, standing with walking stick.)

Paul Watson

"Animal protest industry"
This appears to me to be a neologism created by the editor. Is there any source to call him a member of this so-called industry? As it appears to be unsourced derogatory information it may be reverted on sight. -Will Beback · † · 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes section
The section needs references... I've removed it per WP:BLP pending actual sourcing being provided.--Isotope23 21:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Quality of references
Should we care for a quality of references and whether the referenced source is trustworthy? I'm new to Wikipedia, but I hope so. In this case the reference labeled [4] that goes after saying Paul Watson is an eco-terrorist should be removed or changed for a more credible source. Ollyn 08:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That reference is to a site belonging to Center for Consumer Freedom, which is a lobby group for a variety of businesses. It is appropriate to include their viewpoint, but it'd be best if the source were clearly labelled. Another point is that they don't actually use the term "ecoterrorist". They do use similar terms. It'd be better to get the quote right. -Will Beback · † · 19:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know that activist cash is CCF's resource. (By the way, it reads Paul Watson is an environmental terrorist, which is just another wording of eco-terrorist.) That's what I see to be the reason why the reference should be changed. CCF happens to be anti-environmental. Quoting them on any environmental issue in negative light may be biased. I suggest to either find a more credible source to refer to (but I doubt one would find such a source with labeling Paul Watson as an eco-terrorist), or change wording to one saying that Paul Watson is called an eco-terrorist only by organizations (or their lobbies) that he opposes to, with an appropriate reference to such organizations. If it's ok with you, I will work it out. Ollyn 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Avon Ladies?
The source referenced for the Avon Ladies quote doesn't mention that line. Does anyone have another reference? Greenman 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps his most famous line, and is often repeated. He corrects a quotation of it here: . He quotes himself to a National Geographic writer here:  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Captain's license
Anyone know where he has his captain's license from? Or if he actually has one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.168.80.162 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A Gray whale or Sperm whale?
I was reading Peter Heller's Whale Warriors (2007), and I noticed a quote of Watson's he writes about seemed strange. In this quote Watson says that in June 1975, he and Robert Hunter were confronting Soviet whalers off the coast of Siberia. Here they were hunting gray whales. A big, dying male gray whale surfaces near Watson's zodiac, and in this whale's eye he sees "understanding." He said that moment changed his life forever. He also says this was the first time they used zodiacs to get in front of the Soviet harpoon guns. Now, on here and on Watson's website it says this encounter occurred (in the same month mind you) off California, and involved sperm whales. Perhaps this little tidbit should be included here? Anyone agree? Jonas Poole (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, maybe he just forgot over time. There's no reason to assume the story is false, or to assume he's lying about his inspiration for his work. It seems like you're just finding things to "prove him wrong" as if forgetting a whale type implies that his entire political reasoning is wrong. - Anonymous, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.68.230 (talk)

There's a big difference between a gray whale (a baleen whale) and a sperm whale (a toothed whale), as well as Siberia and California. I don't think he forgot what happened, seeing as how he clearly made both stories up. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism
To be honest, I don't think Paul Watson is a terrorist. He was, however, accused of being a terrorist by a government official today, and (to my surprise) he meets the criteria laid out in Category:Terrorists. Anyone have an opinion on this? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

His cat should be obvious: Ecofascist. --tickle me 17:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

He is obviously a terrorist as is everyone that is on his ships and those that fund the Sea Shepherd Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Williams has made no subsequent comments (that I can see) calling Mr. Watson a terrorist and has taken no action to have him officially listed as a terrorist; he has not called for Mr. Watson's extradition form the USA and arrest in Canada. In fact the reasons for calling him a terrorist seem to be down to Watsons comments rather than actions. Given that I see Williams comments as opportunistic to get himself in the papers during the Seal hunt. By all means leave the comments but its also fair to add that Mr. Williams has made no effort to formally list Mr. Watson as a terrorist or have him arrested on terrorism charges. --Albert.white (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Watson is not a terrorist...not even close. He has not been charged with terrorist activities, can fly commercially, has never been convicted of a crime or even sued. Sea Shephered specifically does not attempt to injure anyone in its operations, and most importantly does not pretend it will. He meets no logical defeinition of terrorist that I can see... --Sonofkenny (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Assassination" attempt
Who keeps deleting the ballistic information in this section? It is a fact that a rifle bullet would easily go through the soft body armor he had, when he was claimed to of been shot. A pistol would never be that accurate on the high seas, so that is ruled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do. The specific vest that he was waring is unknown, the caliber of the bullet is unknown, the distance is unknown, the ballistic effect of the badge he was wearing is unknown... Unless we can get some more info, then it is unsourced and it should not be there. --Terrillja (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It can easily be known. He claims to have the vest. He just has to show it. The "badge" will not stop any round. it is immaterial in the case. The distance is also known...he claims it was from the japanese ship. Next. It is impossible to score a hit like that on rolling seas, on a crowded deck, from a distance. Everything points to him LIEING. If you really wants to be shot at, he should go up against the Scandinavians, or Koreans. Ballistics are a pretty simple thing. Soft armor will not stop any rifle round. So it easily points away from his story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * everyone gets luckey, and anything is ossible. especaially if they had a trained sniper.that, and it's been proven(by mythbusters) that bages CAN stop bullets. and the bage was along with the vest, so it's even more protective. also, on the video the japense release, there are sevral grenades thrown, then suddenly a slightly louder and sharper sound. it wasn't the best quality of video, but it sounded like a bullet to me.

Actually if you look at the body armor page here on Wiki, you will see that even the lowest end body armor is designed to stop rifle rounds. Plus, you have no way of knowing how many grains were in the round. As for the "impossible shot", you cannot say conclusively that a marksman didn't fire 5 shots prior to that which missed completely. "Impossible" is fairly presumptuous. Just because YOU can't make the shot doesn't mean NO one can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.150.115 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, soft body armor WILL NOT STOP RIFLE ROUNDS. Even in the video when they dig out the "bullet" you can see it isnt real. Then wen they show him holding it, you can plainly see it is totally different. There has been zero proof he was shot, and zero proof that the japanese even had guns. All those cameras and nothing captured? BS

Watson's claim is bullshit of course but there are no sources which state that. Hence we cannot refute it in the article. -- Nevard 03:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So I just watched the final episode of whale wars and I have to say the alleged shooting should stay just that, alleged. Here is why. First, the vest he was wearing was a level 2 or 3 vest. Sure it would stop most common handgun rounds, but absent was the massive bruise that comes with being shot while wearing a vest. Next, the claim of three trauma plates does not hold. He was clearly seen flexing the vest. Three steel plates together will not flex, additionally where he shows being shot is outside the area a trauma plate normally protects. If he were shot with a true rifle round, like a .223 or 7.63mm this article would have a section on his death as true rifle round would have gone right though him and that $400 vest he was wearing. Low end Kevlar vests will not stop rifle rounds. Check out the specs of vests on galls.com. The whole incident is suspect and should be clearly noted as alleged. Last, being a avid shooter I can tell you, I have never seen a bullet mushroom like the one he showed. The one shown looked much more like small concave bowl and not a clear mushroom shape as it should have if it were stopped by the vest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.69.73 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Watson is a consummate media figure who is not known for his veracity. "Alleged" is as much as can be claimed in the absence of forensic verification. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * sadly, no one will test the bullet for him.


 * My take on the "shooting": Possible but not real plausible. I've spent a bit of time on this topic cleaning character assassination attacks on Watson (and I don't like the guy - I think he's a fascist), but I think the shooting is just a bit "convenient" and a tad on the hokey side. The guy on the bridge says he's looking to see if they pick up a gun, and then Watson is "shot." Smells like one of their stink bombs. Now, on the other side of the coin, the idea that a man is "thrown backwards" when shot is Hollywood, not reality. A small caliber bullet does not have enough mass to send a big man reeling just from the impact. Many, many people have been shot and not even known it until later. (If you have ever seen anyone shot and killed, they don't go flying like in a John Wayne movie. They simply drop dead.) Also in Watson's favor on this claim: They didn't know the Japanese would resort to violence, yet the "fake" scenario has Watson creating (while tailed by camera men and in mere minutes while in pursuit of the Japanese) false evidence and an elaborate plot to fake a shooting. But like I said, my OPINION is that the whole thing stinks. I don't know how he did it, but somehow, I think he "manufactured" the shooting. If I am proven wrong, I will apologize to him. But that's what I think. He is a media junkie and would, I have no doubt, lie, cheat, steal, and manufacture a fake shooting if it helped stop whaling. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * fasist? HE FIGHTS TO SAVE WHALES, not take over a country. hes not going around saying"kill the japs" hes saying, protect endagerd animals. and, WHALES ARE SENTIENT. that should mean somthing. they can think, and have feelings to an extent.

I had edited in some info but someone removed it for not having sources cited. To be honest I'm sure that this "shooting" is complete BS. What would a good source for body armor info be? It needs to be something that clearly shows his soft armor wouldn't have stopped a rifle bullet. their claim of "trauma plates duct taped together" isn't supported by anything to boot. there's nothing on the video that shows any evidence of that. i think that in order to inform the reader properly, something needs to be added stating something like: "It should be noted that the armor Watson was wearing was not rated to stop full-power rifle rounds as would likely be used in any assassination attempt, and there is no video evidence of trauma plates, nor a plate carrier." your average joe who reads that section is going to see "oh, his body armor must have saved his life", it's misleading as is. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the claims of attempted assassination are not credible, perhaps they should be eliminated from the article? It appears they are at least disputed. That suggests they might reasonably be deleted. The section really adds nothing to the article anyway? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that both sides have different versions of what happened, and that trying to get an NPOV version is hard, since there was not an impartial 3rd party there. However, the event certainly is very notable, and the article would be lacking without it. -- Terrillja talk  22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the part should stay, both parties treated it as a big event. I also think that we're missing pertinent info there; as I said above your average reader wouldn't realize that the armor he was wearing would not have stopped a rifle round. perhaps even include a link to wikipedias own article on body armor? 76.25.115.99 (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have said above, the exact armor worn is not known, the caliber bullet is not known, and unless the Australian federal police release the armor, stating its ballistic capabilities is purely speculation. -- Terrillja talk  15:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to patronize you, but you don't seem to understand body armor. There is no, repeat no soft body armor that is capable of stopping a rifle round. 'hard' body armor uses ceramic plates, which ARE capable of stopping rifle rounds. Military personnel use "hard" armor. Essentially, hard armor is a regular soft vest that has pouches you place "trauma plates" in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interceptor_with_side_SAPI.jpg is military body armor. two plates are inserted (front and back) and aren't flexible. There is no soft body armor that can stop a rifle round. In the video Watson himself is clearly shown flexing the vest, and there is no evidence of any ceramic plates nor the carrier required for them to be used. furthermore it is extremely unlikely that a rifle round would pass through a rifle plate, through an underlying Kevlar vest, but would be stopped by a badge only millimeters thick. as stated above, the video clearly shows no plate inserts, no plate carrier, and Watson is clearly shown flexing the vest. there is NO soft body armor that can stop a rifle round. there needs to be some kind of information about the body armor thing. about the caliber used, there's no way in hell that shot was made with a pistol (assuming that it was made at all). in the also-extremely-unlikely event that he was shot with a submachine gun, the armor he was wearing would not stop a round from one. "SMGs" use rounds that are loaded much "hotter" than rounds designed for pistols. For a more thorough writeup go look up +P, and +P+ loaded rounds. Based upon the appearance of the vest (just a bare kevlar vest, i.e. a cheap one) I'm almost certain that his vest was rated for rounds out of a pistol, not the higher velocity ones from a subgun. the only real possibility is that a rifle was used. His vest wouldn't have stopped a rifle round. The subgun rounds thing is too complicated to put in the article, but my earlier suggestion stands. I would be happy with something saying "it should be noted that watsons vest was not rated to stop a round from a rifle, as would likely have been used in any assassination attempt". Unless his own crew shot him (hey, I wouldn't blame them) a rifle was used. And also it should be noticed that there were no gunshots on the Japanese tape nor any on the sea shepherd's. It would be a loud distinct blast, and it would sound different than the flashbangs being used. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a plausible argument. Do you suppose there is anything in manufacturer's specs saying what kind of round would be stopped by a flexible kevlar vest? Would seem to be a credible source. How many manufacturers can there be? Any online specs? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Body armor is categorized into a "Class" system, from Class I (soft armor, very low power rounds, in the range of a .22lr) to Class IV (hard armor, rated to stop up to an armor-piercing .30-06 round) there's a pretty thorough writeup here. http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml from the info there it looks like the class system is a standard set by the National institute of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/ however their site seems to be down so I can't look at the info. Whenever it comes back up I'll see what is on there and if it will be enough to include a satisfactory amount of sourced/cited info for the topic. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The nij website came back up, they have a .pdf about Body Armor and the standards are indeed set by them- http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/223054.pdf the ratings are in Section 2. Note that it says "Type III (Rifles) Type III hard armor or plate inserts". I'll work on putting this in the article properly. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how adamant and repetitious you can be, Mr. 76.25.115.99 in Littleton, Colorado, without getting it. You keep banging on about how "soft body armor can't stop a rifle round", and thus Watson must be perpetrating a hoax. There are at least 3 things wrong with your claim (beyond the fact that you're implicating the ship's physician in the "hoax"). First, Watson clearly states that he wore soft body armor AND a metal plate, which stopped the bullet; not a Kevlar vest alone. Second, you have no idea what the gun or round were. A .22 LR round fired from a rifle would easily be stopped by a Kevlar vest, much less a metal plate as well. A larger caliber but low velocity hollow-tip round, such as a Remington .223 or 5.56 NATO round (which is probably what the Japanese Coast Guardsmen on board were packing) would be very unlikely to pierce a Kevlar vest from much distance. Third, if the bullet approached the vest obliquely, more of its energy would've been shedded. If it passed through another layer of some material (i.e., a sheet of window acrylic or stretched canvas, or if it glanced off of a steel wall, that too would sap a lot of energy. So you've taken a set of assumptions and used it to prove...well, nothing, really.  And if you expect to have any credibility here, sign in . IP addresses don't lend much weight to your claims.Bricology (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry my good man. But firstly, The Japanese would not be "packing" hollow points. The rest of your post is just utter nonsense. Watson faked it, the proof is in the video. Your hero is a liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh man look at how wrong you are. Let's address your arguments in order. Rifle plates are designed to be used with a carrier, not "duct-taped together" as the Sea Shepherds claimed. They're also designed with human wearers in mind, they're designed to be placed against something compressible, i.e. a human. As I said above, they're placed in a "pocket" in a vest designed to hold them. The only body armor shown on the video is a vest made out of what appears to be bare kevlar. More accurately, his vest is a $200 piece of shit. Next: The bullet Watson allegedly found in his vest, is, in my opinion, way too big to be a .22lr. The idea of a Japanese CG member using a .22 is laughable anyway and you admitted that in your post. Your claim that a 5.56 NATO hollowpoint may have been stopped by his vest is as totally wrong too. Low-velocity hollowpoint rounds being used is even less plausible. Hollowpoint rounds are by and large designed to kill living things. Nobody loads a hollowpoint that is intended to be used on a living thing to a low velocity. 99.9% of the time they are loaded hot, with very few exceptions. Even IF they used a low-velocity 5.56 hp, his vest STILL wouldn't stop it. A "low velocity" 5.56 is still going at a goddamned high velocity, and Watson's vest was a Level II at best and even that is a stretch. Level II is rated to stop a 9mm at 1,175 FPS. A low-velocity 5.56 is going to be in the 2500 FPS range and that means Watson is toast in our little hypothetical.
 * Lastly, Watson was out on the deck of his ship, facing the Japanese ship. He stated that he felt something hit him in the chest from the front. The video shows them digging the "bullet" out of the vest and you can plainly see that it didn't skim across his vest or enter at an extreme angle. The boats weren't far away from each other at all, certainly not enough for a .223 or 5.56 round to lose any significant amount of energy. Also, I don't really bother to login to wikipedia because it's a hassle, but because you're whining about it I've done it for you. Anyway, you basically read my argument, did a google on "paul watson assassination attempt" and found this:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x137921 where a complete moron tries to support Watson's hoax. Admittedly his post is pretty convincing, but he gives himself away as an idiot when he starts in with the "dumb-dumb" (also known as a softpoint) stuff. I can list off all the things he's wrong about but this post is long enough already. If you're going to come in here calling me names and putting forth terrible arguments, at least come up with the arguments yourself :) R.westermeyer (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The video the SSCS and the photos they take put them in their own grave. When they dig it out, you can clearly see that it is a large object. This is shown both in the video, and when he shows it with his cereal box badge. Then in another picture, he shows a small piece of compressed lead...that is lacking a jacket, and rifling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is he the only one on the boat wearig a vest? Either this incident is total BS or he cares nothing for the crew he puts in the small boats.  Choose your position.  Either the incident is fake or his compasion for his crew is fake.
 * This is not a forum for general discussion of personal opinions. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. I agree that it is BS but for the purpose of this project we need to go off verifiable sources. Please include it if you find such an argument from a reliable source. Please also check out the related pages if you are interested in adding information about the subject that is neuteral and per any available sources.Cptnono (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that as if it can’t be both. Anyway, there isn’t really a place on Wikipedia for this sort of discussion. Articles are for verifiable facts, and talkpages are for discussions on how to improve articles (not for discussing the actual subjects). — NRen2k5 (TALK), 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

the bullet was fired from sevral hundred feet away. there are cazy winds down there. this means the bullet lost alot of force behind it on the way t his chest. then, in addition to his vest, it hit a badge, furtherdecreaing the amount of damadge it could do. then there was the vest itself. now, the mythbusters tested a myth with a highpower bullet hitting a bage from not very far away. the bagde stopped it, and it would have caused minimul harm. that, on top of the vest paul was wearing means there would be barly any damadge. and how everyone points out theres not even a bruise? the video of the wound was not even 2 or 3 minutes after he was hit. theres just not enogh time for a bruise to emerdge. when you hit you knee on a door, theres not a bruise for a good 7-10 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Greenpeace
Watson was not expelled from Greenpeace, he was removed from the Board of Directors and subsequently resigned.

See interview with Watson here...

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2008/12/25/sticking-it-to-the-man-21st-century-styl

--Sonofkenny (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the New York Times, in his book "Earthforce!" Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, "as Ronald Reagan did."
 * See: Militants sink two of Iceland's Whaling Vessels. New York Times, November 10, 1986.


 * According to Greenpeace, Watson was expelled from the leadership of Greenpeace in 1977 by a vote of 11 to one (only Watson himself voted against it).
 * See: Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace: some facts.

Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wife

 * A report about this matter has been filed at the edit warring noticeboard. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the information about his wife from the lead, as it's not appropriate there. I was going to re-add it to the personal life section, but on checking the source, that's all it says &mdash; there's no context, no other information about whether she was charged or convicted. Given it's a living person, and the source is several years old, we need more information about what happened subsequently before we can add it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The newspaper account removed by Slim said Allison pled guilty to a charge, as was stated in the material removed from the article. In US courts, a guilty plea is the same as a conviction. Please put the edit back as it was. It is accurate, timely, relevant, and from a reliable source. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a biography? Aren't family connections like parents and spouses usually in the lead? The story is factually correct--she was arrested. Arrest does not depend on conviction, and arrests are on the public record. It should stay in, and you should add to it if and when you find additional information. The source is verifiable and reliable. It is not appropriate to just delete things you don't like which are verifiable. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Connections like the name of their spouse should be mentioned in the lead or the infobox, but putting a whole bunch about the spouse and their activities should not be there. The article is about the person whose name is the title. Keep it on point. Looking at the cited article, it is an interview with the former president of the Sierra Club, who lost the election to a candidate Watson supported. The fact that the interview starts with the question of "INTELLIGENCE REPORT: What was your first personal contact with anti-immigration activists interested in the Sierra Club?" shows that the interview was strongly biased from the start. If you want to add the bit about his wife being arrested, then create another section about his wife, or better yet, create another article, and find a reliable, unbiased source to use as a ref. -- Terrillja talk  05:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, just to keep you happy Slim, and you also Terrillja, I put revised text in the "personal life" section with information about Watson's first wife and child contributed by somebody else, and provided two separate news sources for the story, which includes a guilty plea for contempt of court. It is as relevant there as Watson's vegan eating habits. Sea Shepherd played this story pretty big for awhile on its website, but I guess it is sometimes disappointing to find one's childhood heros have feet of clay. Have a nice day. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were done with this nonsense. As this has come back again, I removed the text, because it places undue weight on her actions, and the article isn't even about her. Mentioning the fact that she is also an activist is enough, if you want to write a bio about her, then create another article. Try to keep it on point. Keep in mind who this article is about.-- Terrillja talk  04:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be YOUR personal opinion, nothing more. The material IS relevant to Watson's life and his personal interests, even if you don't think it is seemly to include it here. Watson would probably agree with me on this, not you. The same dedication to activism to the same cause seems to motivate both their lives, possibly helping explain their relationship. Previously the material was in a section near the end of the article but somebody (you?) moved it up to where is now. It was better at the end, and is not WP:UNDUE there. It is only two sentences. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Terrillja on this. This article is not about Watson's wife. It is about him. Why is there a need to go into detail about one incident that involved only her? What does this incident have to do with Watson? This is not about personal opinions (and if it is, then your own personal opinions are simply clashing with Terrillja's and mine). This is about keeping the article focused. A mentioning of his wife's activism is obviously worth putting into the article. But what you have been trying to add puts the article off-topic. In addition, I was the one who moved the sections around. A single sentence did not warrant its own section. Thus, the sentence was moved to the top and the section deleted. I also advise you, Mervyn Emrys, to read the civility policy. The comments you have been making in your edit summaries are becoming entirely too sarcastic for even my tastes (e.g., "Are you revert warring here? Or exercising personal preferences for friend Paul?"). Have a great day. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  17:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wife has her own article now. All info on her can be added there now. This should take care of any issues with staying on point. -- Terrillja talk  05:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Terrillja, thank you for creating the article. I see your reasoning for creating it (I've noticed what happened over the weekend on the talk pages and the page history), but I am not sure that it would meet the notability guidelines. I would like yours and Mervyn Emrys' opinion on this. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  17:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in his wife other than in how his marraige to her reflects his interests in animal rights and in the civil disobedience tactics they both appear to espouse. Neither appears to have any respect for the law. I doubt she meets the notability guidelines. Therefore, insisting that this small bit of information about her be put in a different article is disingenuous at the least. It is tantamount to deleting relevant, sourced information about WATSON. He is the focus here, and his spouses criminal activities are certainly relevant to his credibility. Did she act without his knowledge? Possible, but unlikely, given their shared interests and shared tactics. If you want to write about HER, by all means do so. Not my interest, and I'm not here to take marching orders from you about what I edit.
 * I've shortened the text about her her to de-emphasize the details and I suggest it now meets earlier suggestions by Terrillja. Have a nice day.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mervyn Emrys: I do agree that the short bit of information does not warrant its own article. However, I will continue to disagree in that adding all the details on the charges that were brought upon Allison are not warranted in the Paul Watson article. His marriage to her does not necessarily reflect his interests in environmental conservation and vice versa. Unless you have a source in which he states this, it is considered original research. Nor can we assume that her actions in this incident were talked about with Paul or not. Again, original research.


 * Perhaps writing something along the lines of "...Allison Lance Watson, a prominent animal rights activist, has also had run-ins with the law..." would suffice. (Just an example.) I'm not giving orders; no one is. But this has gone from ridiculous to more ridiculous. The details of one, single incident, that does not involve Paul should not be in the article. Plain and simple. Allison is not anyone's interest, it seems, nor should she be the focus in this article at all. So why is this such a big deal? This article will never reach GA status (which is what Terrillja and I both want; don't know about you) with all of this drama going on.
 * – Ms. Sarita  Confer  21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You must be kidding. This article GA? No chance. Look at the sources, most of which are Sea Shepherd website. Yeah, they can be used, but not for MOST of the information in an article. That would appear to be mere self-serving advertising. This areticle has far too few reliable sources and far too many disputed statements ever to achieve GA without a TOTAL rewrite with new sources. If you two keep reverting my edits, you are going to find yourselves on the edit warring notice board. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the main problem. There is no reason why this article could not reach GA status, but you seem to think otherwise. All we have to do is find sources to back up the Sea Shepherd sources. I have been working on that. I don't know about you. We are not the only ones reverting edits, so I don't know why you're pointing fingers. And I don't see how you can't realize that writing an entire paragraph about something that has nothing to do with Paul veers the article off-topic. Your hostility and refusal to compromise is most of the reason why this "edit war" is continuing. It's either your way or the highway and it's getting awfully annoying. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  01:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The appropriate way to accomplish your goal would seem to be to find those reliable sources first and add them BEFORE you start deleting other editor's contributions. Your assertion that what his wife does "has nothing to do with Paul" seems a bit far fetched (are you really on a first name basis with him?). And its not "an entire paragraph," its merely two sentences added to another sentence in an article that is how many paragraphs long? Try writing an article about Hillary Clinton without mentioning Bill. It may not matter to you, but that is merely your opinion, not good encyclopedia article writing. Please add something constructive before you delete the efforts of others. My efforts are done in good faith. How about yours, hmmnnn? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Mervyn Emrys: Please stop the unjustified sarcasm. The reason why I call Paul by his first name in this discussion is to differentiate which Watson we are speaking of (since there are two: Paul and Allison). It has nothing to do with being on a "first name basis" and you know it, so just stop. And how is that statement far-fetched? Did he have anything to do with Allison's actions in the incident in question? Was he directly involved in that incident? I never said that what Allison does has "nothing to do with Paul". I said that the incident that you keep incorporating into the article has nothing to do with Paul. Please do not attempt to twist my words.

The comparison of Bill and Hillary Clinton to Paul and Allison Watson is not an entirely good one. I don't believe I need to go into the details as to why. But, for example, look at the Angelina Jolie article. She and Brad Pitt (her domestic partner) are both extremely involved in humanitarian and charity work, just like Paul and Allison are both very involved in the environmental and animal rights movements. However, the Jolie article does not go into what humanitarian and charity events Pitt does by himself because it is an article about Jolie. Not Pitt. If Paul and Allison partook in this incident together, there would be no problem integrating the information into the article. But we have no source saying that Paul was directly involved in this specific incident. Therefore, it does not warrant being in the article in detail. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  06:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

2RR, going on three
The following text with reliable sources has been repeatedly deleted from this article in the past 24 hours by Terrilla and Ms. Sarita. It concerns the spouse of Paul Watson, like him an animal rights activist, like him with a history of civil disobedience. As his spouse, her actions are clearly relevant to his controversial biography, especially because they concern an area of activism they both share (animal rights, as stated in the article). His current spouse's problems with the law are at least as relevant to his biography as is the fact he has a child by his first wife, and actually more, as her activism is so closely related to his own political activism (whereas the existence of his child is not). This is only a small mention of his wife in a much longer article about Watson, so it does not violate WP:UNDUE. This editor has shortened the text considerably in an attempt to accomodate concerns of these two editors, but they unreasonably insist on deleting this relevant information, and appear unwilling to compromise. They seem unwilling to let the facts speak for themselves.


 * "His second wife Allison Lance Watson, like Watson a prominent animal rights activist, was arrested in January 2004 by FBI anti-terrorism agents for allegedly lying to a federal grand jury about loaning a rental truck to animal rights arsonists. ("Animal rights activist arrested in Seattle grand jury probe." Komo Staff and News Services, KomoNews.com, January 15, 2004.) After perjury charges were dropped in September 2004, she was called again to testify before a grand jury and refused, subsequently pleading guilty to misdemeanor contempt charges for failing to answer the grand jury’s questions. (Shukovsky, Paul. "No perjury charges vs. animal activist." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 9, 2004.)"

These editors have attempted to create a POV Fork out of this information, and have invited this editor to go edit something else, contrary to WP:Civility]] and other WP policies. It is time for this to stop, lest it turn into a full scale edit war. The information is relevant, sourced to reliable sources, and deserves inclusion in this article. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I never told you to "go edit something else", I said was "Wife has her own article now. All info on her can be added there now. This should take care of any issues with staying on point." and added a comment with "Allison has her own article, add content about her there". I never said go away or anything like that. I'd certainly welcome your help with citing some sources here. -- Terrillja talk  01:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Creating a new article for someone else to write just so you can move something there you don't like is not endorsed in Wiki policy. In fact, it is frowned upon. Not appreciated. It was pretty clear what you were suggesting. Not civil. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In case you missed it, from WP:Edit warring:
 * A content revert intentionally reverses changes made in good faith by another editor, rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute; it is not to be taken lightly.”
 * “Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. An edit war occurs when contributors, or groups of contributors, repeatedly revert each other's contributions...Edit warring is an unproductive, repeated, combative reversion of others' edits. Wikipedia holds that an open system can produce quality, neutral encyclopedic content. This requires reasoned negotiation, patience, and a strong community spirit, each of which is undercut by antisocial behavior like incivility and edit warring."
 * I have attempted to negotiate and accomodate concerns about material in this article in good faith. I'd like to see some of the same from others, please. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected this page for now while I examine the behaviour of editors here to see if any further action is required. Edits can be made by adding here, after a consensus on the change has been reached. Kevin (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that the article is quite a mess. I intend to remove everything that is tagged with, unless it is especially neutral. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you go back in the history, you will see Mervyn added fact tags to every single sentence after I disagreed with some of his earlier edits. Ms. Sarita and I have been going through and sourcing everything, but if you feel it would be better to remove it for now, I understand.-- Terrillja talk  02:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the bio is essentially a rewritten version of the official SSCS bio at, however we have left some things with the fact tags for now until we can get 3rd party sources, so the content here isn't completely pulled out of thin air.-- Terrillja talk  02:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it does appear to be a slightly rewritten version of the Sea Shepherd website, overly reliant on information provided by Paul Watson (or his employees and supporters), which makes it essentially a self-published article by Watson, one that is overly promotional and self-serving. It fails NPOV miserably, and may raise copyright infringement issues. A real encyclopedia article would not rely so heavily on autobiography. Is this kind of article appropriate for Wikipedia?
 * Moreover, Paul Watson says Paul Watson is NOT a reliable source: "According to the New York Times, in his book Earthforce! Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, 'as Ronald Reagan did.'" (Militants sink two of Iceland's Whaling Vessels. New York Times, November 10, 1986.)
 * As one can see from the New York Times reference quoted above and in the WP:Watson article itself, there are serious questions concerning the veracity of statements made by Watson, who has openly advocated lying to get his way, and in his own publications too. When is Watson a reliable source, and when is he not? It's impossible to tell, really. Consequently, relying heavily on information provided by Watson is highly problematic.
 * Incidentally, my fact tags were not stimulated by anybody elses edits, but by the near total lack of citations of any kind. Moreover, the factual accuracy of some information is disputed, as one can see from the discussions above. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

✅ - Adding citations to reliable sources seems uncontroversial enough to me. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Add reference to sentence "Watson was arrested in 1993 in Canada on charges stemming from actions against Cuban and Spanish fishing boats off the coast of Newfoundland."in Controversy section, paragraph 1

Reference:

Add reference to sentence "The authorities in Costa Rica later filed seven charges of attempted murder against Watson and a colleague, Rob Stewart, in what Watson and Stewart have described as an effort to cover up mafia-funded illegal shark finning operations." in Controversy section, paragraph 2

Reference:

Add reference to sentence "Watson himself defends his actions as falling within international law, in particular Sea Shepherd's right to enforce maritime regulations against illegal whalers and sealers." in Controversy section, paragraph 2

Reference:

Add reference to sentence "The group felt his strong, "front and center" personality and frequently voiced opposition to Greenpeace's interpretation of "nonviolence" were too divisive." in Expulsion from Greenpeace section, paragraph 4

Reference:

-- Terrillja talk  05:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll look through these tonight, hopefully they will reduce the number of uncited bits. Alternately, I could unprotect, so long as there is an agreement from all here to stop edit warring, on the lead paragraph particularly. Kevin (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be just as happy to have you add the refs until medCab is closed, or alternatively, I would be fine with you unprotecting for a couple of hours, so that I could add references and edit nothing else. I think all parties would be OK with the page being unprotected for a few hours if the only edits would be to add references. I think for all of us it would be better to leave this protected completely until the issues are figured out, unfortunately. -- Terrillja talk  05:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph under the "Other environmental activities" section can be referenced using (the second reference in the list). – Ms. Sarita  Confer  19:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence in paragraph 2 (which may need to be revised so that the reference can properly support it) of the "Other environmental activities" section ("Watson has claimed to have invented the tactic of tree spiking and denies that the practice has ever caused any fatalities or injuries."):

Mediation Request
I have looked over the request for mediation as well as the talk page for this article. I think that I have a good understanding of the nature of the dispute and would like to see it resolved, especially for an article that seems very close to being ready for Good Article status. At this time, my first questions are for User:Mervyn Emrys. Specifically, I would like two things answered: First, why do you feel that mention of the subject's second wife is important to the article, or how it affects the reader's overall impression of the subject? Second, what would you consider to be an acceptable outcome to this mediation? If it would help you to illustrate this, I would like you to make the desired edits to the article and place the finished product as you wish to see it in User:Trusilver/MediationSandbox.

To the other parties in the dispute, bear with me for a short time. Seeing that User:Mervyn Emrys is the only one that has not yet stated his position in the dispute, I would like to get his perspective before starting any discussion. Thank you. Trusilver 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Mervyn Emrys has made a long statement at User talk:Kevin that may be useful in gauging his position. Kevin (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kevin, if I would like to respond to Mervyn regarding his statement, do I have permission to do so at your talk page, or should I do it somewhere else? Thanks. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  23:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read over everyone's statements. Give me a couple days to familiarize myself with the subject in question. I have never heard of Paul Watson until this time yesterday, and it is going to take me quite a bit of reading to get up to speed. Thank you all for your patience. Trusilver 04:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you respond there, but it may split the discusssion into 2 places. Kevin (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, please try to keep the entire discussion here. It will really save on the confusion in the long-term. Trusilver  02:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you all on this. My presence has been down a little bit lately as I have been recovering from the flu. the one thing that I notice looking into this is that neither argument is exactly meritless. The part that I want to focus on is the suitability for inclusion when it comes to information relating to, but not necessarily including the subject of the article. I recently looked at and reverted an edit on Dr. Laura's article which was critical of the MySpace page content of the subject's son. The reason I removed this from the article is simple: The subject of an article is just that: the subject of the article. Any information added to the article must demonstrate a clear correlation to the subject. For example: If Mrs. Notable Person's husband gets caught dealing heroin out of the truck of his Ford Torino, that merits no place in Mrs. Notable Person's article. (This is Wikipedia, not TMZ.com. We aren't gossip whores) However, If Mrs. Notable Person's husband deals heroin out of the trunk of his Ford Torino, and then Mrs. Notable Person goes on the Today Show to defend her drug-dealing husband, then the clear correlation has been established and her actions have made it notable. Therefore, in order for the actions of Paul Watson's wife to be included in this article, they must be directly relevant to Paul Watson himself. I would like thoughts on this from all sides, who feels that this correlation does or does not exist and how is it demonstrated in a verifiable way? Trusilver 02:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mervyn that they are related in their activism, which should certainly be noted. As far as the charges against her, unless there is a source to say that Paul Watson actually was involved in the action which led to her charges, then it would be better to state something to the effect of she is an activist and has been charged for her activities. I agree with your example above, unless the subject was involved in the event, it should be on a blp of the person involved. We should however note her (occupation?), as it provides context to Paul Watson's life.-- Terrillja talk  03:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Mervyn that Paul Watson's and Allison Watson's similar interests should be mentioned (as I mentioned here and here). The only point that I was arguing is that going into detail about one particular incident that Allison was involved in is unwarranted in the Paul Watson article because we have no clue whether Paul was directly involved in said incident. The incident, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with Paul other than the fact that his wife partook in it. If we mention this one incident, why mention this one and not anything else about her that is related to activism? What makes this particular happening, that involves Allison, so special that it must be included in the Paul Watson article? In my opinion, a mere mentioning of her activism and her run-in(s) with the law should suffice. As you can see, Trusilver, I also agree with your example. I hope you are feeling better. Cheers. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  07:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is in effect Paul Watson. He makes that clear in his books Ocean Warrior and Earthforce! Allison Watson is more than merely Paul Watson’s wife; she is a major player in Sea Shepherd. A search of her name on the Sea Shepherd website produces 49 instances in which she is mentioned in news items about Sea Shepherd actions (most or all of them written by Paul Watson). In these news articles, Allison Watson is variously referred to as a “veteran crew member of the Sea Shepherd,” a “Sea Shepherd volunteer,” a “Sea Shepherd protester,” a “former Sea Shepherd Field Agent,” a member of “our support crew manning the phones at our headquarters” during a protest, a “staff member of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society,” a “Sea Shepherd activist,” and one of two “leaders of the Sea Shepherd Toxic Lunch Campaign” against the killing of dolphins in Japan. Only a few other persons are mentioned in these stories even once.


 * Clearly Allison Watson has long been a notable person in the activities of Paul Watson in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which made him notable.


 * Moreover, these articles reveal that Allison Watson had been arrested previously during Sea Shepherd actions, once in May 1999 during an action protesting whaling by the Makah tribe in the Pacific Northwest, and again in November 2003 when she spent 23 days in a Japanese jail for freeing a group of dolphins that were to be killed by Japanese fishermen. Paul Watson consistently defends these actions and portrays them as heroic. Another article describes Allison Watson as the founder of a new group with which Sea Shepherd partners to address the impact of exotic species on the Galapagos Islands: the Society (to) Prevent Exotic Contamination (of) Island Eco-Systems (and) Endangered Species or S.P.E.C.I.E.E.S.


 * Thus, the association between Paul Watson and Allison Watson is more than that of two spouses, but is “directly relevant to Paul Watson himself” and the activities in Sea Shepherd which made him notable.


 * After Allison Watson was arrested in Seattle, Paul Watson did not go on the Today Show to defend her, but did something much more public in attempting to reach a potentially much larger audience: he published two articles on the Internet that not only defended Allison Watson’s actions but went further and portrayed her as a victim of government persecution.


 * On September 11, 2003 a “news” article was posted on the Sea Shepherd website characterizing a Grand Jury investigating the firebombing of an Olympia forest-product company as a “witch hunt” or an illegal British “Star Chamber” tribunal. Allison was initially charged with four felony counts of perjury for allegedly lying in her testimony about whether an activist friend -- considered by the FBI to be a suspect in the May 2000 firebombing -- had used a truck Watson had rented. That is, the Grand Jury was not directly investigating Allison, but called her as a witness while investigating somebody with whom she was associated, and Sea Shepherd characterized the investigation as somehow improper. In that article, it was stated that “the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society stands solidly behind Allison Lance Watson...and we consider it outrageous that tactics devised for fighting terrorist groups like Al Queda are being used against American citizens who are championing the environment and animals.” (“Allison Lance-Watson Called Before the Star Chamber Once Again.” September 11, 2003.)


 * Clearly Sea Shepherd, and by implication its founder and leader Paul Watson, was defending Allison Watson’s refusal to testify before a legitimate Grand Jury investigation, suggesting it is somehow appropriate to oppose the legal establishment in this manner.


 * On the second occasion, on December 17, 2004 another “news” article was posted on the Sea Shepherd website which again portrayed Allison as the victim of government persecution. Allison Watson pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor contempt of court charge after refusing to answer questions from a Federal Grand Jury about people she knows in the animal rights movement, who may have connections to either the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) or the Environmental Liberation Front (ELF), two groups classified as domestic terrorist organizations by the FBI. She was sentenced to two years probation and a $5,000 fine. Four previous charges of felony perjury before a Grand Jury were dropped without prejudice by the Federal Attorney's office, which means they could be reinstated in future based on additional evidence.


 * Allison Watson was quoted favorably in the article as saying: “I stood on the principle that Grand Juries must be opposed...” One must note that that is NOT a legal principle, but is based on opposition to the law. After stating: “Allison represented all of us in representing herself” the article solicited donations to help pay her legal bills and fine. (“Allison Lance Watson Freed From Grand Jury Persecution.” December 17, 2004.)


 * Again, clearly Sea Shepherd, and by implication its founder and leader Paul Watson, was defending Allison Watson’s refusal to testify before a legitimate Grand Jury investigation, suggesting it is somehow appropriate to oppose the legal establishment in this manner. Thus, if applying Trusilver's example above seems to lead to a finding that Allison Watson's actions are in fact relevant to the article.


 * It that is not enough to make the point, in yet a third article published by Paul Watson himself, Allison Watson’s release from a Japanese jail after 23 days and payment of a fine by Sea Shepherd was not only defended but portrayed as heroic. It is noteworthy that the judge insisted the fine be paid by Sea Shepherd, suggesting the individuals were acting in behalf of the organization when they violated Japanese law to release 15 dolphins from a pen in Japan. (“Prosecutor Agrees to Release Allison and Alex jailed 22 days...but Fines Sea Shepherd 800,000 Yen ($8,000 US) for freeing dolphins!” December 3, 2003.)


 * Thus, unless the actions of Sea Shepherd can somehow be separated from Paul Watson, a possibility that defies reason, the association between Paul Watson and actions for Sea Shepherd by Allison Watson are “directly relevant to Paul Watson himself” and the activities of Sea Shepherd which made him notable. Paul Watson has defended the law breaking actions of his spouse Allison on multiple occassions. A clear correlation has been established between their actions on and has made their association notable. The actions of Allison Watson are, in effect, part of what makes Paul Watson notable.


 * Compared to all this, the two sentences I added near the end of the article were reasonable and appropriate, in my opinion. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mervyn, from what I'm reading, it seems that mentioning Allison Watson is more appropriate on the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society article. In addition, what are we arguing here? Are we arguing on mentioning Allison in the Paul Watson article at all? Or are we arguing that this certain incident should or shouldn't be implemented into the Paul Watson article? I'm confused. I thought it was the latter... – Ms. Sarita  Confer  22:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm talking about is including the two sentences indented above with reliable sources in the section labeled: "2RR, going on three" with reference to Trusilver's proposal immediately above in this section. I thought you and Terrillja agreed with Trusilver immediately above concerning adding language to the article on Paul Watson. Have you changed your mind? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For your convenience, here's the language with sources:


 * "His second wife Allison Lance Watson, like Watson a prominent animal rights activist, was arrested in January 2004 by FBI anti-terrorism agents for allegedly lying to a federal grand jury about loaning a rental truck to animal rights arsonists. ("Animal rights activist arrested in Seattle grand jury probe." Komo Staff and News Services, KomoNews.com, January 15, 2004.) After perjury charges were dropped in September 2004, she was called again to testify before a grand jury and refused, subsequently pleading guilty to misdemeanor contempt charges for failing to answer the grand jury’s questions. (Shukovsky, Paul. "No perjury charges vs. animal activist." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 9, 2004.)"Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding "language"? Now I'm really confused. I agreed with Trusilver's example. But, I don't believe that Trusilver has proposed adding this specific piece to the article. Either you have misinterpreted Trusilver's writing or both Terrillja and myself have. My question is simple: Why is this particular arrest and perjury charge (which seems to only involve Allison Watson) so pertinent to the Paul Watson article? – Ms. Sarita  Confer  03:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ms. Sarita, I think the answer to your question is quite adequately stated in the paragraphs above. Trusilver did not propose this language, but you did agree to his example. My explanation above does demonstrate the circumstances of this case do fit within his example. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
Perhaps Ms. Sarita and Terrillja will prefer the "flavor" of and agree to include the following text and references in the Paul Watson article:
 * His second wife Allison Lance Watson, like Watson a prominent animal rights activist and veteran crew member of the Sea Shepherd, has several times been arrested in the United States and Japan during Sea Shepherd actions and on other occasions. Most recently, she pleaded guilty in 2004 to misdemeanor contempt of court charges for failing to answer a federal grand jury’s questions about loaning a rental truck to animal rights arsonists. Paul Watson has defended her unlawful actions, saying “the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society stands solidly behind Allison Lance Watson" and “Allison represented all of us in representing herself.”

In addition, Ms. Sarita and Terrillja should agree to stop reverting my edits to the Paul Watson article without actual discussion and negotiation, which I understand to mean the discussion and negotiation must occur BEFORE changes are made to my edits. Negotiation means exchange of proposals and counter proposals, not just an edit summary with a revert before any discussion takes place. They should stop reverting things that do not fit with their own personal preferences, and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to add anything until they give their opinions on this proposal. However, Mervyn Emrys, the door swings both ways on this. When you are the lone voice of dissent on an article, it is usually best to come to an agreement on the talk page rather than just keep trying to brute force your preferred revision onto the article page. Such actions are far more likely to result in edit warring blocks than they are to result in the article turning out the way you like. Trusilver  15:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, anybody who doesn't like my proposal is free to propose an alternative. That is what negotiation actually IS. Do you suppose one of you might take a few minutes and write down a sentence or two of proposed language that might be added to the article to deal with this issue, and post it here in the discussion space so we might discuss possible modifications of that language until it meets ALL our needs, to see if we can reach an agreement?
 * I've tried that a few times here, without receiving anything back but criticism and vague suggestions. I thinks its time for somebody else to step forward. Maybe if we get down to specific words we can tinker with them enough to find agreement.
 * I've been hoping this would happen all along, but haven't seen it yet. This is what legislatures do when they write laws; what labor and management do when they negotiate employment contracts; and what coauthors usually do when they cooperate to write an article. I've tried. I'm willing. It's your turn. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not an unreasonable request. We have seen Mervyn Emrys proposed change to the article. I'm curious what an acceptable wording (or lack of one) would be considered appropriate to the other parties in the disagreement. Trusilver  01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to drop a note, this week is an incredibly busy one for me, and I haven't had time to read everything up above here in depth. I'm hoping that I will be able to take a look at it wed or thurs, but it may be sat before I can look at it. So even if I don't reply to anything here for a few days, I'm still alive, hopefully. Sorry for the delay. -- Terrillja talk  02:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The encyclopedia will almost definitely still be here after your busy week, so I don't see any rush :) Trusilver  03:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond. Been a busy, busy week for me. As for the paragraph that Mervyn has proposed, I see no major objections to it. However, this is how I would write it:
 * "His second wife, Allison Lance Watson is also a prominent animal rights activist and veteran crew member of the Sea Shepherd. She has been arrested several times in the United States[1] and Japan[2] during Sea Shepherd campaigns and on other occasions. Paul has defended her actions, saying, “The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society stands solidly behind Allison Lance Watson'[4] and that “Allison represented all of us in representing herself.”[5]"
 * Aside from a few grammatical fixes, you may notice I took out an entire sentence. The reason behind this is that, not only is it a dated sentence, there's no reason to single out a specific incident involving only Allison Watson in this article. This is mostly, if not entirely, what I've been arguing this entire time.


 * Now, the following question is very important since this is a BLP: For the two quotes at the end of the proposed paragraph, has Paul Watson actually said these things? I'm looking at the references and it doesn't seem like he has. Both sources are under the "Sea Shepherd News" category, which is described as "articles written by Sea Shepherd". Also, the reference supporting the statement that Allison has been arrested in Japan is also a "Sea Shepherd News" article, but it specifically states that it is a "Report by Captain Paul Watson", whereas the other two references do not. So rather, the sources are news stories written by someone at Sea Shepherd, but we don't know who, and there is enough reasonable doubt (just from what I have briefly observed) to assume that Paul has not said these things. If this is the case, the quotes need to be removed.


 * In addition, Mervyn, I'm slightly irked that you are demanding that Terrillja and I must agree to refrain from reverting your edits without discussing it on the talk page first. I suggest you conduct a thorough reading of WP:OWN, specifically in the "Ownership examples" section, where it states, "The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article." So, I'm sorry, but I won't agree to "making sure that it is okay with you before reverting any edits made by you".


 * I'm also a little annoyed that you act as if Terrillja and I have not tried to work this out with you, Mervyn. We have tried discussing this with you; we have tried to involve an administrator to do some mediation; and Terrillja opened a Medcab because we agreed that we wanted to try and work this out peacefully, not with trying to get people blocked. *cough cough* So, please don't point fingers. This not about letting or not letting "facts speak for themselves". This is about writing a Wikipedia article, keeping the article on focus, concise, and clear, and helping to promote the article to GA status (even though you believe it will never make it to that point).
 * – Ms. Sarita  Confer  18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Does Terrillja agree with and support your proposal above? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Terrillja thinks of this proposal. We will have to wait for him to look everything over and weigh in. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is interesting and has potential to resolve this matter, with a couple minor changes. However, before I make a counter proposal, I need to know if Terrillja is in agreement with your proposal.
 * It is unfortunate you are irked about my other comment concerning the utility of discussion before you revert my edits to the article. Please allow me to point out, however, that the example you refer to at WP:OWN does NOT describe the current situation. I did not suggest "changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article." I requested only that you "agree to stop reverting my edits to the Paul Watson article without actual discussion and negotiation." That is, I request you engage in discussion before repeatedly reverting edits I have already made to the article. That is a quite different circumstance from the one at WP:OWN that you refer to. It is you who repeatedly reverted my edits, not me demanding discussion before you add anything. Different circumstances.
 * But that is largely irrelevant to your current proposal, if you wish to reach agreement now and move forward. I suggest we focus instead on the language you have proposed. If Terrillja finds it acceptable, I will propose minor changes which I think you both may be able to find acceptable--but of course, you will determine that. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That being said, I agree with Mervyn Emrys. I feel that we should table any further discussion until Terrillja has a chance to review the proposed revision and give feedback. At that time we will know that everyone is on the same page moving forward, and then proceed from there. Trusilver  01:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree that we should wait to see Terrillja's response before doing anything. I didn't plan on anything being changed before Terrillja said his piece. As far as me being irked, the example was just that: an example. The example is similar to the current situation. Instead of dicussing any additions with you, any reverts or edits to your writing must go through you first. Irritating and a clear example of WP:OWN. I won't agree to any such request. But, I agree that we should wait to continue this discussion until we agree on the writing. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  04:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets attempt to keep to the matter at hand, that being the wording of the article. Mediation is done in content related disputes only. I can help you reach a middle ground over the article, I can't help you over such issues as WP:OWN. If you want to make a new heading and discuss that, then by all means do so. But for the time being, lets keep this particular discussion on task. Trusilver  05:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agreed to keep the topic related to the wording. But I did want to respond to Mervyn about his demand in the beginning of the mediation and why I refuse to abide by it. But yes, I agree that it should be left alone for now. My apologies, Trusilver. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  08:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Mervyn, just out of curiosity (this has nothing to do with the mediation and I'm not taking a position either way, just curious and passing time until Terrillja gets back), but as Ms. Sarita asked above, what about this particular arrest is so important to the article? Understand that I have been unfamiliar with this subject until taking on this mediation, but from my rather unfamiliar point of view, the article looks extremely NPOV. Trusilver 03:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, a proposal is under consideration. Let's not risk muddying the water any more until that is resolved. I think I have explained this in previous comments, perhaps in more detail than is warranted. Quoting your words above: "I feel that we should table any further discussion until Terrillja has a chance to review the proposed revision and give feedback." Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mervyn: I'm wondering if you have looked over my questions from above concerning the two quotes in the passage that we are discussing. That could have an extreme effect on the writing of the paragraph and whether or not those two quotes can be kept. If you could get back to me on that, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  04:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I've looked it over. When Terrillja replies, I will also. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Terrillja
First of all, sorry to take so long to reply to everyone, I got busy the start of last week and then got very sick. Still not feeling great, but I don't want to hold this up any more.

My reply to Ms Sarita's proposal (which seems to be a reworded version of Mervyn's, so I'll just address that one):

I have looked over all of the sources, and agree with Ms. Sarita that the second two sources do not have any thing to say they are actually written or authorized by Paul Watson, just because something happened (press release here) doesn't mean the leader of a group approved it. Press secretaries are given some guidance, but only the second ref in your proposal states that the press release is written by Paul Watson himself. So as I see it, Sea Shepherd has supported her actions, however Paul Watson has not said that he does in the provided refs, just that he was trying to raise money for her release. So I see a connection between SSCS and Allison, but unless I'm missing something, I don't see anywhere that Paul Watson said/wrote the quotes attributed to him.

I'll try to check in on this when I can, but I may be spotty for a little bit until I am feeling better. If there is anything else that anyone wanted me to reply to, sorry if I missed it, just copy it here again or tell me where in this long page your question is located. -- Terrillja talk  19:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Another counter proposal
It appears we may be finally moving towards some agreement here. In the interest of being accommodating to Ms. Sarita and Terrillja, working with sentences provided by Ms. Sarita above, and making only minor changes, I propose the following language be inserted into the article:


 * His second wife, Allison Lance Watson is also a prominent animal rights activist and veteran crew member of the Sea Shepherd. She has been arrested several times in the United States and Japan during Sea Shepherd campaigns and on other occasions. Sea Shepherd has defended her actions, saying, “The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society stands solidly behind Allison Lance Watson" and that “Allison represented all of us in representing herself.”

The text above merely adds one reference to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and changes attribution in the last sentence from "Paul" to "Sea Shepherd."

Alternatives:

1. If somebody doesn't wish to change attribution, we can drop the entire last sentence. Dropping the last sentence will eliminate the last two sources listed as numbers 4 and 5 completely. I believe those are the two questioned by these two editors.

2. If somebody doesn't like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer where it is placed above, alternatively it might be placed at the end of the same sentence (after “and on other occasions.”). It is a reliable source and relevant to this matter.

I hope you will all agree this is a reasonable resolution of this dispute. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that wording, the thing is it doesn't connect Paul Watson to Allison's actions. It connects Sea Shepherd, and would be more appropriate on that article as written. Without adding the last sentence, it doesn't show her to connection to anyone, and wouldn't make sense in any article other than the one on her. As for the Seattle source, I don't see any issue with it, it provides another ref, I think Ms. Sarita's change was just to shorten the text, I have nothing against using it as a ref.-- Terrillja talk  00:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, I have no issues with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reference. But I agree with Terrillja that without the last sentence (which I originally thought was quoted by Paul Watson himself), there isn't much of a correlation. Honestly, I just want this over and done with so that we may be able to focus on bettering other aspects of the article. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  00:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As it appears we all are in agreement, I've added the language to the article. What connects Allison's actions to Paul Watson is their marraige, their shared animal rights activism, and their willingness to be arrested for their actions. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps you would prefer this slightly shortened version more:
 * His second wife, Allison Lance Watson, also a prominent animal rights activist and veteran crew member of the Sea Shepherd, has been arrested several times in the United States and Japan during Sea Shepherd campaigns and on other occasions. Sea Shepherd has defended her actions, saying, “The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society stands solidly behind Allison Lance Watson" and that “Allison represented all of us in representing herself.”


 * Or, we can alter the final sentence to say:
 * "Sea Shepherd, which is headed by Paul Watson, has defended her actions, saying, “The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society stands solidly behind Allison Lance Watson" and that “Allison represented all of us in representing herself.”


 * Now, wait a minute. Are we actually all in agreement? I think the last sentence of the passage is still under debate concerning how it's related to Paul Watson. I think we should hold off adding it into the article until we've actually discussed that particular sentence and/or until Trusilver weighs in. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  01:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What? We have gone full circle again, there is nothing to connect Paul and Allison other than marriage. I don't see how either I or Ms. Sarita have agreed that the text links the two. As I said above, the text links SSCS and Allison, there is no specific link to Paul.-- Terrillja talk  01:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to accommodate your concerns. Will you meet me halfway or do you have to have it all your own way? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Meet halfway would mean talk before just going and adding the text as you see fit. That was what got everyone into this whole mess in the first place.-- Terrillja talk  01:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We met. We talked. On this page. Above. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On a scale of 1 to 10, how necessary was it to imply that we must "have it all [our] own way"? This isn't about who gets their way and who doesn't. This isn't preschool and we are not children. This is about keeping context, that is unrelated to the topic of the article, out of the passage. That's how Wikipedia operates. Keeping articles on point and focused. Including a sentence that states that the SSCS agrees with Allison Watson's actions is better kept to the SSCS article...and even that's iffy. If Paul Watson had said those particular statements, I would agree to keep that part of the writing in. But it has been concluded that he did not. So how is this sentence warranted in an article about Paul Watson? – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  02:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "It has been concluded?" By whom? Not by me. Reason: I have some familiarity with how environmental groups are organized and run, including Sea Shepherd, of which I have been a member. I've studied and been a member of a large number of such groups for 30 years, and only Lester Milbrath has published more about them than I have. I've interviewed Paul Watson and exchanged email with him.
 * NO environmental group takes a public position on a controversial issue with potential legal ramifications (like Allison Watson's investigation for conspiracy and arrest for perjury) unless that position has been approved by its leadership. In Sea Shepherd, that is Paul Watson. In this case, by speaking out they risked getting sucked into a conspiracy investigation. Only four or five people in Sea Shepherd, are authorized to speak publicly for Sea Shepherd, and they are authorized by Paul Watson. Although he may have been at sea when the Sea Shepherd website statements appeared, there is no conceivable way they could ever have appeared without his explicit approval.
 * Demands for "proof" that Paul Watson said those things attributed to Sea Shepherd are unreasonable and silly, revealing a lack of understanding about how such groups actually work. Sea Shepherd is NOT a large organization, although it claims many members. Most of its work is done by a handful of dedicated activists under the direct supervision of Paul Watson. If you doubt this, read his book Ocean Warrior, which describes how he dealt with a "palace coup" attempt by some errant board members. Not pretty, but he's proud of it.
 * I made concessions in my proposals from my original position, and you agreed to the language above, before you reneged on your agreement. Who demands it all? Read this talk page and find out. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't renege on anything. I agreed on the wording. I did not agree on putting the passage in the article as of yet. Please point out to me where I did. I raised questions about the proposal you made and my "agreement" on the passage was dependent on those answers, which you refused to give to me before Terrillja responded. Unfortunately, your experience with various environmental groups is not enough to assume that Paul Watson can be quoted on the statements in question, which could thus be placed in the article. Doing so would violate the original research and verifiability policies on Wikipedia. In addition, "demands for 'proof'" that Paul has said these things are far from "unreasonable and silly" since this is a BLP. This is not about a "lack of understanding". I am only abiding by Wikipedia's policies. If I am wrong for doing that, I'll quit editing right now. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  05:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, lets not go in circles on this. We have reached another impasse and I think it's time to take a step back and look at our options. Terrillja, glad to see that you are back and I hope that you are feeling better. At this stage, I am curious as to exactly what mention of Allison Watson you feel is relevant to the article (if any at all)? Looking over the sources and the different states that the article has existed in, I can see that both arguments are valid. Ms. Sarita and Mervyn had reached a rough agreement on the article, that leaves your input to get a rough consensus. So what would it take for you to be in agreement here? Trusilver 03:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Trusilver, let me clarify that I had never reached an agreement on the article. Only on the wording of the paragraph in question. However, with this new argument (about how the last sentence shows no direct correlation to Paul Watson), this opens up a whole new can of worms which can hopefully be resolved soon. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  05:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. Trusilver  08:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what's going on with this mediation? I have yet to see a response by Mervyn to my last posting here. I'm assuming that Terrillja is still feeling under the weather. The text (that no one agreed to have put into the article yet) is still in the article, even though I have expressed my thoughts on the last sentence in the passage. So...? Are we just waiting on Terrillja? – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  20:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for a response from Mervyn to your last post.-- Terrillja talk  21:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refer to Trusilver's statement above about not going in circles, and his question there, which I believe was directed to Terrillja, not me. I've made several proposals above and thought we had an agreement, so its up to you to make a counter proposal at this time. I'm ready to settle, but if you two can't agree with each other, I don't see much point in continuing this mediation effort. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added boldface type to make it easier to locate my proposals. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Turns out Allison is his third wife, so I modified the text of the article accordingly, with a new reliable source. Thus, the text of my proposals above should be modified to substitute "third" for "second." Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How about: His second wife, Allison Lance Watson is also a prominent animal rights activist and veteran crew member of the Sea Shepherd, and has been arrested during Sea Shepherd campaigns.

Since there haven't been any sources which show that Paul Watson told her to do whatever, that covers her basic info, which provides background for the bio, shows she is an activist, and doesn't get off track. You get your bit about how she was arrested, and it doesn't go into a paragraph about how Paul Watson is the president of SSCS and grasp at straws for connections and how SSCS runs. -- Terrillja talk  16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, she's his third wife. What references would you include where in your proposal? Does Ms. Sarita agree with it? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am fine with Terrillja's proposal. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  22:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's make a deal. I will agree to leave out the last sentence of my previous proposal entirely, including Sea Shepherd references that go with it, IF and only if you both agree to the following slightly modified version of Terillja's proposal, with the references provided. This proposal merely adds four words and specific references to reliable sources to Terrillja's proposal above:
 * His third wife, Allison Lance Watson is also a prominent animal rights activist and veteran crew member of the Sea Shepherd, and has been arrested during Sea Shepherd [1][2] and animal rights campaigns.[3]


 * [1] “Prosecutor Agrees to Release Allison and Alex jailed 22 days...but Fines Sea Shepherd 800,000 Yen ($8,000 US) for freeing dolphins!” December 3, 2003. Accessed 2-23-09


 * [2] "Animal rights activist arrested in Seattle grand jury probe." Komo Staff and News Services, KomoNews.com, January 15, 2004. Accessed 2-23-09.


 * [3] Shukovsky, Paul. "No perjury charges vs. animal activist." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 9, 2004.


 * If you both agree to this, none of us gets everything we want, but everybody gets something they want. That is the way compromise works. Nobody get everything, everybody gets something.


 * Do you agree? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, everyone has spent enough time on this already where we could have all been contributing rather than arguing. And I know what compromise means. I'm not a 5 year old, don't treat me like one.-- Terrillja talk  18:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll place the agreed text then. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)