Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archive 4

Governmental Siezure of the Farley Mowatt
Hey guys, rather than edit it myself I'd like it if one of you registered users would kindly change the wording in the opening paragraph to note that the Farley Mowatt is not part of the fleet and has been siezed by the Canadian government. I think it's important to the accuracy of this article to include the perspective of major international players (like Canada) prominantly. I applaud the effort of the above registered users who have shown restraint and editorial neutrality. You are making this a better article. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Any ideas on the lead? It will be easy to throw a few lines on the recent judgment in the section already explaining the incident. With the lead, should it be mentioned? If so, "they used to have a boat yada yada"? For now, I'll remove the boat name in the lead but it should be easy enough to re include-if needed-after some ideas on what fits best.Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean the Farley Mowat is not part of the fleet? 4.246.202.172 (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Nevermind. It was the flagship so at least a single line is needed.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up x2: I am shocked right now. I was so busy yesterday concerned about a single link I didn't realize how poor the Canadian seal hunt paragraph was. Time to fix it. Here are my concerns:

Whoever wrote this paragraph should be ashamed. I know I said we shouldn't be rude but that is just horrible.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * General layout may need improvement. I'm having a hard time with the first line myself.
 * Canadian Coast Guard ship is used but all sources say the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
 * The group was "observing" is used. Maybe true maybe not but according to the source: "The group contends it was ... observing Canada's seal hunt, and has been unfairly and unlawfully arrested." While a sealer said (in the same source) "Mowat harassed..." while another source says "The ship also chased the smaller, slower vessels or cut them off from reaching ice floes where there were seals"
 * International waters. Again, this is disputed. The group says one thing Canadian government says another. Both can get mention without hurting anyone's feelings.
 * Collision should get the same treatment: "The Fisheries department says that during the incident, the coast guard's Des Groseilliers icebreaker, which had been dispatched to help, was "grazed" by the Mowat, while the Sea Shepherd Society says its ship was rammed."
 * Oops. It was Coast Guard. Also, the RAID was in Canadian waters so that is OK to. A little hasty on my part. Added a little more info. Removed court preceedings which were only dded as news and are no longer needed Source removed is .Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added more info. Did not format refs properly but assume there will be some changes requested. I think a line should be added mentioning the organizations concerns with the arrest and cleaning up the lawyer lines would be good but I don't get it all without researching it more.Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I failed to use the sandbox in my rush to finish up and get some wine in me. Apologies.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A few comments about this. Apparently a couple of SSCS people were convicted of coming to close with their boat to some sealer boats. I'd hardly consider that terrorism though. Taking their boat and fining them just for "getting to close" is over the top in my opinion. But were talking about Canada here which has people like this in charge. What is it that people here so object to about the SSCS? Because they are trying to stop this from happening. That makes them heroes in my book. 4.246.202.172 (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, one thing that I have said before that I think is missing from this article is why Sea Shepherd is doing what they are doing. The human element. Otherwise it's just a bland and confusing recital of facts that give people the impression that they are just a bunch of "terrorists" raping and pillaging at will on the high seas. Some sort to explanation, the philosophy behind their actions needs to be mentioned. The sad fact is were it not for Sea Shepard and Greenpeace the world would not even know about the brutal massacre of baby seals and whales. People need to understand why they are doing what they do, and why good people support them. The story of the Sea Shepherd is a quintessential David v Goliath struggle.

As an example of what I'm talking about, to the seal section I once added the following (but it was deleted):

"'Each year up to 350,000 baby harp seals are clubbed to death for their fur, usually in front of their mothers . The hunt has been criticised by scientists,The risk to the seal population is alarmingly high. The study demonstrates that the government may not know that the seal population is at a critical level until it is too late for anything but drastic action. That means they would continue to set high quotas for hunting when the seal population is in serious decline' . Additionally, polls have revealsed that the majority of citizens who are aware of the issue are against sealing . As with whaling, the Sea Shepherd Society has assumed the role of defender. As such, they have been attacked, sometimes physically by the sealers."

Some photos, not necessarily gory ones, but a photo of a seal and/or whale hunt would help people understand. By the way, I could use some of that wine.

4.246.202.172 (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Screw you hippie, the bottle is gone :) ! Critique of the seal hunting is not appropriate for this article however, a wikilink to seal hunting needs to be provided so the reader can see what is going on out there. Information about the groups reasoning for their direct action is definitely OK. I am sure we can find something out there explaining why they feel/are justified. "The group calls themselves 'xyz' or states they do it because '____' or whatever else" from a good source should for sure be included. Watch out for the "in your face" and many times biased writing styles of some organizations, less professional freelancers or solely internet based "news" sites, or blogs and there should be no worries. As always, if you see me put in a source that looks questionable bring it up.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice edits Cptnono. It's getting cleaned up nicely. On concern though, the Farley is no longer in the fleet due to siezure by the Canadian government. The opening reads that it is still operated by the SS. NVM :) I'm dense. You've handled the job perfectly. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding back and removing
68, I am removing your comments from the Response section. Here's why: 1) Inaccuracy - the claim that they have received "noting but criticism" from governments is wrong. 2) Redundancy, you are repeating what is already found in the criticism section. 3) Ungrammatical including numerous spelling errors. 4) This section is the SSCS's chance to answer their critics which is not unreasonable seeing as they are accused of being terrorists.

Also I am re-adding information you removed since I think it is important to point out for those who think that they are a criminal organization that they have never caused any provable physical harm to any whaler or sealer. Additionally it is from a reliable source (the New York Times) so in light of everything that we have been talking about lately, re: sources, I certainly think that it can and should remain. 4.246.202.172 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hooray sources! Sorry for my grammar screw ups over the last 45 minutes of stuffing in information. Edit as appropriate and have a good evening.Cptnono (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1, you misread it. Re read the "nothing but" sentance to see what was said. 2, The critisim/support section is reduntant from the article, remove it from there if you need to. 3, Fix the grammer then don't delete. 4, We do not need to provide POV sections. It's actually against the rules to make a section for POV and say no one else can talk except them here. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am reverting 68. Again you are adding criticism which is already in the criticism section. Also, your new additional criticism about the Netherlands and shipping registries shows that you are simply fishing for anything bad that can be tossed in. You say not to delete, yets precisely what you've been doing when you remove reliably sourced information that has been there for a long time. By the way I moved your above comment down as it was dividing my comment. Usually okay but I wanted to keep those two paragraphs together. 4.246.200.33 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You've just erased the edits of another registered user. Listen I'm not sure how to make this clear but there is no appropriate place for a POV section. Then entire article must be NPOV. Summarise the beliefs of the Sea Shepherds and leave it at that, we don't need to defend them. The facts (and appropriate refs shouls speak for themselves. Thanks. Also.. in summarizing, NONE of your information is being removed. The refs are still there. The facts and opinions are just being stated ina neutral way. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 68, what don't you get here? The information your are trying to ram into another section is already covered in the criticism section, where it belongs. Additionally, you need to read up on NPOV. Specifically go to this section Information Supression of the NPOV tutorial page. There it says, and I quote: "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant ... Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: ... Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors ... Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.". By continually removing Mr Watson's comments in which he explains that they are not criminals and which are published in the New York Times you are attempting to censor. NRen2k5 (08:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)) has even called for the elimination of the supporters section but not the criticism section. In what universe is that NPOV? Certainly Mr Watson is allowed to make one statement in his defense in an article about his organization which refers to them as terrorists and is loaded with critical quotes from his enemies for crissakes? Sheesh! By the way, you'll notice that I have not removed one thing from the criticism section while you and others have been busy trying to censor anything favorable. Who's the villian here?4.246.206.190 (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, let's work on getting the "crtitisism and supporters" sections into the main body of the article. Then we can do away with both of those sections, yes? For that to work, you need to work with me on this goal instead of against me. We can't disect all relavant info inot separate POV paragraphs. The whole article needs to flow from the same neutral perspective. Help me with this please. Let's not silence anyone but rephrase and restate in a neutral fashion. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No. If you bother to read the history you'll see that there was a reason that these sections were done as they are. People felt it was a mess before that so they decided to organize it this way. I'm not saying that it couldn't work but it's disrespectful to the labors of those who went before to just screw with it because you feel like it - or because you think it might be an effective way to censor. Also you say, "Let's not silence anyone". Agreed, then please stop deleting Paul Watson's comments agreed? 4.246.202.65 (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent use of sources. I've removed the large blocks of quoted text in favor of concise summarization, while leaving the sources intact. This way we have the source of the information without allowing the article to be taken over be needless POV. Cheers. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Needless POV", that's funny. Then kindly remove all those negative POV comments that someone obviously went to a lot of work to dig up just to post here for the express purpose of trying to influence readers against the SSCS. Come on, clearly your only interest is in being fair and objective right? 4.246.203.136 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added back additional refferences to that section as well. Please do not chop up this article into Critisism and support section. That's not how these articles need to read. It opens the door for easy potshots. Can anyone else shime in on this last paragraph so we dont have this back and forth? Again.. please refrain from removing infomration from the dialogue. The objective is to take the information within the critisim and support sections and weave it into one article. Thanks. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, all the information is there in that last paragraph would one of the registered users who have been working on this artilce mind taking a look at it and cleaning up any POV wording that may eb left over? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Working the Critisism and Support into the main article
OK.. this is going to be a chore, especially if edit wars persist. Anyone want to give suggestions on how we can proceed with this? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded.Cptnono (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverts and POV pushing from San Jose
I see that all the recent blanket reverts, edit wrring and general smack talking is comeing from the IP addys starting with 4.246.. It's a dialup account in San Jose. I've tried bringing it to the talk page on several of these IP addreses but not with any response. I'm fairly certain that it's the same person. I don't know the official route to take at this point. Would one of you registered users mind doing a little problem solving? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We could request the article be semi-protected. It’s much better than blocking that IP range from Wikipedia – for all we know, it could be a school or public library. Unfortunately, protection will probably prevent you from editing too. But from what I read at User access levels, if you register an account and make a few good edits, you should be able to resume editing here in short order. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That might be the best step.. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And the cabal conspires to silence their opponent. You people are really disgusting. 4.246.206.190 (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This page won't likely be protected anytime soon. Even if that happens, you can simply register an account which is encouraged for both of you currently with IP addresses as handles. And I'll repeat what I quoted above since it applies here, as well: How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle "Wikipedia articles eventually reach neutrality because warring parties push their POV, not in spite of it. Wikipedia therefore depends on POV warriors. Which is just as well. (As there are lots of them) So, don't despair."  PrBeacon (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks PrBeacon, Actually I thought about it and made the decision not to register. Per FAQ/Overview "editing as an unregistered user is acceptable. Many valuable contributors have made this choice". Maybe it is better to do so as you say, and I have noticed that anonymous contributors often suffer what I would call "IP discrimination", which is a strange, almost racial in tone thing. But oh well. 4.246.202.65 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * San Jose, there is no conspiricy. You continue to revert entire sections of the article to represent one side.. you say your edits are creating a paragraph giving "SSCS's chance to answer their critics" but to do that you keep removing refs to the discussion on legality and authority. Please quit erasing the refs that you don't like.. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Holy cow. Then put the damn refs in the Criticism section where they belong and stop duplicating them! 4.246.202.65 (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And what right do you have to be trying to track me down 68? 4.246.206.190 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * San Jose, you published your IP for the whole world to see. It's not secret.. this is all in the open. I wish we could work together seeing as how you seem to have lots of energy for this. What this article could really use is for you to take the critisisms and supporters sections and start melding those into the article body. Perhaps chronologically. That would make sense of some of this. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What a bozo. Hey 68, I know you think you're clever but just for your information I live nowhere near San Jose. Just because an IP might trace to a certain area that has no bearing whatever on where a person lives or is writing from. IPs can range all over the country. You should be embarrassed, and ashamed. 4.246.202.65 ([[User

talk:4.246.202.65|talk]]) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal attacks. Also, instead of large blocks of POV quotes, summarize concisely. This shouldn't read like an ad for whale wars. Thanks. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Please refrain from personal attacks" That's rich coming from a guy who was trying to track me down. And to what end? If that's not personal I don't know what is. Then comes your continual deletion of Paul Watson's reliable sourced comments which even Cptnono agreed on. What is it that he is saying that you feel so threatened about Mr 68? Is it because he gets a chance to explain a bit, that his comments are not those that would come from a raving lunatic. Is that what you don't want people to see? And don't give me that crap about it's too POV. It's a damn sight less POV then those six other negative comments that preceed it which you apparently have no problem with. I can see right through you. I'll say it again, you are a bozo. 4.246.203.136 (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Get your shit together, 4... . Your attempt at balance could be a great thing if you put forth the effort you obviously want to. Get some good sources and make this a better article. You're learning the ropes (guidelines and all that stuff) and know the subject well enough so put it to good use. Instead of calling 68 a bozo and adding in sources and language that will have to be reverted you should fix the article. Every time you make a defensive edit you are losing the opportunity to add much needed content to this project that could be informing readers in a way that won't get them on their heels as well.Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute Cptnono, "blatant violation and the bias source"? Are you refering to the Paul Watson comment found in the NYTimes, the one about which you earlier said, "Hooray sources!" and "Information about the groups reasoning for their direct action is definitely OK. I am sure we can find something out there explaining why they feel/are justified. "The group calls themselves 'xyz' or states they do it because '____' or whatever else" from a good source should for sure be included."

Sorry, I don't have time for this game anymore. 4.246.203.136 (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just went through each of those quotes in the last edit to the last section of the article. I ensured that each of the citations you requested are represented in the article. Large quotes of text have been summarised but all of your information is still there. For instance it talks about th adoption of a "a law enforcement mission".. nice and clear. That means we don't have to introduce a long preachy quote verifying that. We just provide a link so if soeone wants to do additional research they will be directed that way with the article staying neutral. We have to treat this article the same way as the Hitler article. Take a look sometime.. it is biased even though everyone has strong feelings about him. They were still able to make a good neutral article. We should be able to do that here as well. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh.. scratch that. Looks like Hitler has been taken off the goo article list. Still you get my point (hopefully). It was for a long time a quality good article non biased and everything.. while still presenting all the facts. We can do that here. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't notice the "blatant" #4 inserted was a quote. Apologies for making a mistake in the reverts edit summary and what probably cam across completely terrible. In regards to the sources however (primary reason for reverting): I saw too many Sea Shepherd citations after the added lines which got under my skin. Like I said, we need to get rid of those. NY Times is a perfectly fine source and it shows that there are reliable sources covering this stuff.Cptnono (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Layout
It is time to set a functional layout for this article. Currently, "Operations" is a limited preamble and info on rammings. After that, it goes into a detailed time line starting in '05 when editors started paying attention. Operations could be read as the groups internal ops (similar to a business model with developments) while activities could be all the info about its direct-action operations. I don't know if this should be in a timeline format (similar to now) or grouped into types (anti-whaling, ant-fishing, anti-seal hunting). Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * here is a source removed. Not sure of its neutrality (only glanced) but there is a timeline:


 * 2 points. I like what you did with the opening paragraph. It allows the reader to know the philosophical base (what the SS say) and how the rest of the world sees them (what the government, etc say). I think it will be difficult to make sure an undue wieght is not placed on what the sea shepherds want to be seen as but I think the opening navigates those waters well. In the topic of layout. I think the idea of a summary in timeline form is a great idea. I think one section "Organization History" would be appropriate (no need for both sections in my mind). I think almost all of the info in the "Background" section could be reworked into the History and left there. I think all the notable critisms and support could also be worked into that section when NOTABLE groups have critisised or supported their actions. Good work so far mate. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We are going to need to expand "early history".Cptnono (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is another time line that covers most of the Watson's history. It is not neutral and cannot be used as a source but it will help with key words while google news searching.   Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: . So we have a press release from the government of St Lucia along with information from both Norwegian and Japanese whalers. Plenty of info here. Hopefully, we can find some sources not from the whalers.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of the difficulty is that the Sea Shepherds seem to stage opperations around small fishing villages, like in Norway and St.Lucia. Their whole community will be pro-whaling making it biased.. and their governments themselves have come under attack, making them biased. Still, it is well documented and we should present the information as it is manifested, noting it's source in the article so as not to claim the bias. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the Norwegian one for the most part but we need to watch paraphrasing since it might come across too negative. Another source would be preferred but we can always see what comes up. I ran into some heavily biased environmental "news" sites so I would hate to set a precedent if people take offense to this one.Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)recently removed but might be used: Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the way the layout is going. Info is being duplicated and there isn't a good flow with the "accusations of terrorism" and "membership" sections (one line section too small anyways). We need to figure out a better layouts somehow. Also, the recent whaling stuff is getting more weight than anything else since it is current, has a TV show, and in more internet news sources. We should work to give more info about the previous decades. I don't know the best direction to go layout wise.Cptnono (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another source (biased) Cptnono (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Source with extra info: Cptnono (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

undent: I have added some more info.
 * I have added citation needed tags to info found in the biased crwhale.org source. It isn't contentious but thought it might be appropriate.
 * It is probably time to start grouping info together (whaling, fishing, shark poaching, trees) to reduce the couple line sentences in subsections. This will reduce clutter and remove the newsy feel of the prose.
 * The 1992 vessel was not sunk as originally stated in the article.
 * Still need to add info to Sea Shepherd dispacthing "agents" to spike trees
 * Still need to add info alleged weapon use.
 * Still need to add info to the boats being sank Cptnono
 * Still need to add info to the fleet (they have had several more vessels than this article currently states)
 * These are pretty basic entries. Feel free to fiddle with grammar, expand, complain here, anything else. (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
Here are some ideas for the layout. I am running into plenty of couple line subsections that should be included but giving them their own subsections seems off. For example: Watson and Martin Sheen getting ran off by 200 Canadian seal hunters with clubs and Sea Shepherd ramming a Mexican fishing boat. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Now


 * Lead
 * Organization
 * Operations
 * Date
 * Date
 * Date
 * and so on

or


 * Lead
 * Organization
 * Operations
 * Canadian seal hunting
 * Whaling
 * Norway
 * Makah
 * Faroe Islands
 * Japan
 * Japan sub 1
 * Japan sub 2
 * Japan sub 3
 * Other marine life ops (turtles, sharks, fishing)

or (to remove the massively subcategorized Japan section)


 * Lead
 * Organization
 * Operations
 * Canadian seal hunting
 * Date 1
 * Date 2
 * Date 3
 * Whaling
 * Date 1
 * Date 2
 * Date 3
 * ect
 * Other marine life ops (turtles, sharks, fishing)
 * Date 1
 * Date 2
 * Date 3

Discussion on Violence again
I clipped the phrase within support that someone didn't consider SS direct actions as violence. If you read further in that article the best he says to defend his position is that no one had been killed yet. I'm thinking that doesn't really add to the discussion at all.. unless we want to open the discussion on what or what is not violence.. which I don't think we want to do here and now. So I shortened the quote to demonstrate who he was and that he supports them and left the rest out. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Monash University
Might be used. Where to go and how to paraphrase?

In a recent (2008) paper, Dr Gerry Nagtzaam, a lecturer and researcher in the School of Environmental Science, the Faculty of Law and the Global Terrorism Research Centre, Monash University, Australia, and Dr. Pete Lentini of the Global Terrorism Research Centre, Monash University, wrote:

'Throughout the article we maintain that the Sea Shepherds constitute an example of a gray area phenomenon. Despite the ambiguity surrounding their legal status and academic interpretations of their actions, the results of nearly three decades of the organization’s activities, including its 2007 campaign to disrupt Japanese Antarctic Whaling, suggest that the Sea Shepherds may be best categorized as a vigilante group, because they claim they are seeking to enforce a legal status quo because of states’ and the international community’s inabilities or unwillingness to do so.'

From: Vigilantes on the High Seas? The Sea Shepherds and Political Violence. Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 20, 2008, pp. 110–133

Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have found the direct quote (above), which comes from the abstract for the referenced academic paper in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence. The website that contains the abstract is below for use as an external reference. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a789728401?words=nagtzaam&hash=3964044342

Darwin&#39;s Fishe (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Decent enough quote. Where should it go and how should it be paraphrased?Cptnono (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So it is in now. I didn't register to read the whole thing. What incidents doe sit discuss? Is it solely about whaling? Does it cover them as a whole? Any info on the context would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

FBI reference
I have removed the statements saying that Sea Shepherd is listed as an eco-terrorist organisation by the FBI for the following reasons:

1) The FBI do not currently list Sea Shepherd as an eco-terrorist organisation. The FBI National Counterterrorism Centre's 2007 Report on Terrorism (published in April 2008), contains no reference to the Sea Shepherds as an ecoterrorist organisation nor do other FBI reports.

2) The reference given in the Wikipedia page is the: Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, given in 2002. He is giving personal expert opinion on the subject of ecoterrorism and is not making direct statements on behalf of the FBI as to offical actions, listings or policy.

3) The only reference in the testimony to Sea Shepherd is in one paragraph of two sentences. The first is:

Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. This sentence contitutes his personal opinion. The second sentence is:

The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature. This sentence is a definition, apparently used by the FBI in 2002, of ecoterrorism and he uses it to qualify his first sentence.

Neither sentences directly or indirectly state that the FBI has listed Sea Shepherd as an ecoterrorist organisation. Nor do the sentences, together or apart, constitute an offical listing of Sea Shepherd as an ecoterrorist organisation. At most they reflect Jarboe's POV and while they may, or may not, reflect a cultural view of Sea Shepherd within the FBi, this does not constitute an official position.

4) The FBI is a domestic policing body of the United States and only has jurisdiction within US areas, except in rare and exceptional circumstances. If the Sea Shepherd conducted a direct action within US jurisdiction then the FBI may or may not list Sea Shepherd as a ecoterrorist organisation. This has not yet occurred.

Therefore the reference is incorrect, inaccurate, and disengenuous.

BE ADVISED, if this reference reappears then:

a. The poster is perpetuating a fallacy,

b. The poster is acting in an intellectually dishonest manner,

c. The poster is acting contrary to Wikipedia standards of fact, integrity and balance,

d. The poster will be acting to an agenda and/or a bias that contravenes the NPOV standard.

Darwin&#39;s Fishe (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually just reverted. It was not a-d. It was a simple knee-jerk reaction to edits that came across like you were the one with an agenda. Nothing wrong with a little clean-up though. Do you want to tackle cleaning up these line? It also does not need to be in the lead but the label "eco-terrorist" is common for these guys and I believe the editor who originally attempted inclusion was trying to make sure the label had a source to be in accordance with the guidelines and was not attempting to be as malicious as you seem to think.Cptnono (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle This is a good standard to follow but not a guideline. Along with your recent revert of a revert, you just removed another source with info. It is best to make a mention of it here since it is contentious and several editors have had a hard time keeping the POV pushing from editors who will not work neutrally out. No offence, but your edits are being viewed with skepticism. I don't understand why the recent material was removed. Personally, I believe both criticism and endorsements need a rewrite but section blanking is not the answer. Also, if you remove anymore sources, can you throw a link on the discussion page so editors can easily reference it in the future during any rewrites?Cptnono (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You say that you reverted as a 'knee-jerk' reaction because my action 'came across' to you personally as if I had an agenda. My only agenda is fair representation. Sea Shepherd is not listed as an ecoterrorism organisation by the FBI. It is unfair and dishonest to say that they are, by doing such readers of Wikipedia will come away with unfounded, erroneous, knowledge and the belief that Sea Shepherd is officially seen as an ecoterrorist organisation.

I consider it wrong for, as you note, the statement being put in the lead of the article. The first part of an article ('the lead') is the most often read part of an article. Placing an incorrect statement in the lead, to me, smacks of an agenda, especially as it is most likely to put the idea of Sea Shepherd as 'terrorists' in the mind of a reader by claiming that 'the Law' (FBI) says they are.

You also justify this incorrect statement by saying that, 'the label "eco-terrorist" is common for these guys'. Indeed it is. This does not justify trying to make a reader believe the organisation is a terrorist one by falsely claiming that the FBI lists says they are.

You then go on to say that I believe that the statement was put in with malicious intent by the original poster, I do not think that, the statement is simply incorrect. I am suspicious of malicious intent in the fact that this statement was lifted from the criticism section and put in the lead.

I do note that when the statement was put back, by you, into the lead and was changed from Sea Shepherd 'is listed' as an eco-terrorist organisation to 'are considered an 'are considered' an organization by the FBI. This tells me that you have read my original reasons for removaland acted upon it. This word change is again incorrect and puts an unfounded belief into readers minds. Jarboe may believe Sea Shepherd are eco-terrorists but that is not the position of the FBI and it is unfair and wrong to perpetuate that falsehood, as I advised.

In your edit notes your admonish me by saying 'don't remove sourced criticism'. The fact taht a statement is sourced does not give credibility alone. The strength of the source does. The claim that the FBI 'list' or 'consider' Sea Shepherd to be an ecoterrorists is wrong and the source weak and on closer examination, as I showed in the quotes in my original comment, does not support the claim. Therefore I removed it.

By putting it back, as I advised, you are weakening the article with falsehoods and misleading readers. The next time you have a 'knee-jerk' reaction, please reconsider, as I would regret seeing you put false and misleading statements into Wikipedia, particularly in the lead of an article.

Darwin&#39;s Fishe (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In 2002 James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, told a House of Representitives Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health: "Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of 'eco-terrorism' have occurred around the globe." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.84.148 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per your edit summary: " Removed Jarboe's statement as it is not criticism and is the personal POV of one person" Does that mean we should remove: Former Australian Minister of the Environment Ian Campbell, leader Bob Brown, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and the Dalai Lama?Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cetacean Society International
I have removed the Cetacean Society International criticism section because it is a false reference. It is false because:

1. The section claims, Cetacean Society International president Bill Rossiter criticized the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society 2004 campaign to defend dolphins in Taiji, Japan, saying:...

The reference the section is based upon has no author, therefore it is not possible to determine if Bill Rossiter said or wrote what is alleged in the section to be a quote from him. The alleged quote is:

"We can't report how many dolphins were mercilessly killed or sold to captivity, because of effective strategies this year to stop the world from witnessing the travesty. After some early protesters from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society played into the hands of the authorities and freed some netted dolphins, their actions became the excuse to keep almost all other outsiders legally restricted and unable to document the slaughter any further."

However, this does not constitute criticism, it merely reports fact; the fact that past protest actions have hardened authorities responses to future protests, akin to saying that early civil rights protests played into the hands of autorities, thus hampering future protests. The comment just reports the way things are and this criticism does not make and cannot be reported as a criticism.

This quote is reported as the criticism allegedly said by the international president of Cetacean Society International. However, in the text of the reference it is just that, text, part of a report on the Taji dolphin kill, at no point, or anywhere, is it a quotation of Bill Rossiter, nor is bill Rossiter quoted anywhere else in the text.

BE ADVISED that if this section reappears:

1. The poster is propogating a falsehood,

2. The poster is misleading the readers of Wikipedia,

3. The poster is misrepresenting Bill Rossiter and Cetacean Society International,

4. The poster is running an agenda and/or a bias in violation of Wikipedia standards and the NPOV. Darwin&#39;s Fishe (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rathr than deleting the material outright, it'd be better to fix it. Cetacean Society International has certainly commented on the SSCS. I suggest finding a better, more neutral summary of their point. They write:
 * After some early protesters from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society played into the hands of the authorities and freed some netted dolphins, their actions became the excuse to keep almost all other outsiders legally restricted and unable to document the slaughter any further.
 * So something like, "The CSI has said that SSCS 'played into the hands of the authorities' by agreeing to the release of some captured dolphins, but their actions had the effect of preventing other groups from documenting the activities at Tiji". Would that be acceptable?   Will Beback    talk    00:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The webpage referenced is Cetacean Society International’s newsletter on their own website. You could change it to read “Cetacean Society International said x” rather than “Bill Rossiter said x” if it really bothers you that much. I’ve asked whether CSI even deserves inclusion in the article based on WP:RS, and a case could probably be made for exclusion on WP:NOTE grounds. My personal opinion is that it’s notable in that Sea Shepherd are pariahs even in the eco community. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 01:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Knock it off with the BE ADVISED will ya? It isn't neccasary and we can come to a consensus without terms like "propagating falsehood". Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting this editorial on the SSCS website: "Cetaceans Society International Attacks Sea Shepherd for Saving Dolphins", April 28, 2009. It cites this Wikipedia article. The conclusion is "Sea Shepherd is saving the lives of whales and dolphins. Rossiter is using his organization to attack Sea Shepherd and slandering our name on Wikipedia and who knows where else." Even if we didn't quote CSI directly, we could quote the SSCS rebuttal, which is allowed for comments about their own activities and views.    Will Beback    talk    06:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sea Shepherd is obviously biased and any rebuttal would have to be heavily paraphrased to reduce weasel words. The lines originally put in awhile back were not very good but it looks like we have cleaned it up over the last several hours. I suggest we find a secondary news source completely uninvolved with the either group's arguments to put to rest any POV pushing concerns. Both Sea Shepherd and the CSI can then be removed. I could also care less what SSC says about Wikipedia. They could have attempted to request assistance by mentioning concerns on the talk page. I assume there have been editors on here with a Conflict of interest and they need to remove themselves from directly editing the article.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: (not all are RS) Lets get this stuff fixed. In my opinion the act itself is more notable than the criticism anyways.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * YEs, secondary sources are alwys preferable.   Will Beback    talk    19:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
I'm going to remove the subsections. It reads poorly and is frowned upon. Breaking into paragraphs. I will refrain from too much content changes the first go through so if yuo see something that pisses you off just bring it up.Cptnono (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Canadian criticism
I lied I guess... I am removing the information on outrage from Canadians and the government official regarding Watson's comments. I think the quote gives a great insight to how some people view Watson and should be in his article. The quotes and source might be a nice add on to lines regarding that campaign. I am removing and putting the info below but please feel free to work in somewhere else or revert if I am reading it wrong. ''In March 2008, four Canadian sealers died after their trawler capsized as it was being towed by the coast guard. In response, founder Paul Watson made comments on a radio station that compared the death of the sealers to the seal hunt, which in turn angered many Canadians. Government official Loyola Hearn blasted Watson for trivializing the deaths: "Mr. Watson has proven to the world that he is gutless, shameless, and has not one shred of human decency. His lust for media coverage knows no bounds." ''  Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorsers
This list needs to be altered as well. All news sources from the Sea Shepherd website need to be removed from this section. Anyone else feel like doing the leg work on finding unbiased secondary sources? Any thoughts on how to break this into paragraphs?Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Refs
I just deleted several primary sources. All are pretty non controversial but I wanted to give a heads up on removing more: There are three instances of "but Sea Shepherd said something else on its website". This does not add anything to the article and is only there to lead the reader. I understand the temptation to add rebuttals to accusations but this is not a blog. Please find a secondary source that is not biased. If the allegation is a concern (as in the CSI organization being discussed above) those should be taken care of, too. Tit-for-tat does not improve the article and "hey look at our link" is not appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see edit summaries. I hope we can get this article up to par quickly.Cptnono (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity endorsements
Celebrity endorsements are expressions of opinion by people whose opinions are worth no more than anyone elses, and they should be removed. They are useful in funding solicitations for organizations, but not in encyclopedia articles, where they add no information of any significant value. The reader really doesn't care. This is an encyclopedia article, not a funding solicitation. The celebrity endorsements should go. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning that way but it is of value. It is noteworthy and interesting which is part of requirements to be notable per the project's guidelines. I have moved it into a paragraph since lists suck. It is a little long winded (so and so, so and so, so and so) but "Actors (add link here)" might suffice. Thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sunk
removed "* 1980 – the whalers Susan and Theresa sunk in South Africa;" since it is unsourced and disputed. willl readd when secondary RS is found. Previously removed others that were disputed by RS.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Try page 50 of 'The Whale War' by David Day. the timeline in Figure 4.1 says; Susan' and 'Theresa' seized as pirates by SA (South African) government', then Susan' and 'Theresa' held for five years and then sunk as target ships by SA navy'. I would think that this book is a RS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.84.148 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then put it in.Cptnono (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up, when you don't adjust the wording, your edits are just fine. If you see something that needs sourced info go for it. Don't screw around and put in what you want it to say. Just go with the facts and let them speak for themselves. I would like to think the next step for this article is getting it laid out and adding a few more bits on the fleet and other skirmishes but feel free to bring up concerns with the current info if oyu do not think it is factually accurate.Cptnono (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Book
I screwed up and put in that Watson had actually done the bombing of the Sierra. Plenty of sources say it was Sea Shepherd but it wasn't actually him. All fixed now. Another Australian IP has provided the following source: http://books.google.com/books?id=TqwOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=sea+shepherd+min+sierra&source=bl&ots=NnfwPcEK9-&sig=lTkSHMcWD3aYrSXoK0Xx7O8UCVU&hl=en&ei=AW1dStSPBJ_CmQeIgalx&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 hopefully it can be put to good use.Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sierra and Ibsa sinkings
cptnono you sent me a message that read, in part: You need to stop edit warring, removing sourced information, and using sourced information out of context. You are breaking several guidelines. If you continue to edit in an improper manner, I will request steps be taken to prevent it. It is a contentious subject so let me know if there is a way we can instead work together to improve the article and provide the reader with accurate and neutral information.

I need to 'stop edit warring'? It takes two to tango. I have no bias, I am not interested in being pro- or anti-Sea Shepherd. This is Wikipedia. Sea Shepherd has 30 years of operation and has been the continuing focus of hate and slander. This is Wikipedia where the guidelines are simple, a descriptive unbiased article about a subject.

It is you who have a bias, you have done everything you can to turn this article into a negative attack article against Sea Shepherd. The source you cite, considered a definitive history of the 'whale wars' of the 70s and 80s, categorically states that Sea Shepherd did not sink the Sierra. yet you slant the article to imply that Sea Shepherd did. First of all by writing that Paul Watson sank the ship. He did not. You repeatedly alter the a sentence to read that the Sea Shpherd's involvement has not been 'verified' from it not being 'proven'. This is weasel wording. 'not verified' implies 'suspected'. 'Not proven' indicates an open finding. You want readers to suspect Sea Shepherd involvement.

You use the word 'reported' in the phrase 'operatives reported to be associated with' to appeal to authority. It was 'reported' implies widespread acknowledgment. In fact the 'reported' is the opinon of the engineeer of the ship. When I clarify this, using your source and quotinf from it, you remove it, preffering the ambiguous 'reported' to cast suspicion on Sea Shepherd despite a RS stating Sea Shepherd was not involved.

You write the Ibsa sinking section to implicate Sea Shepherd, despite clear knowledge from a RS you have clearly read, that says Sea Shepherd had no involvement in the sinkings. Not only that, when I wrote a line based on the RS that stated that Watson stated what he heard as to who did it at an IWC meeting. You rewrite, spin and twist that line to read; 'Watson has claimed to not be involved with the attack but later gave a detailed description of the event to the IWC'. He did not do this at all, He reported what he heard. The way you write it casts doubt and implies Sea Shpeherd involvement in an act that has never been attributed to them.

You continue throughout the article. You wrote that Sea Shpeherd 'fled' from the confrontation with the Andennes (and you even spelt that wrong!..Andernes). That is your POV and is desinged to give an innocent reader a misleading idea. You believe the cowardly Sea Sepherd fled. When I put up a documented event that damaged the hull of the ship underwater as an event that happened (watch the 60 minutes 1994 story) and may be a reason for their leaving you remove it. You prefer the impled 'the cowards fled' as opposed to a ship taking on water. I edited that to a neutral 'they left'. You rewrite that to say the Norwegians chased them towards the Shetlands, which they did not. The Norwegian Captain's mandate only applied to Norwegian waters and the confrontation occured right inside Norwegian territory, the Norwegians did not pursue the Sea Shepherd (see the Norwegian navy video).

A statement that is a POV but is in line with your prejudice, that the Sea Sheperd are 'terrorists', is removed because it is one persons opinion. You put it back, because you want people to believe that Sea Shepherd is listed as a terrorist organisation by the FBI. when this is proven incorrect you moved it into the criticism section so you can still put out the misinformation, despite it not being criticism and only being one persons opinion. A quote that was added, that identifies Sea Shepherd as being a vigilante organisation, despite being an RS from a peer-reviewed paper in a recognised journal by two senior researchers, is immediately pulled from the article by you. You write in discussion (under Monash University) 'How to paraphrase?' How to paraphrase with a negative slant you mean. Everything you write, how you phrase, how you edit is designed to put a negative view of Sea Shepherd, not a neutral view. Others in the discussion page have made similar comments. Even you tag 'cptnono' (Captain No no) betrays your bias.

You are constructing a negative article attacking Sea Shpeherd and you are doing it on Wikipedia where this should not happen as you are misleading and lying to people who trust Wikipedia to be unbiased and honest. You have a bias, a prejudice, and I strongly suspect, an agenda. Though this has not been 'verified' :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.84.148 (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was giving you a heads up because for whatever reason your edits seem exactly like what you are accusing me of. I noticed that you left out the part where I mentioned helping out and disregarded above edits where I have said we should be able t get this fixed. So:


 * Verified/Prove. Sea Shepherd has claimed they did it. Sources (actual reputable newspapers and not a book with flare) have said it. Governments have said it. Even the book you cite alludes to it. It is assumed they did or paid someone to. Since I have not seen reports of an in depth investigation checking into the organization's involvement and it is assumed by so many parties, "verified" seems accurate. "Proved" leads the reader to believe that they have mounted a defense against the allegation.
 * I did not spin anything. I actually have looked at sources reliable and on both ends of the spectrum. Instead of accusing me of spin you should watch your on edits. Go off viable sources and there should be no concerns. I also ask that you take a look at some of my edits that have been in favor of the organization in ways. Or how about the edits where I thought it was true information but really didn't think the source was appropriate so flagged my own edit for review. I want to be neutral as much as possible and would appreciate it if you stopped assuming the worst. If I made a mistake go ahead and point it out but your counter edits seem only be in there to spin it in a pro Sea Shepherd manner. Maybe my perception is off but yours might be too.
 * Fled. Fine, the source said "chased" I didn't like the way it was working grammar wise so "fled" was used. It is fixed now but your "left" was not sufficient.
 * Terrorist lines were in there before I started editing here. Also, sources have called them terrorists. They have also called them vigilantes, criminals, saviors, and God knows what else. I have no problems with any properly sourced info or labels going in.
 * Cptnono has been used for a few years now. I see how you could jump to the wrong conclusion, but you would be wrong. In regards to bias, I have mentioned to the other IP editor from Melbourne that being associated with the organization presents a conflict of interest which would limit the ability to edit the page. I'm not too far from Friday Harbor myself which is just a coincidence so I don't want to assume the worst.
 * In conclusion, stop assuming the worst since you are way off. Apologies if my editing was perceived as constructing a negative article. That wasn't my intent. However, it is easy to have edits look biased when much of the information was blatantly too favorable of the group. That is just reality. Take a look at the edit histories. I would prefer the article to be neutral and laid out much differently. If you want to stop being so concerned with what you assume are attempts to skew the article and contribute yourself in a non biased fashion we both could get to work on fixing it. If you refuse to do so than you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of. Get over it and fix the article already. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if we both got our opinions on each other's editing off our chests and focused on more important aspects of improvement than bickering. Hopefully a clearer understanding on the other's intentions in previous edits will be enough. Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I can appreciate the amount of effort you have put into this page, I think anyone can. However, you do have a bias. I don't attribute maliciousness where a simple mistake would suffice. I think your bias is unconscious or you're unawre of it. For instance, using the word 'fled' puts a whole different perspective on an even for readers as opposed to 'left'. You settled for 'chased' which is what the news reports you found say and I guess you can't go beyond that, but 'fled' is a step beyond and editorialises your perception of events. I have a slightly different perspective as I was sent a copy of the Norwegian Navie's video of the events. I logged the location calls of the ships on a fairly large scale chart and the Sea Shepherd ship went about 14 nautical miles into Norwegian territory before the Norwegian ship intercepted them. The Norwegian commanders brief was to prevent Sea Shepherd incursion and I figure a 14 nm distance would have given him enough to prove incursion and give him an adequate battlespace, because he had no brief to take the Norwegian ship into internaional waters. So anyway, chased is adequate as it is what the sources say, but the ship did not pursue Sea Shepherd toward the Shetlands.

It is in the words you choose and how you structure sentences that problems appear. It is easy for POV to creep in. I discuss my changes with colleagues adn also run what I consider to be bias in the article past them. They concur with my observations but also have said that they see no evidence of maliciousness in your edits. ias can be subtle.

Consider this current example, you have integrated the Monash Uni reserch work into the article. Yet you write that they say Sea Shepherd can be 'compared' with vigilantes. Yet the abstract of this reserach paper clearly has them writing that Sea Shepherd can be 'considered' a vigilante organisation.

Try this: A Corvette can be considered to be a car. A Corvette can be compared to a car.

Which is more accurate? The second sentence implies that a Corvette is not a car but can be compared to one. Very different. you also place this description of what Sea Shepherde is ans an organisation inside teh whaling section but it would seem to be more appropriate to place it in the 'Organisation' section rather that the 'Operations' section.

Again I have no real argument with what you have written or edited, Sea Shepherd has been around for 30 years and has had an enormous amount of criticism, they can look after themselves. But in a Wikipedia article about them, editing that misconstrues or has no place. Again as I have said, you have put a lot of work into this article, which is great, but the beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can add or edit an article. If I edit to try and neutalise any bias or misleading wording don't take it to heart. Like I said, I don't think you have a malicious intent, though as I said because of the widespread nature of the bias I did dtart to get suspicious, but your above comments have gone a long way to allaying such suspicions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.67.50 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For the love of God I hope I haven't gotten that sucked into this article. I only wanted to fix a few things! I hear you, though. Incorrect wording, no matter how trivial it may initially seem, can really throw off the meaning. I'll keep a better eye out. Thanks for catching it and bringing it to my attention. That is exactly how I felt about "prove" while you considered "validated" a concern. I brought up "fled" to an outside person as well. He agreed that the article implied fleeing was involved but that "chased" was per the source and definitive while fled was an assumption. He was very adamant that you can chase without the other party fleeing so it makes sense. It may take a little extra patience but a word here and there should be easy enough to fix.
 * Speaking of Monash University, it could easily go into the org section (or whatever comes of it). I think that section is garbage and needs to be restructured (boats, flags, funding, whatever else before it becomes too bloated). It would easy to find a place for it. The primary reason I moved it to the talk page when it was first entered was that the lack of paraphrasing gave it undue weight. I was tinkering around with the recent re inclusion so by all means move it around.
 * How did you get a copy of the video anyways?Cptnono (talk)

I've put the Monash ref into the organisation section, which could use a tidy, everything after ORCA force is really operational, not descriptive of the organisation. So is he sentence about the 'recent injury report', which essentially restates the previous sentence and is describing an operational incident so probably belongs there. A organisation section is important, I think, as is describing for readers what the organisation is and how it is structured.

As for the video, it came in the mail one day with an overseas postmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.67.50 (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Whale War (book)
(section break added) I have a concern with the use of pg 58 of Whale War. After Watson's claim of not being involved, he goes into detail on the attacks. The pages that follow also read like the author believes Watson was somehow involved so we are skewing the context information that is already presented in an odd manner. We could follow-up the added line with "he later explained the details blah blah blah" but I think that would read like we as editors are allowing a debate to take page in the article. I don't believe we should use the line. Furthermore don't know how reliable the source shown before is. The magazine says he admitted it is a biased publication and the magazine isn't around anymore so it makes it even harder to verify their reliability. I think both lines need to go.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the book is pretty clear; it says,'So far as the sinking of the Sierra was concerned, Watson and the Sea Shepherd people had not in fact been involved.' The book then goes on to say tghat Watson heard the details when he was at IWC meeting. However, Day does write 'Watson claimed' which, as you say, may indicate that the author may suspect Watson was involved. Howeve he clearly states that Sea Shepherd was not involved, but qualifies it, so probably good to pull that line out. As for the magazine i do not see where the editor says it is biased - it is a magazine for a particlular audience, just as 'Trucker's Life' would be but the quote comes from a transcript of an interview and there is no reasonable reason to suspect that it is not a correct record of that interview. An interview written up in 'Surf Dude' is just as valid as the same interview in Harpers, which is a fashion magazine but famous for its hard hitting features. FYI the current affairs show '60 Minutes' did a piece on Sea Shepherd and in that the journalist asked Watson if the flags on the ship stood for ships that have been rammed and Watson replies that the flags represent ships Sea Shepherd has sunk. For me the quote is valid and worth including, but I agree, the counterpoint sentence sourcing Whale War could go. 59.167.67.50 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You still around #59 or did you make a login?Cptnono (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The whalers Susan and Theresa
I have read that Sea Shepherd assisted the ZA government in the sinking, Sea Shepherd did it, the ZA Navy did it.... Does anyone have a source for this? It is reported and claimed that they were involved in unverifiable sources but we need a good one.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The extent of Sea Shepherds involvement in these ships was that they advertised a US $25,000 reward for anyone who sank them, Then the South African govt seized the vessels. Sea Shepherd meerely acted as the trigger for the government to act as the vessels were known pirate whalers.
 * Is there a good source?

Who wrote that? No, there is no good source, I have a copy of the newspaper advert and associated documents but this happened before the internet and there is no www verifiable source taht I have found yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.84.148 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well what is it? Most stuff is out there on the internet if you plug in the keywords.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Media
I propose adding a "Media" section. It can be a subsection of the Org section. The Telegraph source had a great quote regarding media relations. The organization has also used media in an attempt to achieve its goals plenty. The TV show would also fit great here. If editors are serious about scrapping the supporters/criticism sections (I'm on the fence) then maybe some of the support info could fit in sometime in the future.Cptnono (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Eco-terrorist category
Should this article be added to Category:Eco-terrorism? I lean towards no since they do not fit the general profile of organizations listed. It can be argued that they are vigilantes, simple vandals, just plain hippies, or a few other terms that are less inflammatory and potentially more descriptive. The word is thrown around plenty for the organizations and it will come up on both malicious and sourced edits in the history, though.Cptnono (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this categorisation would be improper. There is an arbcom decision saying that the pseudoscience category may only be applied to clear cases, but e.g. not to psychoanalysis. The psychoanalysis article has a long discussion of the pseudoscience question because it obviously is one and is often called one. Yet it's POV to call it one without comment, and you can't attach a comment to a category inclusion.
 * There is no established definition of terrorism. Sea Shepherd lacks what I personally consider the most important factor of terrorism: Using, or trying to use, terror. If you destroy your neighbour's lawnmower to get a quiet afternoon it's not terrorism. Some terrorism definitions are too inclusive (probably for political reasons), and definitions of eco-terrorism usually depend on them. Often the same government that is very careful with the definition of terrorism to make sure that their own regular army and the freedom fighters they are supporting don't fall under the term will support a definition in which the lawnmower example technically is eco-terrorism, at least if you do it jointly with your partner and do it twice. Hans Adler 09:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some good common sense right there with the lawnmower. Apologies for accidentally included it in the category for a few seconds while making the talk page edit by the way. (D'oh... was trying to wikilink!)Cptnono (talk)
 * Two points to that. Since the inception of Sea Shepherds they have been sinking ships. The threat of loosing your livelyhood and entire family business to a bomb attack or to an intentional ramming counts in my book. Also in recent years we are looking at throwing slippery substances onto the decks of antarctic ships along with chemicals that burn your eyes? If i'm in the antarctic nothing is more terrifying than stumbling on the deck and falling into the water where only seconds can mean certain death. Besides which, the FBI clearly defines the actions for us as violent and terrorism so for the purpose of this article our opinions don't really matter that much. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I’d call their direct actions against the Japanese whalers “nuisanceism” since they don’t have a big enough ship or crew to be considered a serious threat. The Faroes and Makah episodes, where it sounds like they were going after the little guys… — NRen2k5 (TALK), 02:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The FBI considers them eco-terrorists. Whether we like them or not should be irrelevant. The article seems to be take quite a clean pro POV. Not a good idea. I say prominantly include the opinion of law enforcement agencies. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that’s not entirely accurate. The FBI does not classify them as eco-terrorists. Rather, one of their top authorities on terrorism classifies them as eco-terrorists. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From how I interperet that, because it's a report published by the FBI, it retains FBI endorsement. As a division of the United States Government that also means it's an official report sanctioned by the federal governement. I mean, it's common sense that intentional damage to property is violence but it's nice to have a governmental agency clarify it for us. Money well spent. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that the POV comment about ecoterrorism has been removed, which is good as it was blatantly wrong, a lie. Not something that should be in a Wikipedia article. However the comment it was based on remains in the 'Criticism' section. I think it should remain there for the moment. As it presently appears in the article it is NPOV. The question is where should it go? It is not direct or indirect criticism, Jarboe is making a historical comment, 'Since 1977... acts of...'. He is not making a criticism, and he is incorrect in both date and in Sea Shepherds actions. It is also a POV, however, possibly valid as his position indicates an expert status, but does this still meet Wikipedia standards? Tranquillity Base (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would contend that all of our sources contain POV but that's where it should stay. Try to remember your POV and mine are not important. It would be a mistake to filter the facts (which is us reporting what has been reported) through our own POV (which is cleaning out anything we don't like about the people we do). If you find that all the sources are lieing about a subject you care for, consider editing in an article on which you have less strong feelings. Peace and happy editing. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This thread is supposed to be about whether or not Category:Eco-terrorism should be added to this article. I am not clear what this means and what the rationale is. Is it that some editors think that Sea Shepherds are terrorists for trying to hinder the Japanese from killing whales? Or is it that some editors think that the Japanese whalers are terrorists against the marine ecology? "Eco-terrorism", to me, would imply the latter. "Terrorism" is a loaded and fraught word these days, used in highly manipulative and dishonest ways. It is, at best, emotive name calling. I suggest that in pursuit of clarity in this article, that the term be avoided altogether, and the focus be placed on accurate and dispassionate reporting of events. It is up to the reader if they want to get emotive and use immoderate language. That's not our job here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is because editors were putting in eco-terrorism info and I wanted to see if there were any thoughts on adding it to the wikipedia category regarding eco-terrorism. Some people obviously believe they are so it is appropriate to convey that information. I still do not think the category addition is needed or appropriate but wanted to have a discussion available so that people can express their views on the evolution of the article instead of edit warring. And I disagree on limiting any inclusion of the term. If people called them bunny humpers I would argue for its inclusion as well. It has nothing to do with what they are it has to do with how they are viewed. We just need to be cautious and follow WP:EXTREMIST. We do not need to soften blows or decide what valid info is presented to the reader even if it against our opinions. Follow common sense and present it factually and neutrally. I believe the discussion is closed on the category (no additional wikipedia category link required)but we can switch gears to use of the term itself anywhere in the article if needed.Cptnono (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even realize someone had actually thrown this in. I am under the impression that consensus was "no" for the category listing so I removed it.Cptnono (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Vessels
Does anyone know of a good source to review and pull info from regarding the different ships? If so, what information is noteworthy enough to include? Should this info be in a table or prose?Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a section on vessels is a good idea. Sea Shepherd calls itself Neptune's navy so a section on ships makes sense. An itegrated prose and list makes sense, maybe look to the international shipping sites which give a description and activities along with a list (status; active/scrapped; LOA, displacement, speed, etc). For a made up example:

Whales Forever Formerly the seismic research vessel XX, used in the Norewegian whaling campaign of 1994, damaged in this campaign and sold for scrap in xxxx. LOA xx, Ice class xx, LLoyds registry xx, displacement xx, crew complement xx, cruising xx knots, maximum xx knots, Helicopter deck, bow thrusters, etc. etc. Tranquillity Base (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We may not need to go into that much detail but we can probably squeeze plenty in a table after the prose if needed. Here is a list of what i have found from their site and throughout the sources ( / = rename):

Westella (at purchase) / Sea Shepherd

Sea Shepherd II

Bold Venture (turned over without action)

Gratitude (at purchase) / Divine Wind

Edward Abbey

Sirenian

Thomas Carleton (at purchase) / Cleveland Amory

Whales Forever

Skandi Ocean (at purchase) / Sea Shepherd III

Ocean Warrior / Farley Mowat

Westra (at purchase) / Robert Hunter / Steve Irwin

Earthrace Cptnono (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Due to recent edits, this info was removed. It should be reworked in: the MV Steve Irwin, and the RV Sirenian. The group also had the Ocean Warrior, later renamed the RV Farley Mowat, as its flagship. The vessel was seized by the Canadian government in May 2009.
 * When a guideline is pointed out it isn't because other editors are being jerks or stupid. The guideline mentions "Precise language" (your eye skipped down to the middle of the screen where it mentions time). The vessel section needs to get up and running especially if you are going to edit out sourced (ie the mention of zodiacs in various sources in the article which could be added but would look silly) info. It would be better to say "As of 2009" or something along those lines since "currently" is frowned upon.Cptnono (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Flags
The flag info (where and why it is impotant could be integrated into text in the Org section or added to info about the different vessels. One source is the New Yorker article cited: but more information is needed before inclusion. This has come up as a request form other editors previously and their is already a solitary line regarding it. It could be informative to the reader and fun to expand it.Cptnono (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Operations section overhauled poorly
What happened to the chronological "operations section" ? It was looking quite NPOV and factual last time I looked. Cptnono had done a fine job, as had others, of adding relevant info without POV pushing. Now the sections are all jumbled together with Seals at the top Fiji in the middle and Migaloo somewhere near the bottom. The section just looks random. I highly support the logical chronological history of opperations taking information from the Sea Shepherds website, the Whaling websites and major media when available. Right now it just looks like a jumbled mess. Lets go back to year to year. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the change since the timeline format led to single sentence subsections and it looked like breaking it into sections differently might work. It should go back if it backfired and reads worse. {D'oh! and apologies) Cptnono (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I say that it reads better. Lists are not an article, a Wikipedia article should read as prose, you don't see good articles in major media just being a list. An article is what Cptnono is working toward. As it read previously it was user-unfriendly. I agree that some chronological continuity would be good, however, some of those campaigns are closed as the campaign ended. Sea Shepherd is most active in whaling, sealing and the Galapagos so perhaps they should be prioritised en bloc, with past campaigns below them. THe current format is good but maybe put 'Whaling' first followed by 'Canadian Sealing' then 'Fisheries' and move the Taiji operation to fisheries as it is not really whaling per se. Tranquillity Base (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It reads pretty but all the information that forms the original basis of sea shepherds is missing. It is much easier to get a wholistic view of who they are when all the information is clearly and chronologically ordered. The way it is no makes it look like we are hiding the information. We don't want to appear to be hiding anything. I am speaking of course of the history of opperations not a crazy list of supporters and critics which I am glad is now half gone. A history on the other hand tells the story more fluidly than lists such as our current list of categories. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because all of that info was just randomly thrown in without any consideration of proper layout, prose, style, or few dozen other standards we need to follow. It is all still in the article, though. Regardless on if we go back to a timeline or keep the current form (whatever everyone thinks is best) the Org section needs to be expanded and then broken up as needed. (Foundation, Philosophy, finance, Vessels, Media relations, etc) While we are at it, it might be time to integrate criticism and support throughout these new sections and the Ops subsections.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: if anyone wants to chime in please do so ASAP so we can come to a consensus on the layout. This is something that doesn't need to be controversial so lets get it done one way or the other.Cptnono (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-upx2: In an attempt to get the anti-fishing section up to snuff I came across dozens of sources. They are good and there is info. It got me to thinking even more. What do we want from his article? No one seems to care about the organization itself (I just added a great source on celebrity contributions which could be the first step in removing that info if not the whole section criticism/support sections by the way) but it would be easy to get funding, media, vessels and tons of other stuff up and running. We have a couple decades of direct action that can be documented. I am an inclusionist so think all the relevant and noteworthy info should be on wikipedia somewhere. Should we go with a timeline section to shorten it up? Should we go with a separate list of incidents as a sub article? What do people think? How do we want this to look? We have enough info to get this article to be a short and concise summary of the philosophy, an all encompassing work on the organization, or whatever else we deem appropriate and inline with guidelines. Seriously, we can bicker about this and that but a goal on what this is to be would help us from overreaching in one place while ignoring another potentially relevant section.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking of adding more to the fisheries section also. It has been a major operational focus for the organisation but that is not reflected in the article. As well i will add a subsection on the Galapagos work as that is a distinct subset of the organisations operations. Let me know what you think. Tranquillity Base (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I found literally dozens of sources last night which got me thinking about the layout again. google news "sea shepherd net" (or drift net or whatever) then drill down by date. Using the group's page then going through google news archives with their provided dates works the best probably. This is something that definitely needs more coverage in this article.Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you need assistance with sources or anything else on adding more info on anti-fishing ops?Cptnono (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FBI info at the top of page again missing
It seems impossible to keep the opening paragraph unbiased. Sea Shepherds have full block text but FBI info keeps getting removed. FBI calls the actions violent and places those actions in the "eco-terrorism" category. Traquillity Base, I'm glad you like to keep sources well cited but read the link before claiming the American Government doesn't consider them "violent" please. --70.55.234.108 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the line in the article right under criticism. Some editors were concerned with the previous wording so this one might need some cleanup. Also, I support paraphrasing or even removing info sourced from the SSCS web page. The quote's language obviousely is leading and there is a slight weight issue. Lets improve what is broken instead of attempting to balance it. Can we find a few neuteral sources that sum up the organization without relying on that quote?Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The FBI citation does not refer to the Sea Shepherds as "terrorists". It stated that since the formation of the Sea Shepherds, '...acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe.' You are reading into the statement something that was not said. It does not "balance" the article if you resort to such inflammatory terms. Instead, if you feel the article is not balanced, find properly sourced reasons why the behaviour of the Japanese whalers is something reasonable people would accept. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't in to balance the article. It is in because he brought up SSCS in his presentation to the subcommittee on "The Threat of Eco-terrorism". It is relevant. The wording is as seen at the source and the reader can let the facts speak for themselves that way.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's obviously a political statement. Like other, Bush-era, statements about topics such as global warming or terrorism it needs to be taken with several grams, not grains, of salt. I am pretty sure this guy has gone about as far as he could while still thinking of himself as a basically honest person and not risking a libel case. Giving the statement undue weight and trying to spin it even further is obviously not the way to go. If he didn't literally say they are eco-terrorist, but just used language suggesting it, and we have no other high-quality source saying they are eco-terrorist, don't you think there is a good reason? Hans Adler 07:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've removed the statement. --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote is precisely worded per the source with the context simply and neutrally laid out. It does not matter if it was said during the Bush era, by the way. Things said during the reign of Nazi's in Germany can be directly quoted just like things said by the creator of My Little Ponies can be quoted. Some have called them eco-terrorists and it deserves some inclusion. Editors will continue to insert info regarding it. We might as well do it right instead of having it happen maliciously. It is not in the lead (and the citation is out now, as well) so there is not undue weight as a previous editor attempted.Cptnono (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Direct actions
I know it is nit picky but: Do we need to say that it is violent and non violent direct actions? It seems to me that they are all malicious or violent but don't see any reason to qulify it. Direct actions should be simple enough with a wikilinkingg and the facts speaking for themselves throughout the article. Agree with removal of "extralegal" (to clarify, it wasn't my inclusion). I would also like to remove the double use of international. "The Sea Shepherds garnered both criticism and praise for their direct actions."Cptnono (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to note that critisim is due to their actions being violent. They call themselves non-violent frequently and to the casual observer it should be easily readable that they have done violence. Perhaps noting that they use both peaceful and violent direct actions with appropriate citations would be useful. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

New reminders
Added a few boxes up top. I will full on admit to not always being the coolest of cucumbers (too much beer is not an excuse ever so I apologize for any transgressions) and it is easy to allow bias to come out even with effort to not do so. Keep it together and work on improving the article. Wikipedia is not about winning and it isn't about any of our opinions.Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Another "terrorism" statement
I have removed the uncited paragraph: In 1994, International Whaling Commission Secretary Ray Gambell stated "the IWC and all its members ardently condemn Sea Shepherd's acts of terrorism". This appears to have been originally sourced to a dubious article by some obscure person from the island of Saint Lucia. All other references to it on the web seem to be sourced from Wikipedia. If this assertion of terrorism is "ardently" endorsed by "the IWC and all its members", then it will most certainly be expressed formally somewhere by the IWC. If it is false, then it is scurrilous and defamatory of both the IWC and Sea Shepherd. The statement should not reinstated unless it can be shown that it is true, and is properly endorsed by the IWC. It may be that the IWC condemned violence, but that is a long way from terrorism. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is from the government of St Lucia. The whole page is less than neutral, though. I also am not sure of its accuracy from other research and don't know who the writer is or what they do in Castries . I agree that a non biased secondary source needs to be found. Several biased sources say something along those lines so it is probably out there somewhere.Cptnono (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: the writer is the Former Press Secretary to Prime Minister of Saint Lucia and a veteran Caribbean journalist. That lends him a little more credit than I originally thought. However, a direct quote that is that inflammatory should be taken from a cleaner and more verifiable source. I think that it is a shame that we have to question the official website but it spits in the face of common sense to give it too much credit for this quote. If the writer were to say in the course of service to the Prime Minister that "the government denounces Sea Shepherd" it would have been OK.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been concerned about this statement for a while and have been looking into it's provenance. It appears on the web in only two forms; the first in a statement from the High North Alliance and the second this article, which cites the High North Alliance.
 * Well almost the original link came from the source as noted by Cptnono, however if you look at this source the content is a direct cut and paste of text from the High North Alliance site. The original quote is said to come from ntb which is a private Norwegian news service and I cannot find anything from them on the web. It seems the only source for this quote is the High North Alliance. I agree with Geronimo20, I find the phrasing of the quote suspicious. Ray Gambell was an effective and very able Secretary to the IWC for many years. The quote as stated implies he is speaking for the IWC. He was too good to do that - if it was an official position of the IWC it goes through the meeting and appears as a resolution, then he would make a statement. No one person has the authority to speak as the IWC, if such a resolution was passed it would be on record. The quote is dubious as it is unlikely Gambell would make a statement of that strength without it having gone through the IWC meeting process.


 * I think it should be removed as the source is not verifiable, therefore quote is unverifiable and dubious in its nature
 * Tranquillity Base (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. What the two of you found is exactly what I found when I looked into this matter. Government source, so formally very reliable, but then it's a government of such a small place that I would rather trust the city government of a big city. And the passage was obviously copied from a site that is, formally, much less reliable. Etc. I agree it should be removed until a better source is found, if it is even true. And the formulation seems to be very poor, as it suggests that acts of terrorism is the language used by the IWC, which I am almost sure was not the case. This is the kind of language that some of our commentators here would then further "improve" to the IWC condemned Sea Shepherd's actions as "acts of terrorism". We shouldn't take part in this telephone game. Hans Adler 05:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Telephone game says it perfectly. I wish they would have offered an opinion but it seems like someone in office had one but didn't have the assertiveness to say it. Instead we have an unverifiable list to similar to those seen in obviously biased sources. It is exactly how I feel about the Sea Shepherd timeline on their site: Excellent material to use when googling for sources but the info needs to be verifiable or it is nothing to this project.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)