User talk:PrBeacon/Archive 1

Snapshot A new WP:editor's 1st exchange, ''bullied from the start (?) so it seemed, 18 mos. later i see this is how many 'editors' treat each other'' Talk:Whale Wars (orig.) (current)

intro change
The introduction's final words "in the name of research" give undue credence to the Japanese whaling industry; a casual reader might take away little understanding of the true conflict. The SSCS's mission is to stop the whaling, not just "deter," and thereby enforce international regulation protecting whales; the Japanese claim they are killing the whales for research but, as the show's voiceover counterclaims, this is their cover story to get around the regulations. PrBeacon (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They are doing it in the name of research. Bias would be to call it either "under the guise of research" or "for research"Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really. They only claim "research" to use a loophole in the regulation. The show includes footage of the meat being packaged for sale, which has been verified by other anti-whaling groups, including Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/activists-charged-for-exposing). Furthermore, according to sources on the Japanese whaling page @http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_whaling#Scientific_research, "Japan began scientific research hunts to provide a basis for the resumption of sustainable whaling." And even this last point on sustainability is questionable, given that the source cited in that wikipedia page looks suspiciously like a marketing piece from the Japanese whaling industry & its research front, www.icrwhale.org -- the wikipedia source is a vanilla PDF from their website. PrBeacon (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your evidence doesn’t say what you want it to. Please try to maintain at least a modicum of objectivity. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 11:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I'm a new contributor to wikipedia, i'll take your dismissive tone with a grain of salt. So here's a quote from The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3325580.ece, referenced on the Whaling in Japan page:
 * "Australia and other critics dismiss the Japanese programme as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned, and claim that whale meat ends up in supermarkets and restaurants."
 * The direct evidence on film (in Whale Wars) points to questionable research, and thats what I'm saying. Not the other way around. PrBeacon (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You’re imagining the Japanese’s way of thinking based on your personal interpretation of a small amount of evidence. You’re trying to present your personal conclusion and back it up with that evidence rather than just presenting the evidence. That’s POV and original research. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 01:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They actually do not dipute the fact that they package it for food. But this isn't the appropriate place to debate the ethics of it or try to change anyones mind. They make the claim and we are letting the facts speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know. I’m comfortable with the way PrBeacon presented it in the edit he made about an hour and a half after my comment. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 05:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was not clear enough in summarizing the issue: I'm not arguing about whether Japanese whaling "in the name of research" is legitimate, but rather that the introduction should reflect this debate. Nowhere in the main article is there mention of this conflict. Yet it is an important part of the show & should be included. And no, the conclusions are not mine. PrBeacon (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * adding the extra line was fine. as long as there is balance it should be good. I think "claim"(Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid) needs to be removed. should be easy enough to fiddle with.Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

... Off on the wrong foot, and things got worse from there, most notably in the SSCS page, EAR, WQA, ANI, etc. See Archive2 for the ugly details.