Revision as of 05:14, 5 August 2013 editQwyrxian (talk | contribs)57,186 edits →"Eco-terrorism": no no← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:15, 5 August 2013 edit undoNorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,477 edits →"Eco-terrorism"Next edit → | ||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
::] and ] 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. ] (]) 05:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC) | ::] and ] 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. ] (]) 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, ] 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. ] (]) 05:14, 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, ] 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. ] (]) 05:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
::I have created two new categories: ] and ]. These titles are NPOV in that they do not make factual claims about involvement in either eco-terrorism or piracy. ] (]) 05:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:15, 5 August 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. |
|
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. |
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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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. |
|
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 |
Legal difficulties
It seems that Sea Shepherd's legal difficulties are somewhat buried in the article and, given their growing number and significance to the group's history and operation, it stands to reason that the topic be given its own section and that coverage of the issues be cleaned up. Whilst 'recentism' should be avoided, the group's legal difficulties are of increasing interest to the media and public and should therefore be afforded greater attention. Veritas Fans (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly what sources will be in the proposed section? --Bugandhoney (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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