Talk:MY Steve Irwin

Armament on Steve Irwin?

The article on the Steve Irwin reports that the ship is armed with 2 25mm cannon and 4 12.7mm cannon. For what purpose would it be armed, and what is the source that it is armed? If it was armed in the past, it is likely that said arms would be removed for the usage of a so-called peaceful protest organization. 142.231.68.81 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• You have to remember, this group is "peaceful" in name only. They proudly claim to have sunk 10 civilian vessels (most, if not all, from NATO members), and one of the groups biggest critics is the Domestic Terrorism Section Chief for the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. These guys are worse than ALF and ELF, both of which are terrorist groups. One of their favored tactics is ramming fishing vessels. These guys are NOT a peaceful group by any definition of the word!SpudHawg948 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, just gave your opinion of the organization. No sources indicate that these weapons have ever been used, or even that they exist. Until a reliable source indicates that said weapons exist, they should be removed from the article.142.231.68.81 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs significant fact-checking and better references. For instance, the 'Career' section claims that Sea Shepherd threw bottles of butyric acid on the decks of Kaiko Maru. The reference given:

[1]

...is from a blog page hosted by Mother Jones magazine which I doubt is subject to editorial review. Furthermore, it is not Kaiko Maru, but the Japanese ship Nisshin Maru, or rather its crew that accused Sea Shepherd of causing injuries. The captain of MV Steve Irwin disputes whether any injuries were caused. Aren't several incidents being conflated here? Let's try to get this straightened out, people! --Araucaria (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammar on this page needs a major cleanup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.89.161 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 January 2008

Capture

Should this page include a better discussion of the recent capture of 2 crewmen by the Whaling fleet? It is linked from the front page as if it were a news story, but there is only a sentence or 2 about the story. 192.84.89.129 (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What does MY stand for? --Itinerant1 (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Motor Yacht - not sure if this is an accurate description for this ship (It seems more a Motor Vessel), but that is how they describe it on the owner's web page.Seaphoto^Talk 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On January 15, 2008 two members of the crew of the vessel illegally boarded the Japanese whaling vessel Yashin Maru No. 2 without permission to present a letter to its captain.

Illegally boarded? What law to you believe they are breaking? I think that passage should read - On January 15, 2008 two members of the crew of the vessel boarded the Japanese whaling vessel Yashin Maru No. 2 without permission to present a letter of protest to its captain. --Gavin77

Certainly you don't need both "illegally boarded" and "without permission" in the same sentance. I see an editor just removed the latter. Personally, I am fine with either phrase, but using both is reduntant.Seaphoto^Talk 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed the phrase to legally boarded; I reverted it back to "illegally boarded". It might be redundant to repeat the same thing twice; but it's a complete bias if neither phrase is mentioned.--White Requiem (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Illegally boarded is definitely the better wording IMHO. The boarding was almost definitely illegal as I'm pretty sure there are laws against boarding another boat without permission. Government agents may be allowed but definitely not self-appointed watchdogs. You may not agree with the law, but it remains the law. [2] also supports the fact that this action was almost definitely illegal Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Illegally bordered is right, the Japanese ship was in International waters, where technically such an act can be seen as an act of piracy. Not even Royal Australian Navy warships could have boarded her, as she was well outside of Australian territorial waters. They would have had to have reasonable suspicion that the Japanese were engaged in piracy, slavery, or similar lawbreaking to give them justification to board. And that only extends to official government representatives, not unofficial protesters. The grey area is that the Japanese ship was in an area claimed by Australia as her Exclusive Economic Zone, which allows foreign vessels the right of free passage, but gives Australia some rights of exploitation of its resources. Regardless, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea piracy is defined as:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

and the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) defines piracy as:

the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act.

It's going to be a headache for the lawyers and negotiators to work out, but as the press are currently describing it as an illegal act, it shouldn't be changed to a legal act, and its a bit beyond just doing something without permission. Benea (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Though to be fair, a compromise could be to simply say that they 'boarded the vessel', as some news outlets have done here and here. It seems the most NPOV solution, until the legal wheretos and whyfors have been settled later on. Benea (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether BBC can be called the most neutral source in this case though. But on second thoughts, boarded without permission isn't so bad and is definitely better then simply boarded which doesn't accurately describe the situation. Do we have any reliable sources that suggest this action wasn't illegal? I.E. any reliable sources that actually say perhaps this wasn't an illegal act. We have many sources that say it was illegal and at least one source quoting an international expert who says it was probably illegal, if we have some sources that actually dispute this (and I'm obviously not talking about Sea Shephard but actually RS themselves) then definitely it should be changed Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, there are definitely grounds in maritime law for calling this illegal, and there are sources which describe it as such, so I'm in no way opposed to the article saying that it is illegal, until someone says it's not. But I'm not sure what sort of bias you think the BBC has. A more neutral way of phrasing it would be to say that the activists boarded the ship, an act is claimed to be illegal (by the Japanese at least). The actual wording of the law as set out above, is murky, and it can (and probably will be) disputed by legal experts from the various nations involved. Were they there to cause criminal damage? To carry out violence or depredation? The altered wording would forestall us making a definite judgement events until one had been made in law. But I'm happy for the wording to stand as the evidence and sources lean more to illegal than legal at the moment. Benea (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated, the altered wording is problematic because it doesn't accurately convey what happened. As I also stated, I'm not oppose to mentioning it was boarded without permission, as I've now modified it to say but it definitely needs to convey in some way what actually happened. I actually personally doubt that anyone in government circles disputes the illegality of the action, the only significant group that is involved in this that does is likely Sea Shepherd. The BBC, as with all news sources can't eliminate bias completely (even if they generally do a better job then many American news sources). Their bias in this case would be reflect of the people who work for them which yes would be mostly a British bias which yes is opposed to whaling. I wouldn't trust a Japanese source to be unbiased either Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I've also added the ICR opinion that it was illegal Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It should read boarded. It is not for us to act as juror. The action happened in Australian waters, and precedents have been set where persons can board a vessel to present the ships captain with documentation or letters. It should be changed now. mightymouseman (talk)

Precedent that private people can force their way on board a private ship? Really? And throw butyric acid to stink the ship up and make it unworkable? Can you show me a link where someone international law expert mentions the precent? In any case, someone changed the wording to boarded which as I've mentioned several times is unacceptable as it doesn't accurately reflect what happened. I've changed it now to boarded without permission. Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't say the activists illegally boarded the ship, that is libel. We can report on what the ICR says if we attribute it to them. We can say illegally only if they have been charged, tried and convicted in a court of law. RomaC (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur, I've now moved to the position where saying illegally is too much POV. Many of the sources hang back from saying it was illegally boarded and just say that it was boarded. It's not for us to prejudge a legal ruling in this case. We can say that the Japanese claim that it was an illegal act, or that a certain organisation believes that it is an illegal act, but a personal belief that the action is illegal ("I actually personally doubt that anyone in government circles disputes the illegality of the action") is not enough to justify us saying definitively that it is. And saying they boarded the ship is a very accurate way of describing what happened, they err boarded the ship. This is going to be a thorny topic with heated debate in the near future. I think we have consensus now on this issue, that we give the facts without making our own judgement, and follow up claims of legality and permission with sources about who is claiming it is legal/illegal, and not representing it as undisputed fact. Benea (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your level-headed reasoning. Both sides are accusing the other of "illegal" activity the article can reflect that as you wrote, but we can't brand an action as "illegal." Unfortunately Anon editor 59.190.130.200 (traced to a provider in Osaka, Japan), is now edit-warring, determined to use the word "illegal" because he found this quote: "Any unauthorised boarding of a vessel on the high seas could be viewed as an act of piracy," Professor Don Rothwell said. Rothwell is an international law expert and a quick Google search shows that he has has also said, “Japan’s whaling program is illegal and will remain so until a government takes steps to challenge this unlawful activity” [3]. So if we were basing the article on opinions alone, the word "illegal" could be sprinkled throughout. Instead, we leave opinions out and present verifiable facts. Opinions only have a place if they are attributed. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated numerous times above, there is a big problem with simply saying they boarded the ship as it doesn't accurately convey what happened. What happened was they boarded the ship without permission, i.e. they forced their way on the ship. This is a significant point because if someone invited you on the ship and then detain you because they didn't like the fact you presented a protest note is very different from if you force your way on board the ship and present a protest note and the people who's ship your forced your way on board detain you. As I stated above, I changed my mind and decided I have no problem with removing the illegally boarded part provided it is made clear that they boarded the ship without permission (and also mentions the opinion that their action was illegal) which was the compromise wording I settled on and added after someone else removed the illegal boarded part but failed to add the without permission part. In case it remains unclear, I have no problem with the current compromise. Indeed I have now decided that this is the best wording and saying they illegally boarded the ship is unnecessarily POV even if almost definitely an accurate term. But I still have a very big problem with simply saying they boarded the ship as I have explained numerous times above. Fortunately, no one has removed the without permission part but if you still dispute that this wording is important and want to remove it, I suggest we do a RFC since it doesn't look like this is going anywhere. It is ridicolous to suggest that the Japanese didn't mind these people coming on board their ship or even wanted them to come on board the ship but we leave open this possiiblity if we fail to mention that their boarding was without permission. Note that Sea Shepherd as far as I'm aware doesn't dispute they boarded without permission, they simply claim permission wasn't needed because of international law. Even a government agent forcing their way on board a ship is boarding a ship without permission, they are simply entitled to under law. (Of course not all government boardings are without permission, most will AFAIK usually ask first) N.B. the part about how I highly doubt that any government disputes the action wasn't illegal wasn't meant to defend the inclusion, it was simply meant to respond to Benea's claim that the illegality is disputed by governments Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. Just to avoid any further confusion, I'm not saying we should change without permission to forced their way on board; without permission sufficiently conveys what they did. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to remove "illegally boarded" for the reasons I mentioned, but I don't have the same problem with "boarded without permission", dunno maybe there's a better way to phrase it? Anyway, the Japanese reaction is presented on the article so we have that accusation cited. Let's see what other editors have to say. Cheers! RomaC (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely I'm welcome to alternative phrasing. Although I mentioned forced their way on board it's not really good phrasing since since it conjures up images of the use of violence. BTW, my response was mainly to Benea who I think still feels the without 'permission part' isn't necessary although I'm not sure if he/she wants to remove it. I admit I lost sight of BLP there for a while and I agree without you're reasoning that the 'illegally boarded' in the narrative voice is a bad idea. Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not opposed to having it as 'without permission', my main concern was in saying that it was illegal, in which we were well out of line for doing. But I am concerned that we don't know how they came on board the vessel in the first place. Did they board it forcefully, ie. without the prior knowledge of the crew? There has been speculation that they might have feigned distress to allow them alongside and to board, in which case it would have happen with the permission of the master of the ship. I think that a lot of this is still early days speculation, and making definitive statements, unless we can point to a source where it claims they boarded with out permission and more fully explains the circumstances of the boarding, is still a bad idea. I'm tempted to tag that bit with a citation needed, unless you can come up with a source where it actually says that they boarded without permission, because at the moment, it is still just your speculation that you know what transpired. The sources I'm reading are still simply saying they boarded the ship. Benea (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Butyric acid

Butyric acid has similar properties to acetic acid (aka vinegar); "irritating to eyes" and "harmful to aquatic organisms" can be said about literally every chemical other than water. Bobxii (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You should make your own subheading but in any case I removed the claims as they were clearly original research Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Section moved because people were confusing the situation by replying under this rather then under the relevant points Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I removed the section again as it was re-inserted by 59. The reliability of safety data sheets is irrelevant since it is clearly OR to mention information from safety data sheets in that way. If there is another reliable source which mentions the info from the safety data sheets and specifically links this to the attack then you are welcome to re-insert it Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I should preface this by saying that I have absolutely no interest in Sea Shepherd, nor in Japan's whaling policy, so I am merely motivated by interest. Could you explain why citing information from material safety data sheets constitutes original research? These are, in my experience, quite easy to obtain for common chemicals and contain reliable information. Or is the problem really an issue of relevance to the article, which is how I would see it. --Albert Tellier (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read WP:OR, especially the parts about synthesis and primary sources? The safety data sheets (a primary source) are being used to advance the position that butyric acid is more dangerous then Sea Shepherd claims. This may or may not be true, but the point is primary sources should not be used in this way. If another reliable source has used the safety data sheet to advance this position, then that would be fine. But wikipedians cannot advance said position based on their intepretation of a primary source. It might be acceptable to mention details in the butryric acid article if relevant (although I'm somewhat doubtful it will be) but not here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the policy. Thank you for your clarification. I agree that the information is irrelevant to this article (and I would imagine, also irrelevant to the Sea Shepherd article, as butyric acid is only a click away). I would not view a material safety data sheet as a primary source, but you are right in suggesting that the presence of the information in this article would create an impression of greater danger. --Albert Tellier (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hostages

Hostages is clearly a POV term in this case and should not be used except in verbatim quotation from sources which use the term Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs sorting

From the intro: MV Steve Irwin is a 59-meter (195-foot) conservation enforcement ship owned by Sea Shepherd. The vessel was built in 1975 and was a Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency patrol boat for 28 years.

The vessel was previously named the MV Robert Hunter after Canadian Robert Hunter

This should be rewritten to say that when owned by Sea Shepherd, it was previously called MV Robert Hunter. I'm sure it wasn't called that when it was a Scottish Fisheries vessel. The phrasing reads very ambiguously/unclearly. 86.133.214.216 (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Resolved

 – Nonsense article deleted. —Pengo 06:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggest deleting this page which was created as a joke: MV Steve Irwin enjoying Brian Peppers' deals on meals whilst reading the Encyclopedia Dramatica on w.heels) Is there an admin in the audience?. JJL (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, tagged for speedy already! JJL (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Foul smell

What's the point of dousing a whaling ship in a foul-smelling chemical? What do they think WHALES smell like inside? Flowers and strawberries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to get it on to whale carcasses, or on the deck where the whale will be in contact with it, so that the whale meat cannot be sold commercially for food due to it smelling like rancid butter. It's not to annoy the crew. The smell also wouldn't be a problem for scientific research. [edit: Or maybe it is to keep the crew off the deck. I'm not sure really.] —Pengo 06:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a source on how long said smell lasts? Or if this really would be viable in preventing the sale of whale meat? I doubt that it would make much of an impact, probably a PR move by these guys.

There is no need. We don't say anything about their desire to prevent the sale of whale meat in the article. We simply report their claim which is their desire to stink up the deck due to the foul and long lasting smell. Whether they expected it to make any real impact is unclear and probably somewhat irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is actually very toxic and can blind a person. The smell is also quickly diluted in water. They only point is to harm people.

Whale protester shot by whalers?

check this story out [4]. should this be integrated into the article?-Aknorals (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whale protester claims he was shot by whalers. Jtrainor (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Former?

The word "former" was added before "conservation enforcement ship" in the opening sentence in February with no explanation as to why. AFAIK the ship is still in service. Am I missing something? Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 04:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the top now, does that make it more clear? Fosnez (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Racial tension?

From the reports I've read, the Steve Irwin's crew is predominently, if not completely, caucasian, while the Japanese whaling ship's crews are all Japanese. Has there been anything in the press that has covered a possible racial or cultural factor involved in this confrontation between the environmentalists and the whalers? Cla68 (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The conflict is simply between two points of view. --Swift (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And you know this how? I suppose you've read the minds of every crew member? I think the possible racial factor is very interesting. I mean, you'll note that they go after the Japanese whaling fleet, not the Norwegian or Icelandic whalers. And the Icelandic fleet is much larger, and loudly and proudly announces itself as a commercial whaling fleet. Makes you wonder... I just don't think you can unequivocally state "No. The conflict is simply between two points of view." You don't know. SpudHawg948 (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article on Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society#Operations before claiming they haven't gone after Norwegian or Icelandic whalers. Sea Shepherd has sunk multiple of their ships. Furthermore, while I don't know the whole crew's racial background, there is a native Japanese woman on the Steve Irwin's crew (as documented on Whale Wars). The crew has been shown making sushi as well. That would suggest it isn't purely racial or a cultural rejection. 76.204.200.216 (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

People have mentioned on forums that Watson came across racist in the Whale Wars show for saying that the Japanese would not know what to do with females coming on board due to their culture. However, I have not seen this mentioned in reliable sources.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to read the section on their operations. I know they have gone after the Norwegians and Icelanders in the past. I was pointing out that when they televised it, they decided to switch to the Japanese. And please don't tell me that they can't be racist because they eat sushi! Now, I'm not saying that they are racist, but stating that they aren't based on what they eat is like saying that Paul Watson can't be racist because he wears a black shirt. As for the Japanese crew member, are you familiar with the term Tokenism? This seems like a good example. A real case can be made though that the entire show is one big excercise in Institutional Racism, with the valiant, (nearly) all-white crew of the Steve Irwin charging in to defeat the evil Japanese. At the very least, it's an example of the mostly Anglo Sea Shepherds attempting to impose their own cultural values upon a different racial and ethnic group.For the Japanese (as well as the Norwegians and Icelanders), whaling is an important part of their culture, and the crew of the Steve Irwin are attempting to supplant those with their own Anglo values. This would, in fact, suggest that race and culture are a definate factor, and backs up my previous point. SpudHawg948 (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your point means nothing on Wikipeida without proper sources. Find a source and we can put it in. (Please see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources) Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't really trying to insert a point into the article, merely defending someone else's observation (which I thought had merit) from being summarily dismissed as ridiculous when, as I have pointed out, there is at least strong anecdotal evidence in favor of institutional, if not overt, racism in play here. But now you have me thinking. Would a statement by the Coalition to End Racial Targeting of North American Indian Nations (CERTAIN) website be considered a reliable source? [5] To find what I am referring to, scroll down. They have an entire section on Paul Watson under their "Some Examples of Racism in the Anti-Whaling Movement" page, and from what I've seen of the rest of their site, these are not some politically motivated issues group. SpudHawg948 (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

SpudHawg948, you make some impressive arguments against things nobody here claimed. Of course eating sushi doesn't mean someone is racist. It sure suggests they aren't against Japanese culture in general though, which was the second half of the motivational factors Cla68's questioned. The SSCS didn't switch to interfering with the Japanese whalers when the show began. They were, based on Wikipedia's own info, on that campaign for three years before the TV show started filming. I don't deny that the SSCS disagrees with the portion of Japanese culture that supports whaling, but that doesn't mean they're against the entire country's culture. (Incidentally, you might want to read about the history of that whaling "culture" before lumping the rest of Japan in with it yourself.) Ascribing their views on a fraction of the population to the whole Japanese culture is as much a fallacy as it would be to ascribe the SSCS's views and opinions to all of "Anglo" culture. For example, if you know the history of the SSCS so well, then you must know they had their other ship confiscated after it collided with a Canadian Coast Guard ship. Of course, it might've only been non-Anglo Canadians on board at the time. 76.204.200.216 (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

SpudHawg was concerned that another editor dismissed it completely. All done. This is not a forum so we should just stop discussing it unless it improves the article.Cptnono (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Helicopter

Maybe it would be an idea to mention the recon helicopter that is used by Sea Sheperd and usually lives on the MV Steve Irwin. I think it's a Sikorsky S-300. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.68.131 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a source for that, sure. --Swift (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)