Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:10, 20 October 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Pbneutral

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Animal rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fisheries and Fishing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Affiliated international legal entities

Since SSCS in the US has been barred from anti-whaling by a court (put loosely), and by everything Watson and SSCS say publicly, Sea Shepherd Australia is now conducting the anti-whaling activities, it would seem that a slight overhaul capturing that would be in order. 68.5.176.101 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Eco-terrorism"

Terrorism is a crime. The SSCS has not been charged or convicted in any court - indeed, it is a 501 non-profit organization. The statements about "eco-terrorism" are merely statements of opinion and accusation made by those opposed to the SSCS. It is highly inappropriate to categorize this group unequivocally as "eco-terrorist" based on those allegations and accusations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism is not only a crime--it's also a description used by governments and media to describe certain groups. A number of prominent groups, including parts of the US and other governments, have labeled the group as terrorist. I would agree with you that if some random person said "Group X is terrorist" we shouldn't include it, but if multiple national and international organizations do label them as such, then we should include those descriptions. I'm a little more inclined to agree with your removal of the pirates/piracy cats, because we should generally be more conservative with categories, but I'm still leaning a little bit more for inclusion. Also, your underlying argument is a little specious, because organizations cannot, by definition, be convicted of any crimes--only individuals can. By your logic, no organization could ever be labeled as a terrorist organization. And, of course, we're not labelling them as such--we're just saying that other relevant groups have done so. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You're quite wrong. Organizations can be, and are, convicted of crimes. See BP pleading guilty to manslaughter for the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

We can and do certainly report that other people and organizations have accused SSCS of being "eco-terrorist." We might create a category entitled "Accused eco-terrorists." But the category "Eco-terrorism" factually asserts that the group is engaged in eco-terrorism, without nuance or caveat. That is unacceptable per WP:NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

These categories are, effectively, criminal accusations and must be removed until discussed per WP:NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism and piracy have specific definitions and are crimes. A proper category would indicate that they have been accused of eco-terrorism and accused of piracy, not that they are pirates and eco-terrorists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That is strictly your opinion. Terrorism and piracy are both used in a legal sense as well as a more general sense. In fact, if you look at the category pages, they explicitly state that they do not' accuse the groups of criminal activities. For example, Thermcon is in the category, and that's an FBI operation. And your edit summary was a flat out lie--i'm not inserting categories; rather, you are removing them, when there has, as I have said over and over, a strong consensus that they are not POV, and, in fact, are the neutral way to describe the groups. Please self-revert and continue the discussion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's rather like a disclaimer on a WANTED poster that says "this fugitive who is wanted for <laundry list of really awful crimes> hasn't been convicted of <laundry list of really awful crimes>" - the strong negative connotation attaches whether or not an extraordinarily-weak disclaimer is stated on a category page that may never be read. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have created two new categories: Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism and Category:Organizations accused of piracy. These titles are NPOV in that they do not make factual claims about involvement in either eco-terrorism or piracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would note that we have a Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government, etc. That category is NPOV because it specifically describes the designation and the source of the allegation. Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front are both in that category, appropriately. Has the US government (or any other government) officially listed/designated the SSCS as a terrorist organization? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to note that the above groups you mentioned are in both the Eco-Terrorism general category and the specific one for the designation. Likewise I support the two categories (one for general discussion and one for designation) for this same article. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this is the same group that used limpit mines to blow up docked ships in the 80s? Is this the same group that threw glass bottles of acid at fishers on decks of boats and then rammed said boats in sub zero waters? That sounds terrifying to me. I'm glad that enough agencies have called them eco-terrorists. So it doesn't matter what I say, but several countries consider them terrorists. Good enough for me. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

On second thought it belongs in both categories. Because it is an entity "accused of Eco-terrorism" and it is a major part in the news media discussion on Eco-Terrorism. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone is removing categories with no additional discussion. Is there a reason? Is this a thing that needs arbitration? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The reasons for removal of the categories have been explained in the edit summaries as well as in a note added to the category section. Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, of which this article is both a member and the main article, is a subcategory of the categories that were removed. Per WP:SUBCAT, "a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category". The article doesn't need to be in the parent category as well as the subcats. In particular, Category:Eco-terrorism has been discussed several times on this talk page. Per WP:SUBCAT this article shouldn't be placed directly in that category. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Creating a "single issue" sub-category for the sole purpose of removing an article from a category doesn't seem like the most logical way to categorize. In general a single article is not a category, also it doesn't appear at the bottom of this page as a logical link for interested readers to follow. I understand the whole "BLP" mentality with this article but one must remember, this isn't a living person needing protection. Allow the readers to follow the discussion where it goes instead of trying to keep it clean. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, both sub-cats and cats ARE allowed in some circumstances. Surely, the creation of a contentions sub-cat would be one reason. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like the category then take it to WP:CFD. Edit-warring over appropriate categorisation is only going to result in you being blocked from editing completely. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the sub-category is gone now. I don't know why there should be a "eco terrorism" sub cat under the parentage of the SSCS cat. That made no logical sense at all per the guidelines so I mentioned it on that talk page and removed it outright. Other editors had in years past made similar observations in the same talk page. SSCS belongs under the EC terrorism cat, not ET under the SSCS cat. I think that much should be plain. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice try but it didn't work. Your removal of the SSCS category from Category:Organizations accused of piracy has been reverted. Even if Category:Organizations accused of piracy didn't exist, Category:Eco-terrorism wouldn't be in this article because Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society would be a subcat of that category. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well played sir! Hopefully an admin will help sort this mess out. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Question, why would you put one or two categories under that subcat and not all of them? For instance, why hide Eco-terrorism there but not Whaling or Marine conservation? What was your motive for just moving that one? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You still don't seem to be grasping the concept of categorisation. Categorisation doesn't hide categories and I don't have a motive regarding Eco-terrorism because I didn't add it. Somebody else did. I added Category:1977 establishments in Washington (state), Category:Environmental organizations based in Washington (state) and Category:Organizations accused of piracy because Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is an appropriate subcategory of all three. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Same question, why would it be appropriate to hide Eco-terrorism in a sub category of a sub category but not Whaling or Marine conservation when I could jsut as easily created subcategories for the others as well? Because in my understanding of categories, this isn't an appropriate use. (and "You don't understand!" is talking about editors, not the topic and doesn't really answer the question so please lets not go there again?.) 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

There's very little point in trying to explain because it's very clear, even from your last post that, despite numerous posts trying to explain categorisation to you here, on your talk page, on my talk page and at WP:AN3 that you still do not understand that categorisation does not HIDE categories. It's entirely appropriate to point out that you don't understand because, until you do, you are just not going to understand why we categorise the way that we do. You seem to think that we're trying to hide things and we're not. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE stop talking about editors (especially me) and please if you can (or rather can someone else explain? Why would it be appropriate to place Eco-terrorism in a sub category of a sub category but not Whaling or Marine conservation? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Aussie's last comment about categories is talking about you. He's just trying to explain his interpretation of policies and guidelines. Categorization is not my forte. Perhaps @BrownHairedGirl:, who is very knowledgeable in this area, can assist.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the assist and for asking BrownHairedGirl for the help, we could use the expertise. I would still ask that you ask him to address the issues and not the meta conversation about me. "you are just not going to understand" "There's very little point in trying to explain" "You still don't seem to be grasping" at the very least, I'd like a little good faith here. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, @76, that's pretty mild stuff at Misplaced Pages. If you're going to edit here, you shouldn't let comments like that bother you. I don't even think Aussie intended them to be insulting.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Time to level up and get some thicker skin, I suppose. Thanks Bbb23. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it time yet to remove the pro-SS POV?

In the lede... "Sea Shepherd has received support for its tactics against fishing, whaling, and seal hunting from quarters such as media personalities, while their violent tactics are sometimes opposed" Why is the uncited support lead with and the detractive comments (which are cited) are buried under qualifiers and weasel wording? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Aussielegend, why did you remove cited material and claim to be balancing the article to present all sides? Please stop defending SS by removing material. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC) I added it back. Please don't delete cited material without discussion. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Aussielegend. Before there was a single paragraph that showed the positive and negative views in the intro. now the positive is one sentence with an unnecessary citation needed tag (as aussie said its not necessary to cite everything in the lead) while the negatives get two paragraphs with citations. it's not balanced and is obvious POV-pushing, especially when including the USA court of appeals. Aussie's right, it hasn't stopped the sea shepherds from operating so it shouldn't be there. User666777 (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Two separate issues. See just below for the two points. Go ahead and say why the important legal summary doesn't belong in the lede in the discussion below. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Major Court decision belongs in Lede

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

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

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

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

Criticism should not be hid in positive statements

"Sea Shepherd has received support for its tactics against fishing, whaling, and seal hunting from quarters such as media personalities, while their violent tactics are sometimes opposed" is a terrible way to say two things. 1. SS enjoys celebrity endorsement. 2. Organizations and governments oppose the violent direct actions. Split the two ideas up. Cite them both well. Don't use weasel words on either like "sometimes" and "apparently". Disagree? Why should we use weasel words? Why should we hide criticism behind a positive statement? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to being weasily, it is WP:SYNTH to do so, unless that type of comparison is made in reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a comparison being made. The lead, as it's supposed to, is merely summarising what's stated elsewhere in the article. That it's supported by by media personalities, who have purchased vessels for the organisation or who have had vessels named for them is well documented, as is the claim that other organisations and governments have criticised them. As has been pointed out above, separating the claims into one challenged sentence regarding support and two full paragraphs regarding opposition is not appropriate for the lead and is not maintaining a neutral point of view. In the lead statements should be concise and balanced. A single paragraph stating both views is more than appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Within the same paragraph is fine. Misplaced Pages:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition but "Sea Shepherd has received support for its tactics against fishing, whaling, and seal hunting from quarters such as media personalities, while their violent tactics are sometimes opposed" is definitely WP:SYNTH and serves to minimize the opposition portion of the statement. These two concepts should be split.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Limpet mines

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

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

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

link rot?

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

Governmental Response

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

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

If this is acceptable, someone please post it to the article. I have a feeling if I repost it, it will simply be vandalised again by Epipelagic. Veritas Fans (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds relevant! I'm on a bold roll here. I'll add it. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I added it but perhaps you can edit it to make it fit more smoothly into the article. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Compromised neutrality

The neutrality of this article is currently compromised by the aggressive tandem editing of two pro Japanese whaling spa editors. I have reverted their latest inappropriate addition...

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

It does not follow at all from this statement that "Australia's condemnation of Sea Shepard behavior has grown stronger". All the minister said was "We do not, and will never, condone reckless, dangerous, unlawful behaviour. And where it occurs on the high seas, we will unreservedly condemn it.". That statement could equally apply to the Japanese whalers. Accordingly, I have removed the statement. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It could apply to the whalers, except for the part where the very next sentence specifically identifies sea shepherd. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There certainly appears to be some politics in the recently added content. The fact that Bishop's statement was made during a speech at the press club of Japan needs to be added to provide context, especially in light of the fact that "The international court is currently considering Australia's case on whaling". Australia needs to avoid rocking the boat at this time. These are both stated in the article. The reaction by Barnaby Joyce is now in the article but conveniently avoids mention of the fact that the refusal by the ATO to grant charity status had nothing to do with any alleged criminal activity. The application was denied because "Taking steps to interrupt or prevent others harming animals in the wild, as Sea Shepherd does, is not the provision of 'short-term direct care to animals'.". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Im fine with adding the additional context in both of those items. But no text was in those items saying "criminal activity" so that is a non-argument. Some goverment actions are aout possible criminal activity. Some re for other reasons, but all are government actions directly related to Sea Shepard overall. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The recently added content says "Criminals should not get tax concessions – if you break the law, then donations to your organisation should not be tax deductible". The implication to anybody who doesn't take time to check other sources is that criminal activity had something to do with the refusal to grant charity status. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Admin help please?

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

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

2 questions Is Eco-terrorism an appropriate category here? (additionally, Is it OK to create a new subcategory called "something something" of eco-terorism and make that a sub cat of a subcat related to this article to argue that Eco-terrorim shouldn't be a cat because it's already related somehow?) Is it OK to make accusations about other editors here on the talk page? (and how do I deal with it when it happens?) 76.112.8.146 (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrators do not normally respond to content issues. Editors on talk pages should focus on content, not on conduct. It was probably not a good idea to change the section header, but, at the same time, the section header was poorly chosen.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification regarding admin policy and conduct. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Category will be removed

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

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

As soon as the article is unprotected, I will be reverting the categorization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: The article was locked by me because of edit warring, in part over the category. It's true that you were not a part of the battle, but rather than announce your categorical intention (pun intended), I suggest you obtain a consensus for your position. I make no comment on the content issue itself; this "advice" is in my capacity as an administrator to minimize disruption to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a issue which can be decided by "consensus." It's an issue of NPOV and verifiability. It is not verifiable that SSCS is an eco-terrorist organization. Ergo, such categorization is flatly inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Rather, it is verifiable that the organization has been accused of eco-terrorism.

Again, see Category:Organizations designated as terrorist. No organization is listed under Category:Terrorism and all organizations in the "designated" category are appropriately and verifiably sourced to reliable sources which state that a particular government or international organization has designated the group as a terrorist group. That is for reasons of NPOV. There has been no argument made as to why it would be NPOV to declare this group "eco-terrorist" and there can be no such argument, because it is an inherently-POV statement.

Consensus cannot override policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We can still form a consensus to adhere to policy, even if all it's doing is crossing the t and dotting the i. For the record, I fully support removal of the category, for reasons that I've explained previously, and at length. The IP has persistently claimed that placing "eco-terrorism" into the SSCS category (it's actually the other war around) is hiding the category and I've had little success convincing the IP that nothing is being hidden. It wasn't until he posted on Bbb23's talk page that his concern seems to be that "unfavorable" categories are being "hidden" while "favorable" categories are not. As I explained, Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a member of Category:Animal rights movement, Category:Conservation organisations, Category:Environmental organizations based in Washington (state), Category:Fisheries organizations, Category:International environmental organizations and Category:Misplaced Pages categories named after environmental organizations, all of which he'd probably regard to be favorable, so his belief is misguided. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Agree also, for the reasons outlined above, with removing the category. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I would accept removal of the category if and only if an "organizations designated as eco-terrorist" is added in its place. There is no question that they have been so designated by several different world governments. Personally, I don't mind the eco-terrorism category, because being placed in a category simply means that the subject is associated with that category. There are a lot of organizations in that category. Why should SSCS be removed and not those others? Or are you arguing the entire cat should be depopulated of organizations and placed into a sub-cat? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Organizations designated as eco-terrorist doesn't exist. However, Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism does and it's a subcat of Category:Eco-terrorism. As explained on this page, Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a member of that category and therefore is indirectly in Category:Eco-terrorism. The only difference between Category:Organizations designated as eco-terrorist and Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism is that the latter is a more broadly named category. We shouldn't be too specific with category titles as very specific categories are unlikely to be populated. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

SSCS is not listed on any national or international designated terrorist organization list. Therefore, it is entirely inappropriate to deem that it has been "designated" anything. "Accused" is the appropriate verbiage.

And yes, the category should be depopulated and replaced with appropriate subcategories. Organizations which are on designated terrorist lists should be so noted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was adamant about the word "designated"; "accused" is fine by me. Sometimes I think we diffuse categories too far, but that's a whole underbelly to the encyclopedia that I'd prefer not to be involved with. Just as long as they remain in a sub-cat that is directly connected to eco-terrorism, the change is fine by me, and seems to probably be compatible with our broader categorization schemes. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/18/greg-hunt-and-julie-bishop-at-odds-over-whaling-monitoring

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Animal rights articles
• High-importance Animal rights articles
• WikiProject Animal rights articles
• C-Class Fishing articles
• Mid-importance Fishing articles
• WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing articles
• C-Class organization articles
• Mid-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles