Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archive 12

Limpet mines
I remember long ago reading about SS using limpet mines to blow up ships in the '70s. That information has long been removed from this article. I just now put it back in. My wiki skills aren't the best. If you have an interest in making a great article (cough like anyone that may have been editing at the same time as me last few hours), would you please double check my citation and make sure it is in the proper format? I don't know how to do all that. Thanks. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are some articles for possible use: http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/7615338/sea-sickness/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/5166346/Paul-Watson-Sea-Shepherd-eco-warrior-fighting-to-stop-whaling-and-seal-hunts.html http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-15/paul-watson-sea-shepherd-profile/4011498 76.112.8.146 (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Aussie for helping with that. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

link rot?
Ref number 52, says nothing of Ady Gil or Shatner. What's the fix? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Governmental Response
The Australian government has issues perhaps its most direct and definitive statement on its stance on Sea Shepherd to date. This statement, if properly included, would be the most relevant in the section. I added it but it was deleted by an apparently ideologically motivated vandal named Epipelagic. Whether said vandal should be allowed to continue to modify this page is questionable. But, the statement from the Australian foreign minister, Julie Bishop, is as follows, and I post it for discussion and review with a view to having it added to the article:

"We do not, and will never, condone reckless, dangerous, unlawful behaviour. And where it occurs on the high seas, we will unreservedly condemn it. The fact that the Sea Shepherd visits Australian ports or some of the Sea Shepherd fleet might be registered in Australia is not indicative in any way of the Australian government’s support for the organisation"

If this is acceptable, someone please post it to the article. I have a feeling if I repost it, it will simply be vandalised again by Epipelagic. Veritas Fans (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds relevant! I'm on a bold roll here. I'll add it. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I added it but perhaps you can edit it to make it fit more smoothly into the article. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * AAaan reverted by article owners. Sorry man. Not going to get in an edit war over it. Your turn to discuss and be bold. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Compromised neutrality
The neutrality of this article is currently compromised by the aggressive tandem editing of two pro Japanese whaling spa editors. I have reverted their latest inappropriate addition... Australia's condemnation of Sea Shepard behavior has grown stronger recently, the Australia's foreign minister saying to reporters, "We do not, and will never, condone reckless, dangerous, unlawful behaviour. And where it occurs on the high seas, we will unreservedly condemn it. The fact that the Sea Shepherd visits Australian ports or some of the Sea Shepherd fleet might be registered in Australia is not indicative in any way of the Australian government’s support for the organisation" It does not follow at all from this statement that "Australia's condemnation of Sea Shepard behavior has grown stronger". All the minister said was "We do not, and will never, condone reckless, dangerous, unlawful behaviour. And where it occurs on the high seas, we will unreservedly condemn it.". That statement could equally apply to the Japanese whalers. Accordingly, I have removed the statement. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It could apply to the whalers, except for the part where the very next sentence specifically identifies sea shepherd. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There certainly appears to be some politics in the recently added content. The fact that Bishop's statement was made during a speech at the press club of Japan needs to be added to provide context, especially in light of the fact that "The international court [of justice] is currently considering Australia's case on whaling". Australia needs to avoid rocking the boat at this time. These are both stated in the article. The reaction by Barnaby Joyce is now in the article but conveniently avoids mention of the fact that the refusal by the ATO to grant charity status had nothing to do with any alleged criminal activity. The application was denied because "Taking steps to interrupt or prevent others harming animals in the wild, as Sea Shepherd does, is not the provision of 'short-term direct care to animals'.". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Im fine with adding the additional context in both of those items. But no text was in those items saying "criminal activity" so that is a non-argument. Some goverment actions are aout possible criminal activity. Some re for other reasons, but all are government actions directly related to Sea Shepard overall. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The recently added content says "Criminals should not get tax concessions – if you break the law, then donations to your organisation should not be tax deductible". The implication to anybody who doesn't take time to check other sources is that criminal activity had something to do with the refusal to grant charity status. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

apologies, I did not read the statement closely before making my previous comment. I am not up to date on australian politics, but from a glance at the Joyce article, it appears that he is a mainstream highly notable australian politician. As such his opinions and criticism are notable and relevant, and in this case reliably sourced. It is well known that in general the "official" reasons for government action are often different than the actual reason, and even had there been NO government action, his opinion would still be notable and relevant. but certainly I would support juxtaposing his statement with something reliably sourced about what the official reason was. (being careful to avoid synth and OR of course) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Why have personal attacks been re-added to the discussion? I changed the title and removed the personal attack from this section but it's been added back. Is there a reason? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What you removed with this edit was not a personal attack. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like one to me! 76.112.8.146 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC) See your talk page on why you shouldn't promote negative attacks of character on a article discussion page. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Admin help please?
Constant positive POV spin and gaming the categories is one thing, personal attacks here and on my talk page are another. Can we get an admin here to help solve some of these issues? If the article were locked, obviously I wouldn't be able to edit but can we get some admin to weigh in on all this categorization and personal attack nonsense? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

2 questions Is Eco-terrorism an appropriate category here? (additionally, Is it OK to create a new subcategory called "something something" of eco-terorism and make that a sub cat of a subcat related to this article to argue that Eco-terrorim shouldn't be a cat because it's already related somehow?) Is it OK to make accusations about other editors here on the talk page? (and how do I deal with it when it happens?) 76.112.8.146 (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Administrators do not normally respond to content issues. Editors on talk pages should focus on content, not on conduct. It was probably not a good idea to change the section header, but, at the same time, the section header was poorly chosen.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification regarding admin policy and conduct. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"Eco-terrorism"
Terrorism is a crime. The SSCS has not been charged or convicted in any court - indeed, it is a 501 non-profit organization. The statements about "eco-terrorism" are merely statements of opinion and accusation made by those opposed to the SSCS. It is highly inappropriate to categorize this group unequivocally as "eco-terrorist" based on those allegations and accusations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Terrorism is not only a crime--it's also a description used by governments and media to describe certain groups. A number of prominent groups, including parts of the US and other governments, have labeled the group as terrorist. I would agree with you that if some random person said "Group X is terrorist" we shouldn't include it, but if multiple national and international organizations do label them as such, then we should include those descriptions. I'm a little more inclined to agree with your removal of the pirates/piracy cats, because we should generally be more conservative with categories, but I'm still leaning a little bit more for inclusion. Also, your underlying argument is a little specious, because organizations cannot, by definition, be convicted of any crimes--only individuals can. By your logic, no organization could ever be labeled as a terrorist organization. And, of course, we're not labelling them as such--we're just saying that other relevant groups have done so. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're quite wrong. Organizations can be, and are, convicted of crimes. See BP pleading guilty to manslaughter for the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
 * We can and do certainly report that other people and organizations have accused SSCS of being "eco-terrorist." We might create a category entitled "Accused eco-terrorists." But the category "Eco-terrorism" factually asserts that the group is engaged in eco-terrorism, without nuance or caveat. That is unacceptable per WP:NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * These categories are, effectively, criminal accusations and must be removed until discussed per WP:NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Terrorism and piracy have specific definitions and are crimes. A proper category would indicate that they have been accused of eco-terrorism and accused of piracy, not that they are pirates and eco-terrorists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is strictly your opinion. Terrorism and piracy are both used in a legal sense as well as a more general sense. In fact, if you look at the category pages, they explicitly state that they do not accuse the groups of criminal activities. For example, Thermcon is in the category, and that's an FBI operation. And your edit summary was a flat out lie--i'm not inserting categories; rather, you are removing them, when there has, as I have said over and over, a strong consensus that they are 'not POV, and, in fact, are the neutral way to describe the groups. Please self-revert and continue the discussion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's rather like a disclaimer on a WANTED poster that says "this fugitive who is wanted for  hasn't been convicted of " - the strong negative connotation attaches whether or not an extraordinarily-weak disclaimer is stated on a category page that may never be read. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have created two new categories: Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism and Category:Organizations accused of piracy. These titles are NPOV in that they do not make factual claims about involvement in either eco-terrorism or piracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would note that we have a Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government, etc. That category is NPOV because it specifically describes the designation and the source of the allegation. Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front are both in that category, appropriately. Has the US government (or any other government) officially listed/designated the SSCS as a terrorist organization? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that the above groups you mentioned are in both the Eco-Terrorism general category and the specific one for the designation. Likewise I support the two categories (one for general discussion and one for designation) for this same article. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this is the same group that used limpit mines to blow up docked ships in the 80s? Is this the same group that threw glass bottles of acid at fishers on decks of boats and then rammed said boats in sub zero waters? That sounds terrifying to me. I'm glad that enough agencies have called them eco-terrorists. So it doesn't matter what I say, but several countries consider them terrorists. Good enough for me. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not as terrifying as it seems, except for the whales, dolphins and seals. "Acid" evokes a negative reaction but the acid used is Butyric acid, which is commonly found in milk, just as citric acid is found in oranges and lemons. There are far more corrosive acids in your stomach than the stinky butter acid that SSCS uses. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I'll take the expert opinion presented in court and cited in the news over the opinion presented above. If "acid" evokes a strong reaction, they should have chosen a nicer substance. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Phosphoric acid is commonly found in soda pop. That doesn’t mean it’s safe regardless of concentration. SSCS doesn’t use “stinky butter” - they use pure BA obtained from a chemical supplier. — TheHerbalGerbil (TALK, 08:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "... pure BA obtained from a chemical supplier"? That is a somewhat serious claim. Can we have your source for that please? Sea Shepherd say they used rancid butter only, with a safe pKa of 4.82. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Is including an article in the Eco-terrorism category equivalent to saying that the subject of that article is an Eco-terrorist? It seems that because SSCS has bombed ships with mines (which fits the description of eco-terrorism) and that because this very discussion exists in the notable news media that this article belongs in that category, whether or not government have called them Eco-Terrorist. It belongs there in the same way as the FBI, it's simply a part of that discussion. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought it belongs in both categories. Because it is an entity "accused of Eco-terrorism" and it is a major part in the news media discussion on Eco-Terrorism. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone is removing categories with no additional discussion. Is there a reason? Is this a thing that needs arbitration? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The reasons for removal of the categories have been explained in the edit summaries as well as in a note added to the category section., of which this article is both a member and the main article, is a subcategory of the categories that were removed. Per WP:SUBCAT, "a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category". The article doesn't need to be in the parent category as well as the subcats. In particular, has been discussed several times on this talk page. Per WP:SUBCAT this article shouldn't be placed directly in that category. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Creating a "single issue" sub-category for the sole purpose of removing an article from a category doesn't seem like the most logical way to categorize. In general a single article is not a category, also it doesn't appear at the bottom of this page as a logical link for interested readers to follow. I understand the whole "BLP" mentality with this article but one must remember, this isn't a living person needing protection. Allow the readers to follow the discussion where it goes instead of trying to keep it clean. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, both sub-cats and cats ARE allowed in some circumstances. Surely, the creation of a contentions sub-cat would be one reason. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the category then take it to WP:CFD. Edit-warring over appropriate categorisation is only going to result in you being blocked from editing completely. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the sub-category is gone now. I don't know why there should be a "eco terrorism" sub cat under the parentage of the SSCS cat. That made no logical sense at all per the guidelines so I mentioned it on that talk page and removed it outright. Other editors had in years past made similar observations in the same talk page. SSCS belongs under the EC terrorism cat, not ET under the SSCS cat. I think that much should be plain. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice try but it didn't work. Your removal of the SSCS category from has been reverted. Even if  didn't exist,  wouldn't be in this article because  would be a subcat of that category. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well played sir! Hopefully an admin will help sort this mess out. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Question, why would you put one or two categories under that subcat and not all of them? For instance, why hide Eco-terrorism there but not Whaling or Marine conservation? What was your motive for just moving that one? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You still don't seem to be grasping the concept of categorisation. Categorisation doesn't hide categories and I don't have a motive regarding Eco-terrorism because I didn't add it. Somebody else did. I added, and  because  is an appropriate subcategory of all three. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Same question, why would it be appropriate to hide Eco-terrorism in a sub category of a sub category but not Whaling or Marine conservation when I could jsut as easily created subcategories for the others as well? Because in my understanding of categories, this isn't an appropriate use. (and "You don't understand!" is talking about editors, not the topic and doesn't really answer the question so please lets not go there again?.) 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's very little point in trying to explain because it's very clear, even from your last post that, despite numerous posts trying to explain categorisation to you here, on your talk page, on my talk page and at WP:AN3 that you still do not understand that categorisation does not HIDE categories. It's entirely appropriate to point out that you don't understand because, until you do, you are just not going to understand why we categorise the way that we do. You seem to think that we're trying to hide things and we're not. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PLEASE stop talking about editors (especially me) and please if you can (or rather can someone else explain? Why would it be appropriate to place Eco-terrorism in a sub category of a sub category but not Whaling or Marine conservation? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Aussie's last comment about categories is talking about you. He's just trying to explain his interpretation of policies and guidelines. Categorization is not my forte. Perhaps, who is very knowledgeable in this area, can assist.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the assist and for asking BrownHairedGirl for the help, we could use the expertise. I would still ask that you ask him to address the issues and not the meta conversation about me. "you are just not going to understand" "There's very little point in trying to explain" "You still don't seem to be grasping" at the very least, I'd like a little good faith here. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, @76, that's pretty mild stuff at Wikipedia. If you're going to edit here, you shouldn't let comments like that bother you. I don't even think Aussie intended them to be insulting.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Time to level up and get some thicker skin, I suppose. Thanks Bbb23. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Category will be removed
Categorizing this article in "Eco-terrorism" is entirely inappropriate, because the title of the category expresses or confirms a POV - that the organization is related to eco-terrorism. That is a POV which is strongly disputed and the organization has not been convicted in a court of law of terrorism - nor is it listed on any U.S. government or international list of terrorist organizations. Therefore, the previous cat is the NPOV version - communicating the fact that SSCS has been accused of eco-terrorism.

This is fully consistent with the practice in Category:Terrorism — all editors will note that there are no organizations placed in that category. None. All organizations listed are in subcategories of "Organizations designated as terrorist" with specific, verifiable and reliably-sourced information as to what nation has issued the designation.

As soon as the article is unprotected, I will be reverting the categorization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was locked by me because of edit warring, in part over the category. It's true that you were not a part of the battle, but rather than announce your categorical intention (pun intended), I suggest you obtain a consensus for your position. I make no comment on the content issue itself; this "advice" is in my capacity as an administrator to minimize disruption to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a issue which can be decided by "consensus." It's an issue of NPOV and verifiability. It is not verifiable that SSCS is an eco-terrorist organization. Ergo, such categorization is flatly inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Rather, it is verifiable that the organization has been accused of eco-terrorism.
 * Again, see Category:Organizations designated as terrorist. No organization is listed under Category:Terrorism and all organizations in the "designated" category are appropriately and verifiably sourced to reliable sources which state that a particular government or international organization has designated the group as a terrorist group. That is for reasons of NPOV. There has been no argument made as to why it would be NPOV to declare this group "eco-terrorist" and there can be no such argument, because it is an inherently-POV statement.
 * Consensus cannot override policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We can still form a consensus to adhere to policy, even if all it's doing is crossing the t and dotting the i. For the record, I fully support removal of the category, for reasons that I've explained previously, and at length. The IP has persistently claimed that placing "eco-terrorism" into the SSCS category (it's actually the other war around) is hiding the category and I've had little success convincing the IP that nothing is being hidden. It wasn't until he posted on Bbb23's talk page that his concern seems to be that "unfavorable" categories are being "hidden" while "favorable" categories are not. As I explained, is a member of, , , ,  and , all of which he'd probably regard to be favorable, so his belief is misguided. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree also, for the reasons outlined above, with removing the category. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would accept removal of the category if and only if an "organizations designated as eco-terrorist" is added in its place. There is no question that they have been so designated by several different world governments. Personally, I don't mind the eco-terrorism category, because being placed in a category simply means that the subject is associated with that category. There are a lot of organizations in that category. Why should SSCS be removed and not those others? Or are you arguing the entire cat should be depopulated of organizations and placed into a sub-cat? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * doesn't exist. However, does and it's a subcat of . As explained on this page,  is a member of that category and therefore is indirectly in . The only difference between  and  is that the latter is a more broadly named category. We shouldn't be too specific with category titles as very specific categories are unlikely to be populated. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * SSCS is not listed on any national or international designated terrorist organization list. Therefore, it is entirely inappropriate to deem that it has been "designated" anything. "Accused" is the appropriate verbiage.
 * And yes, the category should be depopulated and replaced with appropriate subcategories. Organizations which are on designated terrorist lists should be so noted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was adamant about the word "designated"; "accused" is fine by me. Sometimes I think we diffuse categories too far, but that's a whole underbelly to the encyclopedia that I'd prefer not to be involved with. Just as long as they remain in a sub-cat that is directly connected to eco-terrorism, the change is fine by me, and seems to probably be compatible with our broader categorization schemes. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what the admin say regarding the policy before supporting or not. Browneyedgirl may chime in to help. That being said I don't think it was a good idea for you to create "accused of Eco-terrorism" as a category. We should have just stayed with the original "eco-terrorism" cat and have this discussion. "accused of Eco-terrorism" shouldn't even exist as a cat, just like "accused of Eco-terrorism shouldn't exist as an article. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have explained why I created the category. It is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia's other categories related to "terrorism" - the aphorism one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is a succinct way of identifying the NPOV problem with categorizing groups under "Terrorism" (or "Eco-terrorism.") Therefore, we categorize groups according to whether or not they have been identified and designated by specific and notable national or international registries of terrorist groups, and identify which nation has made the accusation. See Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government, et al. This is in keeping with NPOV - it avoids having Wikipedia make allegations or take sides in a dispute, but rather identifies the (notable) claim and its source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Related then to that, I thought wiki policy already made it clear that it is ok to place an article under categorization without implying that the subject of that article was guilty of that. If wiki policy already addresses that concern, why create a new category with more qualifiers to also address it? Do you think that current policy creates an undeserved negative POV if left as is? Also second question, If there were only the ET cat and not the AoET cat, it was my understanding that many government agencies and notable persons consider SSCS to be a terrorist organization. Eco-terrorism is a topic, not a crime. Arson or theft or man-salughter would be the crimes. People do not get "found guilty" of being an eco-terrorist. I do not think that cat:Eco-ecoterroism is the same as Cat:People-on-an-official-list-of-ecoterrorists. I contend that such a list may not exist, nullyifying the need for the new cat entirely. To say it a different way, if notable persons consider SSCS to be a partof the discussion on eco-terrorism, then we ought to reflect that by placing the article in the category for that discussion. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is in the appropriate category, via a sub-category. The sub-category title makes it explicitly clear that the claim that the organization is linked with eco-terrorism is a disputed one. Policy requires that we adhere to NPOV, and the most NPOV category is one that notes the accusations of linkages with eco-terrorism. Again, see the long-settled solution with categories related to terrorism.
 * Eco-terrorism is criminal, as defined by the FBI - the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature - and common sense. The word "terrorism" has a strong negative connotation that may or may not be appropriately applied to this organization. By using an appropriate category title, we ensure that the category does not take an editorial stance on the truth or falsity of the allegation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please show me a law called "eco-terrorism" in the united states that someone has been convicted of. That's what makes something a crime in that country, law. And I do not believe you've established that such a law exists. That's my contention with "accused of" as opposed to "really are". How to you propose to deliniate that differentiation? Can you give any examples? Thanks. If you are saying that the FBI has a policy of making a list and placing orgs on that list (for instances, those that have been found guilty of arson for ecological reasons), that's a different story. I't like to see that list as well if you contend that such a list exists. From what it seems, you've made a arbetrary list of "acused of" without knowing weather or not a real list exists. Of course if I'm wrong, I'd love to see the list. 20:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are we treating "accused of Eco-terrorism" differently than whaling and marine conservation? For instance, the article falls under the category of "SSCS" and SSCS cat falls under the "accused of Eco Terrorism cat". But with marine conservation, the article falls under that, but the SSCS cat does not. Shouldn't we treat them in the same manner? What is the process for determining if we want the category will show on the main page or the SSCS cat page? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Marine conservation" is not a contentious term which imputes a number of negative connotations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, it is definitely contentious to some people, which explains why the IP thinks marine conservation is "Eco-terrorism". --Epipelagic (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding North, to be clear, are you saying that contentious categories belong under the SSCS category and non-contentious ones belong on the article? I'm trying to figure out what the rule is that dictates whether cats go under the SSCS subcat page or under the SSCS article, and why. If you could answer that question I believe it is the core of our disagreement (POV aside of course) 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, second discussion (for when this one's finished). Once we decide whether or not the label "Eco-terrorist" is an appropriate category, we should decide which of the categories from the SSCS category to move from that page here. The SSCS category now has all of the categories that the mainpage has. We should get a consensus on which ones should be here instead. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note that Qwyrxian is an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As diffs can easily establish, Qwyrxian has been pushing a relentless anti Sea Shepherd agenda for some time. Are you suggesting that Qwyrxian is entitled to simultaneously wear two hats, both as a POV content contributor and as an adjudicating admin? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly not--I'm nothing other than an editor here. Am I anti-Sea Shepherd? Sure. But I don't think I've ever pushed an anti-Sea Shepherd agenda on this page or the article. It's all irrelevant to what the IP is asking though, because admins don't "rule" on content. They can't even declare with full strength that "X is not according to policy." Well, I mean, they can, and they can often enforce that with administrative tools, but they don't (or shouldn't) in cases of legitimate dispute. No admin can come to this page, whether they're involved or not, and simply decide that one category is correct while the other ones aren't. My opinion is, based on my extensive experience as an editor, that moving the group out of the main cat into a sub-cat is acceptable and compliant with policy. I'm not "ruling", nor am I threatening anyone--I'm not even saying that anyone is doing anything wrong. Both the IP and the users arguing against him/her seem to be acting civilly and in the best interests of the encyclopedia, even though invariable one "side" is going to achieve consensus and edit the article accordingly. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. But my comment was addressed more to Bbb23, because his comment could be interpreted as attempting to shift the debate so it is under admin control. He seemed to telling the IP, and by extension the rest of us, that Qwyrxian's views were the ones that counted. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm surprised given your views on administrators, but your interpretation of my comment is wrong. Administrators acting as editors have no greater voice in a consensus discussion than any other editor. It's obvious that Qwyrxian is acting here as an editor. The IP, as a less-experienced editor, is curious about a great many things, and they appear to think that administrators will descend from the heavens and apply policy to this content dispute. Thus, I just thought I'd mention that Qwyrxian is an administrator because the IP may not be know that. That's it, nothing more. You may now return to your discussion about categories. Enjoy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciated that, thanks. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter what Qwyrxian's POV is. No individual editor can override consensus. If we establish a consensus to remove from the article then that's it. @76, again it seems you're not grasping the concept of categorisation. We don't add categories to articles so they provide additional information to readers, we add them to organise articles. The appearance of "Eco-terrorism" in the category list at the bottom of the article isn't supposed to be a neon sign saying "This is an eco-terrorist organisation". The links are there primarily to provide navigational links to articles in a category heirachy. Category heirachies avoid the need to add individual categories to each article. By adding  to an article we automatically place that article directly into, , , , , , , , ,  and , and indirectly into many other categories, including , so we don't need to add them to the article directly. Removing relevant categories from a category tree and adding them instead directly to the article is counter-productive at best. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

perhaps you need to re-read FAQ/Categorization. "he guidelines for what other categories the "main article" should be in are still being worked out. Normally articles should not appear both in a category and a "parent" of that category; however an exception should be made for the "main article" of a category — the category system makes more sense if each main article appears in some or all of the categories that the equivalent category appears in. Also discussed at Categorization  "Articles with an eponymous category may also be categorized in the broader categories that would be present if there were no eponymous category (e.g. the article France appears in both Category:France and Category:Western Europe, even though the latter is the parent category of the former)." Clearly this article qualifies as the main article of the sea shepherd category Gaijin42 (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't need to re-read the FAQ. The IP is proposing removing categories from the SSCS category and adding them here, not simply adding them to this article. He doesn't like categories being "hidden". Regardless, for reasons that have been explained at length, this article doesn't belong in the eco-terrorism category, only in a subcat. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I would like to know the decision process and qualifiers for placing some cats on the SSCS subcat page vs the SSCS mainpage. And I would like to make sure that the decision process for that is neutral and not POV based. (I've asked a bunch above in a prior discussion but have failed to evoke a clear response so I'm trying again. Please help me translate the question into wikiese if you understand what I'm trying to ask). Thanks.76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC) And yes, Aussie, it looks to the casual observer that certain "negative" words are being "hidden" even if that was not your intent, it has the effect of "cleaning up" the page, unless there is some neutral process or consensus by which the decision to place them at one or the other is in place. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the casual observer even notices or understands the categories. Certainly some editors don't understand categorisation, which itself is a neutral process. As for the decision process, it's a matter of applicability, with some commonsense thrown in. As I've explained above, adding categories to the SSCS subcat page avoids the need to add individual categories to each article. However, we don't add every category that may be applicable to the subcat. For example, At the Edge of the World (film) is in, but that is not a category we would include in the SSCS category itself. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. I will also attempt to answer your question. Wikipedia's guidelines are not an inflexible Constitution. The guidelines are applied for the benefit of Wikipedia in mind, e.g.: neutrality and objectivity. For controversial issues, consensus is a vital part of the process. Persistent contentious edits and opposition are not fruitful in the short term. In my experience as editor, even if I do not like the immediate outcome (consensus), all articles -and categorization for that matter- tend to evolve and even out with time. That is the positive nature of this media. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding! I agree that consensus must be reached. I'd like to know what more than POV provides the guidelines between 2 decisions: Do we 1 Keep the cat on the article's main page or 2 Move the cat to the article's category page? This article seems to move all "negative categories" in the number 2 direction (moving "negative sounding" cats off the mainpage) where I see most "good articles" have them both in the main article and not on the article's category page. So the questions is, what determines (in addition to consensus) if it belongs in 1 the article or 2 the article's cat? Thanks! 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend has answered your question on guidelines too. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where? Just above? On the question of which to put on the main page and which to put ins a sub cat I see no answer so far. He says "adding it to the subcat avoids the need for adding it to the mainpage". So why not add everything to the subcat? What criteria is required to decide if it belongs on the mainpage or a subcat other than personal taste? And how do we prevent that decision from being POV laden? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Where? Just above?" - No, it's been done to death on this talk page, my talk page and your talk page as well.
 * "On the question of which to put on the main page and which to put ins a sub cat I see no answer so far" - And I quote: "As for the decision process, it's a matter of applicability, with some commonsense thrown in. ... However, we don't add every category that may be applicable to the subcat. For example, At the Edge of the World (film) is in, but that is not a category we would include in the SSCS category itself." -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP - I think that's my final decision. Here's the reason why. 1 As North says, the FBI definition of Eco-terrorism on the Eco-terrorism page fits the definition of what the US courts found SSCS has been doing. And what's more, the courts have banned the SSCS from being near Japanese whalers as a result. SSCS (as shown on this article) has used explosive aquatic mines to blow up ships, has thrown bottles of acid at other sailors and has rammed other ships in the name of Ecology. All verifiable, cited and notable examples of what's listed on the FBI page. What's more, as if we needed it really spelled out, notable experts in government and governmental agencies themselves have used the phrase "Eco-terrorist" referring to SSCS. Court action, FBI definition, notable experts. These all trump the point of view of editors that this makes the article sound "too negative" and that was the biggest criticism of recent edits, that they swung the article too far to the negative side. Respectfully, it's the opinion of the notable experts that need to be reflected in a neutral tone, not the editors' POV. Secondly, The category should be on the mainpage and not the category page for one reason, because it's most relevant. It is constantly part of the discussion surrounding SSCS. If we had 50 categories to chose from for displaying on the mainpage or the SSCS cat page, maybe we'd take the top 10 relevant ones for the main page. But choosing based on "it's too controversial" or creating subcats of subcats to avoid "accusations" doesn't seem like a strong enough argument. It's time to use WP:DUCK and call a duck a duck. If the courts have determined that SSCS have used violent actions in the name of ecology and the FBI says that's eco-terrorism and the notable experts say that SSCS are eco-terrorist then why are we trying so hard to make them sound nicer? Illegal explosives to blow up peoples ships, throwing things at sailors on the high seas, ramming ships, in the name of Ecology. Eco-terroism the category should most definitely stand. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And again, adding a category to a page places the page in that category. That's all it does. However, is in a subcategory of  so its inclusion on a page automatically adds that page to the Eco-terrorism heirachy. This is true for all 22 pages in the SSCS category and its subcat. Pages in the SSCS tree don't need to be manually added to  because they're already part of it. If you remove the SSCS category from the Eco-terrorism heirachy, as seems to be your intent, then the only page in the Eco-terrorism heirachy will be pages to which it's manually added. You're proposing what really is a nonsensical process. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More accurately, the category should be named "Organizations the FBI describe as eco-terrorists", since it is an ideologically motivated term, and a term whose use is largely confined to the FBI and those Americans who think the FBI has some sort of moral standing. The FBI see terrorism everywhere... it's great for funding. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be quite accurate detail-wise. But I think the Eco-terrorism cat does a good job right at the top stating that it's referring to the Eco-terrosim, article (which uses the FBI def) and it says, "This category includes articles that describe... issues related to the discussion on eco-terrorism, law enforcement organizations and efforts to stop eco-terrorism, organizations and people who have been convicted of crimes related to eco-terrorism." And I think SSCS falls under just about each of those descriptions, according to the notable experts quoted on both articles (EC & SSCS). 76.112.8.146 (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This edit shows why we don't need the article in the main cat as well as a subcat. Please see for the effect. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my opinion would negate the need for that and negate the need for further categorization away from EC into Accusations the FBI makes of EC, etc. etc. per reasons noted above. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * is too specific a title for a category. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is how I feel as well. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's why we use instead. I note that you removed that category from  with a justification that clearly misrepresented what I've said here. I've consistently said that  should be a subcat of  and that this article does not, as it is already in a subcat. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems that the consensus is to keep it at the mainpage but change it to "Acussations". 76.112.8.146 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Please keep the discussion going about which categories to keep here and which to move there. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of what conesnus is does not reflect the arguments that have been put forward here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it time yet to remove the pro-SS POV?
In the lede... "Sea Shepherd has received support for its tactics against fishing, whaling, and seal hunting from quarters such as media personalities, while their violent tactics are sometimes opposed" Why is the uncited support lead with and the detractive comments (which are cited) are buried under qualifiers and weasel wording? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Aussielegend, why did you remove cited material and claim to be balancing the article to present all sides? Please stop defending SS by removing material. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC) I added it back. Please don't delete cited material without discussion. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Aussie, as a consensus, I kept the info you restored, made it it's own sentence and added a cite tag. Fix it if you want to cite it but please don't add weasle words like "sometimes" back into the article lede. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As I indicated in the edit summary, the wording change was non-NPOV. It removed statements about support SSCS has received leaving only mention of criticism. The statement about the US Court of Appeals was cherry picked from the "Governmental response" section, giving it greater weight, which is also non-NPOV. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the article and as such, it's not necessary to cite everything if it's already cited elsewhere, so removal of content that is mentioned and cited in the "Public relations" section was inappropriate. Use of "sometimes" is appropriate as this is expanded upon elsewehere in the article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's the most important development. They can no longer operate. That's top line stuff man. Also, the way you word it gives prominence to your positive spin. That's not NPOV, that's POV pushing. Do you own this article? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not as significant as you think. Clearly they can still operate, as evidenced by the fact that the most recent action in the Southern Ocean happened after the US Court of Appeals made its decision and the US Court has no jurisdiction over an Australian lead crew. It's not significant enough to include in the lead, which should just be a summary of sections. If you act neutrally and present both points of view as is required, someone who is biased against the first view presented is always going to believe that view is given prominence. It's not, one view has to be presented first. Your wording gave prominence to the negative view by completely eliminating the statement about support - that's not neutral. As for "Do you own this article?", please comment on content, not on the contributor. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Point taken, Statement of support should be there and now is. It shouldn't be tied like a counterpunch to the criticism though, so it stands alone and thus does not mask the criticism but allows both to stand neutrally alone as verifiable fact.. The fact that a government other than Japan has made such a strong declaration is huge and relevant. I apologize for talking about you. On that point you are also correct. My criticism of your treatment of this article doesn't belong here. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You've restored the cherry-picked section from governmental response, which doesn't belong in the lead. It's giving undue weight to one point and, as already indicted, the statement of support doesn't need a citation because it's correctly summarising points from the public relations section. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree. I took your one though (people support SS, and sometimes they might not) and divided into two complete thoughts. Both of which may be independently cited or verified. I've even left your favorite one first like you said so that no one could complain about undo weight if I were to switch around the order of the two statements. So you are basically saying that it's undo weight to let the criticism stand on its own without using the qualifier "sometimes" and without hiding behind a statement of support? How is that NPOV? No we remove the inherent POV by separating the sentences and removing the weasel word from the one side. Now they are two independent thoughts, verified or not, cited or not. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Hang on.. let me separate the two issues worded as I see the issue and we talk about them separately.. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Aussielegend. Before there was a single paragraph that showed the positive and negative views in the intro. now the positive is one sentence with an unnecessary citation needed tag (as aussie said its not necessary to cite everything in the lead) while the negatives get two paragraphs with citations. it's not balanced and is obvious POV-pushing, especially when including the USA court of appeals. Aussie's right, it hasn't stopped the sea shepherds from operating so it shouldn't be there. User666777 (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Two separate issues. See just below for the two points. Go ahead and say why the important legal summary doesn't belong in the lede in the discussion below. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually they're intimately related and don't need to be discussed separately. The legal summary is not significant enough to include in the lead. It's inclusion is giving undue weight to one part of an entire section. As has been stated above, including it, as well as the way that you split the paragraph, leaves the reader with one challenged sentence dealing with well documented support, implying that's it not necessary true, and two cited paragraphs dealing with opposition to the organisation. It's an unbalanced summary of the article and the lead should not be unbalanced. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". The US Cort of Appeal ruling is not one of the most important aspects, any more that the ATO's ruling that SSCS cannot be given charitable status. It hasn't stopped SSCS from conducting operations in the Southern Ocean so it's really rather insignificant. It should not be in the lead at all. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A "non-profit, marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor" which uses "direct action tactics to protect marine life". These can only be described as pro-SS comments. The organization has been described by authorities in a number of countries as a terrorist organization. "Direct action" is a euphemism for violence and sabotage. Its leaders accept that what they do is often illegal. If this organization was run by moslem extremists rather than ecological extremists, few people would quibble about calling it an extremist organization. Its own literature does not present it as such a benign organisation as the lede does.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Major Court decision belongs in Lede
A US court made a decision to ban SS from being near the Japanese Fleet which changes everything about how they operate and led to the resignation of Paul Watson. This is the biggest news in SS since Limpet Mines and it deserves a mention in the lede. Disagree? Why? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I added the sentence to briefly summarize SSCS's current legal standing in the US. If it doesn't sound right, please help it to sound better. It's important shift to note that this is an illegal operation. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As I've indicated, and expanded upon above, it's not significant enough to include in the lead. It doesn't "summarize SSCS's current legal standing in the US" at all. It's merely a ruling that Paul Watson and SSCS can't approach the Japanese, which is not effective because it only affect US members of SSCS. As for "this is an illegal operation", I don't see what that refers to. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that attacking Japanese ships is illegal signifies a major shift in SSCS. It has always been the contention that actions are legal. Now that they are not they have to change the philosophy or the actions. It caused Paul Watson to step down. This is also a huge shift. Just because it's not important to YOU doesn't mean it's not important to many of the other readers. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism should not be hid in positive statements
"Sea Shepherd has received support for its tactics against fishing, whaling, and seal hunting from quarters such as media personalities, while their violent tactics are sometimes opposed" is a terrible way to say two things. 1. SS enjoys celebrity endorsement. 2. Organizations and governments oppose the violent direct actions. Split the two ideas up. Cite them both well. Don't use weasel words on either like "sometimes" and "apparently". Disagree? Why should we use weasel words? Why should we hide criticism behind a positive statement? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to being weasily, it is WP:SYNTH to do so, unless that type of comparison is made in reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a comparison being made. The lead, as it's supposed to, is merely summarising what's stated elsewhere in the article. That it's supported by by media personalities, who have purchased vessels for the organisation or who have had vessels named for them is well documented, as is the claim that other organisations and governments have criticised them. As has been pointed out above, separating the claims into one challenged sentence regarding support and two full paragraphs regarding opposition is not appropriate for the lead and is not maintaining a neutral point of view. In the lead statements should be concise and balanced. A single paragraph stating both views is more than appropriate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Within the same paragraph is fine. What_SYNTH_is_not but "Sea Shepherd has received support for its tactics against fishing, whaling, and seal hunting from quarters such as media personalities, while their violent tactics are sometimes opposed" is definitely WP:SYNTH and serves to minimize the opposition portion of the statement. These two concepts should be split.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks good right now. The weasel wording has not been re added and the two separate sentences make it look like separate thoughts. So that looks good to me. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Cat Stevens endorsed the 9/11 attacks, does that make them acceptable? The implication is that the support of a few "celebrities" outweighs criticism for its reckless and illegal stunts. Can that be correctRoyalcourtier (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Category pushing by one editor
I appreciate the contributions of Qwyirx and the subsequent agreeing edits from NorthbySouth, who both seem to be agreeing on keeping Acussations of Eco-terrorism, but Aussie keeps removing thier decision entirely. Please don't keep forcing the category into the SSCS cat page. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof was the creator of and has supported use of that category in lieu of . Qwyrxian has said he's fine with the category. He specifically said, "just as long as they remain in a sub-cat that is directly connected to eco-terrorism, the change is fine by me". You're the only one stubbornly arguing that the article belongs directly in the cat and not in a subcat. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So as soon as the admin unlocks it you being pushing it your way again and that's me being stubborn? I reverted it back to North's edit instead of my own. Let's leave it at his last edit instead of yours or mine. That should suffice for now. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "So as soon as the admin unlocks" - No, the article was unprotected 3 days before I edited, baed on what appears to be consensus, afterdiscussion had died down. and that was two days after the edit that NorthBySouthBaranof made, which I mentioned above. Based on the opinions expressed by editors who have participated in this discussion, yes, it does seem that you are being stubborn. Here is a summary of those opinions:

AussieLegend's historical review

 * Support removal of from article and retention of  as a subcategory of
 * - Created as a more NPOV category and started the "Category will be removed" thread, referring to . Cites policy as a reason for removal of the cat and says that inclusion of  as a subcategory of  is appropriate.
 * - Specifically said, "just as long as they remain in a sub-cat that is directly connected to eco-terrorism, the change is fine by me".
 * - I've explained the reasons at length.
 * Support removal of from article with no clear indication of position on retention of  as a subcategory of
 * - Categorically stated support for removal of from article.
 * Oppose removal of cat from article. Insists on removal of as a subcategory of  and has been persistently doing so, to the point of edit-warring.
 * - Still seems unable to understand the way we categorise.
 * Neutral
 * - Only made a comment about categorisation, didn't state a preference (see further new comments below)
 * - Tried to explain categorisation to 76.112.8.146, didn't state a preference
 * - Has stated that he doesn't want to get involved in the content issue because, if he does, he can't act administratively.
 * From that, unless I've misread the opinions of more than one editor, it would appear that consensus is that the category should be removed from this article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At the request of Bbb23 I have re-re-clarified the summary of opinions here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, I think the category is appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which one? And where? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The application of eco terrorism, or organizations accused of eco terrorism, directly to the article, as this article is the main article of the sea shepherd category, and such duplicate categorization is specifically contemplated by the categorization policies and guidelines. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would we not keep the SSCS category as a subcat of the categories, as it was? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No objection to that as well. but the presence of the SSCS cat as a subcat of those categories does not preclude the use of those categories on the article directly.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're a bit of mixed bag. "Supports retention of one or the other category in the article, as well as in the SSCS cat". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

76.112.8.146's historical review

 * Nice try but the current edit warring is more like this
 * Keep the recent addition of on the article or not
 * Support (keep the Category )
 * - Created category and placed main page in
 * - Thinks that this is a good compromise for now. It's notable and pertinent. But still thinks its not AS good as . I don't like the words "accused of".
 * - Who stated in one place that on the main page, "Either eco-terrorism or an appropriate sub-cat should stay." and in another place that he supports removing Eco-terrorism on the main page so long as it's replaced by
 * WP:TPO violation, but adding self here, per comments above.
 * Reject (remove the category)
 * - Has stated that this is a matter of "common sense"
 * Other than that I don't think anyone else has weighed in on the current round of edits. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You are very clearly misrepresenting both NorthBySouthBaranof and Qwyrxian. NorthBySouthBaranof created the "Category will be removed" thread and said in his opening "Categorizing this article in "Eco-terrorism" is entirely inappropriate". He further stated "As soon as the article is unprotected, I will be reverting the categorization". Prior to your edits, this article was not in. When Bbb23 warned him about his position regarding reversion he explained the categorisation process. It was he who created and it was he who mad the SSCS category a subcat of that cat. He also said "the category [Eco-terrorism] should be depopulated and replaced with appropriate subcategories". His subsequent comments have been about appropriate category naming. His only edit in the article has been to move the article into a more NPOV category. He did not remove the SSCS category from. (You did that!) Nor has he stated that his position on retention of the SSCS category as a subcat of has changed. That's just your assumption at this point. I've asked NorthBySouthBaranof to clarify his current position but, until he does, his position can only be as he has alreay stated. By comparison, Qwyrxian's position is very clear. He said, "Just as long as they remain in a sub-cat that is directly connected to eco-terrorism, the change is fine by me, and seems to probably be compatible with our broader categorization schemes." He has further stated "My opinion is, based on my extensive experience as an editor, that moving the group out of the main cat into a sub-cat is acceptable and compliant with policy." Note that he says "group", not article. He is cearly referring the the SSCS category, not this article. The only person who has said that the SSCS category should not be a subcat of is you. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1 Please go fix your list and add my reasons instead of more personal attack. 2 North made a new sub-cat and put the SSCS article in the new sub-cat of Eco-terrorism that Qwyrx agreed to, you reverted it. I reverted you back to North's edits. The article is currently locked on North's last edit. While I don't think the sub-cat is great, I think it's better than re-moving it to the SSCS cat page and support it as a decent compromise for now. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I've removed your heading because it disassociates my response from what I was responding to, which makes it hard for outside readers to come in and follow the conversation. Secondly, the only thing wrong with my list is that I haven't inclded all of the reversions that you've made at the SSCS category. I've read what editors have actually said, not what I want them to have said. I've even quoted them so others can verify the editors positions. Thirdly, the "new sub-cat" that you speak of was created by NorthBySouthBaranof in August, well before this discussion. He added it the the SSCS category shortly after its creation on 5 August. It wasn't until 23 October that NorthBySouthBaranof made his edit which, according to his edit summary was to move the article to an NPOV category, which also followed up on his earlier statement that as soon as the article was unprotected he was going to remove from the article. Qwyrxian didn't agree to NorthBySouthBaranof's edit. His last comment here was two days prior to the edit when he said "moving the group out of the main cat into a sub-cat is acceptable and compliant with policy". This was after he had said, "Just as long as they [the articles in the SSCS category] remain in a sub-cat that is directly connected to eco-terrorism, the change is fine by me, and seems to probably be compatible with our broader categorization schemes". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gaijin for hopping in there. I hope we can resolve this by the time the block comes down. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

commentary on the two viewpoints
1 Aussie, Please go fix your list and add my reasons instead. Please refrain from addressing your personal feelings of other editors instead of the edits. 2 Again to address your concerns, it's easy to see from the history, North made a new sub-cat and put the SSCS article in the new sub-cat of Eco-terrorism that Qwyrx agreed to, you reverted it. I reverted you back to North's edits. The article is currently locked on North's last edit. While I don't think the sub-cat is great, I think it's better than re-moving it to the SSCS cat page and support it as a decent compromise for now. 3. I don't care if you want to play around with changing categories, that's your business but issue 1 still irritates me and doesn't help the discussion, could you fix your list? Thank you. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC) For instance, you could say that I like it on the main page because it's an important topic. Or... I like it on the mainpage because it's always in the news. Or because governmental officials have used the term and we keep arguing about it. For me importance should dictate if a category (such as eco-terrorism) shows on the main article page or that article's category page. You could write that up there. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given your edits at the category and your insistence here, your claims that categories are being "hidden" by placing them in the SSCS category, your comments at BBB23's talk page saying that "favorable" categories are being added to this article while "unfavorable" categories are being hidden at the SSCS category, your cooments at the TfD, and comparing that to my experience with categorisation over the past 7 years, I believe that my summary is accurate.
 * You're repeating yourself. I've already rebutted these comments with quotes and diffs.
 * "you could say that I like it on the main page because it's an important topic. Or... I like it on the mainpage because it's always in the news. Or because governmental officials have used the term and we keep arguing about it" - You've never argued these so I can't say it.
 * "For me importance should dictate if a category (such as eco-terrorism) shows on the main article page or that article's category page." That's not how we categorise. Your comment only solidifies my position in relation to #1. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I will clarify my viewpoint since I think I didn't keep up with the discussion as well as I should.
 * I support adding this page to a category titled some form of "Organizations **** eco-terrorism", where **** = "accused of" "involved with" " associated with" or some other such phrasing.
 * Once #1 is done, I then support the removal of this page from the "Eco-terrorism" category. This is essentially mandatory per the parent-child categorization rules.
 * I absolutely oppose the idea that we make an "SSCS" category which is a sub-cat of "Eco-terrorism". In order to accurately categorize the group in a way that makes it easy for other readers to immediately see SSCS's relationship to other, similar groups, we need a category that clearly includes this major facet of their identity. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the issue: It is clear, based on the consensus result at this CFD that categories such as "accused of" are unacceptable per NPOV. Nor can we simply categorize it in "eco-terrorism" because that is a contentious, disputed category and failing to qualify it with that fact fails NPOV.
 * The solution would be to find objective, widely-recognized governmental sources that have explicitly and officially designated SSCS as a terrorist group, as in Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government. Simply quoting an official in a press release or something would be insufficient.
 * It simply may not be possible to, in an NPOV way, relate SSCS to "eco-terrorism" in the way you're asking for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian, thanks for your response #1 was done but has been reverted by the IP. #2 was also done but also reverted by the IP. I'm having some trouble understanding #3. Specifically, what do you mean by an "SSCS" category? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I give up. That CfD is obviously going in that direction, even though that CfD is completely insane. We obviously need to categorize groups who have been accused of criminal acts by numerous governments around the world as being criminal in nature as, well, groups accused by governments of committing criminal acts. We're not talking about BLP here-this is an organization. It's not libel to state that, as a fact, this group has been accused of criminal acts by world governments. And NBSB is flat out wrong to state that we would prefer a government source to an independent reliable source--we never want primary government docs when we can get secondary sources--in fact, primary government sources are generally not allowed for accusations of criminal activity (though that is primarily a BLP thing). But I have no interest in arguing this further, because seriously some of y'all...are just...I have no words that don't violate WP:CIVIL. Either that, or I simply don't understand Wikipedia categories. Or I'm completely wrong, which I suppose is also possible. I simply don't understand how this article cannot be categorized, directly and unambiguously, as linked to eco-terrorism, when they have, in fact, been directly linked by governments, government members, and news sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I do see some benefit in the category and was surprised to see it nominated. Have a look elswehere on the CfD page and you'll see !votes for other cats that contradict the CfD. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "We obviously need to categorize groups who have been accused of criminal acts by numerous governments around the world as being criminal in nature as, well, groups accused by governments of committing criminal acts" That is right but for the purpose of government recognition (and wiki categorization) I don't believe governments create that exact distinction. For instance, governmental officials have stated that the SSCS are eco-terrorist, governments define what eco-terrorism is (criminal activity to promote the environement) and then that's that. There's no law per se about not being an Eco-terrorist. What I mean to say is that no one would be on a list of people convicted of Eco-terrorism because that's not the court's name for the crime. It should be obvious if you read the FBI definition of Eco-terrorism, then you  read the notable things SSCS have done then you see the two line up. And if that's not good enough for you, there are plenty of notable people cited on the page already who call SSCS   Eco-terrorists. We then don't have to insert our opinion if we agree or don't. The experts apply label X, we use label X. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "I simply don't understand how this article cannot be categorized, directly and unambiguously, as linked to eco-terrorism, when they have, in fact, been directly linked by governments, government members, and news sources." I agree 100%! But I don't think passing the buck and saying "maybe someone accused them of this.." is good enough. If it's notable, reliable and reported by an expert in the field, we should reflect it here and not weasel around with "maybe" words. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Other organizations in Category:Eco-terrorism
The other active organizations in the category are as follows:


 * Animal Liberation Front - an organization specifically designated by the FBI and UK authorities as terrorist. Listed by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism:
 * Earth Liberation Front - same deal, specifically designated by national authorities as a terrorist group. Listed by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism:
 * Oxford Arson Squad - has specifically claimed responsibility for major arson attacks. Listed by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism:
 * Revolutionary Cells - Animal Liberation Brigade - specifically designated as terrorist by FBI. Listed by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism:
 * Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty - an organization specifically designated by the FBI and UK authorities as terrorist. Listed by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism:

This is what is required by NPOV for us to categorize an organization in a category that implies or states some level of connection with terrorism. Merely breaking a law or having the word casually applied in the media is not an acceptable level of sourcing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The NCSTRT is a university organization. While being listed there is certainly strong weight towards something being a terrorist organization, its not being listed there is not neccesarily evidence against it. As for the FBI . Or to take a different vein, how about The sea shepherd's own documentary "Confessions of an eco-terrorist" http://www.confessionsfilm.com/. How about academic sources?  . all of this is not to say that they actually factually ARE a terrorist organization, but certainly the topic is related to them and people looking at the topic of eco terrorism would expect to see them listed there. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * North, thank you for rebooting this conversation, and with the civil tone. I agree with both Gavin and you, with Gavin that topics heavily related to Eco-terrorism should be included. And with you that active organizations who perform Eco-terrorist acts and are cited by notable experts as having done that should be included. But I don't think the NCSTRT should be our (only) gold standard because it's not the NCSTRT cat. I think the standard should be whatever is listed in the article, because the cat is directly referring to the article. As it is, using wiki policies of notabillity, I think that any organization that has undeniably done acts of eco-terrorism and is given that title by a notable expert in the field, then we should stick the opinion of the notable experts. In the case of SSCS, the bombings, the rammings, etc count as the act and many notable experts and governmental persons have used the term to refer to the SSCS. NCSTRT is definitely one qualifying notable expert. So would any government head of state whose law pertains to the actions, or court who has tried SSCS for any crimes or placed them on a watch list. There are also others listed in the article that qualify as notable experts. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The NCSTRT is a university organization directly funded by and associated with the Department of Homeland Security. The terrorist organization profiles are known to be derived from legitimate governmental sources. That makes it a particularly reliable source for this issue.
 * The problem with the category is that it is unequivocal. It attributes a connection with the category title as a factual statement. That statement is contested. To comply with NPOV, we cannot attach it directly to such a category. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * North, I love it this is a great resource for this particular topic. http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tops/terrorist_organizations_by_ideology.asp I totally agree with you on the value of this notable expert. I disagree however that this should be our sole notable expert on the topic. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Which countries have laws against "Eco-terrorism"?
Currently one argument is that no notable expert is sufficient other than a court to apply the title Eco-terrorist for the purpose of categorisation. While I disagree with this argument, I'd still like to know if such a thing exists. Are there any countries where the title "eco-terrorism" is it's own kind of law? In my country I am aware of laws against arson, theft, attempted murder, etc.. but not any of Eco-terrorism. I could be wrong. Does anyone here know differently? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * this resource: http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tops/terrorist_organizations_by_ideology.asp demonstrates notable US research and categorizatio in the matter. (Thank you North) they do not use the phrase eco-terrorism but use, Terrorist Organizations by Ideology -- Environmental.
 * Canadian governmental reports refers to SSCS, Paul Watson and "his supporters have been involved in a number of militant actions against whale hunting" as "Single issue Terrorism" as viewable on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service website. http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm74-eng.asp
 * We have the famous FBI report calling the acts of SSCS "acts of eco-terrorism". http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism
 * Australia has denied SSCS charity status because in that country they are considered "criminals" for their violent actions.
 * Paul Watson is currently a wanted man on the run from the German law, Japanese law and Costa Riccan law and has an international Red Alert for him. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/08/10/news/interpol-issues-watson-red-notice/#.Um8zJ_mUR2U

Now all of that is the same stuff, criminal actions in the name of ecology (eco-terrorism). The crimes have different names because 1. Not all of these countries speak English and 2. Even the ones that do don't label eco-terrorism crimes a "Crime of eco-terrorism". Do we all agree then that using a court produced list of people "convicted of eco-terrorism" isn't appropriate? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)