Talk:Paul Watson

Neutrality

Although many would call Watson a controversial figure, it is not appropriate to use adjectives like "controversial" in the opening description of who he is, because that is an opinion about someone, rather than being a verifiable fact. Opening descriptions in encyclopedias are supposed to be all fact, and then issues of 'controversy' are introduced later in the article.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Source for second name Franklin?

Is there any source for his second name Franklin? I don't find any. Thank you for your help. --KurtR (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a good and reliable source for it: Official Document of a Canadian Court --KurtRa

Anti-seal hunting activities Section

The first sentence in this section needs to be split into at least 2 sentences. As it is now, it both introduces the topic (there was an incident), and comments on it (Watson thinks so and so). Also the title should probably be Anti seal-hunting activities (or changed completely), as the topic is NOT about hunting activities that are anti-seal. ---Aner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.215.130 (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of FOX news citations

Please don't remove news sources just because you disagree with their perspective. They are the news, we are editors, let's quote them neutrally, not pretend they don't exist. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Specifically: " 22:20, 24 January 2010 Terrillja (talk | contribs) (32,960 bytes) (→On the label "Terrorist": read the fox ref, they refer to sinking a Japanese ship = clearly no clue what they are talking about, therefore unreliable"... My comment to that is that half of the people view the SSCS as responsible for having intetionally revved engines to place them in the path of the Maru2. (as per Maru video) and Half the people blame the Maru for steering into the Ady (as per Barker video) Regarding us as editors, it's not for us to take sides to say which notable commentator we agree with. As neutral editors, we present all sides to the intelligent reader and they decide, right? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but you don't sick your head in the sand and act like the sky is pink because someone says so when they are clearly wrong. If they can't get their facts straight about whose ship was sunk, then they likely don't get what they are talking about. The ref does nothing to support your point, it just makes the commentator look like a fool who can't get his facts straight. If I added a bit about SSCS sinking a japanese ship and cited that you would be all over it, but if it supports whatever you're trying to say it's fine. Once again you are making no sense with your edits.--Terrillja _talk 22:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Calm down everyone. I support our resident anonymous' addition of the Fox citation because he is not using it for anything else except to reference the opinion of a Fox News commentator. - I consider that acceptable, and in this context, notable. No matter how much rubbish Glenn Beck spouts a sentence later. Ingolfson (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well according to 68.xxx there are loads of sources which support what they are trying to say. So I think it's more than reasonable to request that they choose one which does not contain obvious factual errors as there apparently is a myriad of people saying the same thing. If there really are as many sources as they insist, then their time would be better served picking another one instad of arguing over one which is questionable at best.--Terrillja _talk 16:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There ae not loads of sources that support what Paul Watson is arguing though. Paul engaged this specific one (probably because it was the weakest). --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are arguing that we need a source which says the Ady Gil tried to cut in front of the Japanese ship or one which says what Watson said in response to that? There are plenty of both, see Ady Gil. There is nothing in the ref to support "the end justifying the means" comment anyways, so what are you trying to say? And where did this magical "half" figure come from? Make up your mind about what you are arguing for, keep it relevant to what you are trying to reference and please don't come up with figures as you see fit (ex. half (of which people? according to whom?)). And as for revving, revving != to moving. A boat is like a car, they have a clutch and a gearbox. You can rev and rev at neutral and your boat won't move an inch, I think you are looking for a different term there.--Terrillja _talk 23:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clear to the casual observer that in one video, the SSCS vessel accelerates it's vessel into the whalers (as shown by the wake). In another video it appears that the large whaling vessel turns and approaches the SSCS vessel (as shown by the large ship turning). A quick survey of forums will demonstrate ample ammount of opinion supporting both views. Our good friends Mr.Beck and Mr.Watson however have provided notable people citing one another's views, which is what is needed for the purpose of encyclopeddic documentation. Edit: I think this article is doing a good job of documenting the blame game without participating in it. --199.178.222.251 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Shounan Maru turning toward the Ady Gil says nothing about intent. The Bob Barker was harassing it at the time and the Ady Gil is a much smaller boat. So the manoeuvre was just as likely to avoid the Bob Barker as it was to strike the Ady Gil. Likewise, Bethune’s throwing his vessel forward into the Shounan Maru’s hull could have been a simple mistake. But the important thing here is that stating the intent of either party leading up to the collision – at least at present – is an inappropriate injection of POV. The facts are that the Ady Gil accelerated into the impact at the last moment, and the Shounan Maru was turning starboard at the time of the impact. The intents of the operators of the vessels are something we don’t really know. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, very well said. --199.178.222.252 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"That Watson and his organization are too violent/incompetent to avoid such incidents is a foregone conclusion." Does anyone else agree that this is a little too much like libel? Certainly seems to me to be POV - at the very least it contributes nothing to the discussion. I suggest it be removed. The comment also seems to be attempting to assert POV as "the facts" while veering awfully close to debate over what happened rather than what the sources cited have to say about what happened. Having said that, I do agree that speculating about intent is purely POV. Aikidesigns (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

...And none of what any of you has said has anything to do with the text that is being "cited". The reference says nothing about the end justifying the means. Ignore the whodoneit argument, the reference is not supporting the argument that the sentence is making.--Terrillja _talk 02:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain what your contention is at the moment. I thought the discussion was using notable opinion (like Beck and Watson) and agreeing as NPOV editors to note that opinion despite our own. I think there is a consensus that Beck's and Watson's views are notable and should thus remain included in this article as such (opinions). --199.178.222.252 (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have two issues with how it is currently. 1) the reference is unreliable IMO because it contains incorrect statements, anything else they say is thus questionable as they have shown that they are not aware of all the facts. 2) the text that this is being used to cite in no way corresponds to any of the content in the reference, however misguided it is. The comment about the end justifying the means is never mentioned at all and is original research.--Terrillja _talk 05:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see your second point, that you disagree with the editors summary of what Beck said. No prob, I reworded the summary to absolutely undeniably supported by the text. Your 1st point though I think you are missing what Watson is quoting. He is specifically quoting that FOX citation we are using. It is notable commentary (even if it is wrong). What is factual is that Glen Beck said it and that Watson quoted it. All of that is well documented, reliable and encyclopedic because these very notable people are discussing the core issue of what constitues terrorism and whether terrorism is inherrantly bad. Very pertinent stuff to our culture. --199.178.222.252 (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

you have to use reliabl sorces. fox is a wing of the republican party, so thats not reliabel. you know glenn beck? he said that sea shepherd sunk a japense whaler the same week the ady gil got sunk. if thats not biased, what is? --69.115.204.217 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Beck wasn't referenced for a fact, he was referenced for his opinion. What could possibly be a more reliable source for that than Beck himself? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

well, thats true. as long as they dont use them as fact refs there good. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bioblurb - NN as far as I can see

This appears to be linkspam/promotion. It seems to give wp:UNDUE weight to a non-notable production. I removed it immediately once only. If restored, it needs substantive coverage in a published, generally wp:reliable source. Without RS, I expect to delete it after a short time for the adding editor to support it or explain in WP terms why more sourcing is not needed.- Sinneed 15:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A movie that's been shown at notable film festivals can be presumed to be noteworthy enough to include in a subject's article, I think. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to reread, since I missed that... *blush*. I swear when I looked at the IMDB page it only had a naked listing.- Sinneed 16:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Google Is Your Friend :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you found a better source. No, really, Google == not my friend. Google hates me. I'll fix the IMDB link, weak as it is, as it fails.- Sinneed 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed IMDB link.- Sinneed 16:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

On the notability... (not disagreeing in this case) based just on the listing as I read it... it looked like just another promo shot. There are a kajillion, we can't have them all, the article would be *huge*... we would need "list of promo movies about Paul Watson". - Sinneed 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Notability and reliable sourcing are two separate policies for two separate purposes, and being shown at a notable film festival doesn’t necessarily make a movie meet either of them. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability does not directly limit article content. See [[WP:NNC]. Weight and proper sourcing still matter but notability isn't a factor.Cptnono (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree about what? The movie isn't being used as a source... the source is being used to show that the movie existed and was notable. I can't agree with Cpt on notability not being a factor. If it were not, if fear we would drown in content about any widely known figure. To me, wp:trivia or fan-cruft are hard to keep out (or hate-cruft if that is even a weak neologism), and notability is the measure I see useful in that. - Sinneed 22:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

“Mutineer” statement

User:Ingolfson fact-tagged the statement about Watson acting like a “mutineer” in Greenpeace. I researched it just now, and both Greenpeace and Watson agree with Robert Hunter’s account, although they disagree on the title of the book he gave it in. Greenpeace says it was in The Greenpeace Chronicles and Watson says it was in Warriors of the Rainbow. As far as I can tell from Amazon, there exists a Warriors of the Rainbow and a The Greenpeace Chronicle, and they may likely be two different publishings of the same book – the dates and lengths are 1979/1980 and 454/448 respectively. I’ve given Watson the benefit of the doubt on the book title. I think I’ll also source the statement to the Greenpeace website in another minute. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

paul is a co-founder of greenpeace.

now, i know greenpeace disputes it, but he was in the "don't make a wave commite" which was more or less the precurses to greenpeace. then, he was the 8th member of greenpeace, with his official number being 007 (they started from 000 for bob hunter) therefore, i dont see how he cant be considered a founding member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the sources and one on of the parties dispute it. It isn't up to us to decide. Please see the archived discussion. Someone recently removed "influential" which I think was an accurate way to present the information while preventing this dispute. Cptnono (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the influential. It was compromise wording, and seems adequately supported by the sources. His influence was such that he was ousted from the board, and his ouster remains an issue years later.- Sinneed 22:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the OP is correct, Watson was in a Sierra Club group which evolved into Greenpeace. The fact that Greenpeace disputes his co-founder claim is indeed relevant but other sources support him, so I think the info should be returned to the introduction, something like it appeared before: "...co-founder of Greenpeace, although Greenpeace disputes this assertion.^[2][3][4]"
      In this talkpage section above "Greenpeace_again" (from July-Aug.2009) there is some confusion, perhaps about which citations were for which part of the controversy: "The claim that Mr. Watson was a 'co-founder' of Greenpeace is a contentious one, judging by the three references saying Greenpeace disputes that claim." Those three references were:

• Greenpeace "He was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder." [1]
• The Guardian "...Paul Watson, who co-founded Greenpeace in the 1970s..." [2]
• Tribute.ca "Watson was one of the co-founders of the Greenpeace Foundation." [3]

Additional sources that support Watson's claim (which I found with a simple Google search for "Paul Watson co-founder Greenpeace" on 4th and 5th pages of search results): Newsweek [4], The Telegraph (UK) [5], another Guardian story (more recent) [6], and The Sierra Club [7]. PrBeacon (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He is an influential and early member is not disputed. Him being a founder is. Even the sources that say founder bring this up often. Saying "He is a founder BUT" unintentionally introduces bias towards his claim by giving it prominence validity of an reportedly incorrect label. it could also do the opposite buy introducing the rebuttal. "Watson says he is..." might be a good second line to include but I assume editors will then start adding in the same info (NO NO NO NO lines) that was in before. Go into detail in the body and summarize it in the lead. I could also find just as many sources saying he is not. We shouldn't restart this unless you want two paragraphs of rebuttals in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it's worth revisiting, but I see your point about bias for/against his claim, although you may be overthinking it. The sources that say co-founder only mention the official Greenpeace position as counterclaim. Perhaps a compromise is to avoid the words founder and co-founder with something like what I initially said above, "a Sierra Club group which evolved into Greenpeace" citing this Guardian story from last month.

      If you can find any third-party source(s) that dispute his claim, thus supporting Greenpeace's rebuttal, then I'd be more inclined to leave it just in the body. I wonder if anyone has talked to other co-founders, some of whom have since resigned, others have died. On a side note, can anyone think of a parallel example where an organization and one of its supposed founders has split up? PrBeacon (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Off of just one quick search and a little memory, some sources disregard the found claim altogether and just say "early member".[8] Furthermore, newspapers don't have to be as neutral as we do. One of the British sources (Telegraph if I recall correctly) and NatGeo sources used are awesome for info but aren't exactly at our intended level. "Label but dispute" is simply not acceptable here.

I'm not understanding the Sierra Club thing. The Guardian source says it is a claim (which does not provide validity) with "Watson claims to have co-founded both Greenpeace and Greenpeace International in the early 1970s" Am I looking at a different source?Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Look further down, about four paragraphs more. (using your browser's Find on "evolve" should jump right there). But I didn't see that line you mention about "Watson claims" which is odd since it's the same writer in other Guardian articles. Hmmm. PrBeacon (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I ctrfd "sierra" and "club" and got nothing. Maybe you didn't understand my previous note. We use sources that do not follow our neutrality standards. We have to word them differently. For example "claim" as the writer used it is to be avoided here. The NatGeo and Telegraph pieces are used multiple times in the Ops article but it doesn't mean we have the same complimentary tone tone. Regardless, it all equals the same thing: We have different standards. You write up your proposal with a source at the end (so there is no confussion) of the line and we can go from there.Cptnono (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understood your point about the sources, I just didn't have anything to add to that thread. I also thought you meant that you didn't find the wording I mentioned. Anyway, I don't know if we can untangle this mess, or if we even should, and it appears there is enough doubt in 3rd party sources. I'm fine with how it's presented at the moment, mentioning Watson's counterclaim of revisionism. (This is exactly the sort of infighting I refer to over in the anti-whaling discussion.) On a related note, in the body text for Activism > Early Years there's a disconnect-- it seems to skip a couple of beats before the next SSCS subsection. Watson's revelatory 'incident' is mentioned but not described what it was, and the two lines about the Greenpeace split seem out of place since the rest of those details (ousted from board, then left GP) were moved to the Controvery section. I'm not quite sure how to reconcile those two areas, now. PrBeacon (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article says this: "In 1969 Paul Watson protested against Russian nuclear testing with the Don't Make a Wave committee, which later evolved into Greenpeace. He then tried to disrupt nuclear tests in the Pacific", but this is very wrong information. The Don't Make a Wave Committee was founded earliest at 1970 and protested US nuclear testing at Alaska, and the Committees first "Greenpeace" protest journey took place in 1971. 89.27.56.101 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this article should add something to this discussion: [9] Pikolas (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not RS.Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The longer answer is that that source would have to be used under wp:SELFPUB... Sea shepherd can talk about itself, and we can use it, within limits. But when it talks about others, we can't use it: it is not a reliable source for information about others.- Sinneed 06:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And Watson admits and almost brags about not telling the truth so even more caution is required than is usual.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be worded something along the lines of "...often cited as being a co-founder of Greenpeace (refs (plural?)) although Greenpeace disputes this (ref)..."? Aikidesigns (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

8th member of greenpeace

while wheather or not pau's a founding meber of greenpeace is dispute, it's pure fact that he is the 8th member, with his offical membership number being 007. this should be stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, exactly. "Early member" seems sufficient. and if you also mean there's a james bond connection, i dont see it. PrBeacon (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

no, i didnt mean that. though it's a funny coincidence. i just think its worth mentioning that hes the 8th member, because that pretty much proves hes a founding member. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how being the 8th member in any way proves that he was a founding member. Plenty of groups have been founded by less than 8 people. Practically every rock band in existence, for example. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

oh i think I know what you mean: If we include the detail that he was eighth, let the reader decide how significant it is, or at least one might look into it further. i dont know, thats tricky. i'd have to see a 3rd party source. i forget what greenpeace says about member numbers, but i wouldnt be surprised if they dont provide it or say something else. PrBeacon (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

exactly what i intended. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

and this isnt about a rockband, it a international group that started with about 20-30 members, and before that was another organization, which paul also co-founded.69.115.204.217 (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And this is an encyclopedia. Find a reliable source asserting that Paul Watson was an actual co-founder and we can say so on Wikipedia. But not until then. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 05:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It was in there until someone decided to remove it. source Text: "One of the founders of Greenpeace, Mr Watson has since fallen out with the group which he describes as "the world's biggest feel-good organisation"." or source 2 Text: The animal rights protector Captain Paul Watson, who co-founded Greenpeace in the 1970s and later set up the more radical Sea Shepherd Conservation Society,--Terrillja _talk 15:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Those can be countered with other RS that say he i not or say there is a dispute. Just say it is disputed and leave it at that.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that there are sources, which apparently HG did not realize.--Terrillja _talk 00:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Source 2 says that he helped to set up the Greenpeace Foundation in 1972. At his own biography [10] Watson is referring the year 1972 as the founding of Greenpeace, as the official entity known as "Greenpeace" was born. However, the organization existed before that as the Don't Make a Wave Committee which was founded in 1970. The Committee was the one who organized the first protest with the "Greenpeace I" ship to Amchitka in 1971, then changed its official name to Greenpeace Foundation in 1972. Greenpeace itself views the first protest as the organizations beginning. As Greenpeace does not seem to have a clear founding date, but it rather evolved through different phases, it's hard to say who were the founders. Were the founders of The Don't Make a Wave Committee the founders, or the ones who were with the first protest, or the ones who set up the Committee as Greenpeace Foundation in 1972? 193.185.2.162 (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Those two sources are only recent news articles that, to me, seem to just have taken the claim at face value. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 13:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The press is allowed to do that. If they choose not to, they weasel word "x calls himself" "x claims to be", etc. If they take responsibility for it, as they do in those sources, that is their lookout, and WP editors may choose to include the content in the editors' words. If anyone feels the organs of the press failed, they may wish to take it up with the publisher. If the publisher retracts or updates its statements, WP will "care", but not until then.- Sinneed 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(section now merged with previous section, I think it's appropriate to combine these 2 current threads).
I agree but I still think the claim/counterclaim is important enough to go in the lead, so I'm changing my earlier concession. And not just because it's easy controversy or that Greenpeace is a major player. This dispute seems to fold into the bigger & current conflict between GP and SSCS, especially as it relates to Watson's outspoken role in the environmental community, and that at least one other founder (Bob Hunter) backed up his claim -- I'll try to find that source now. Yet the five RS that I listed above [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] (including Newsweek) call him a co-founder, Cptnono said there were other sources that disputed it (besides Greenpeace) but only listed one which called Watson an early member. All due respect, I also think NRen's assessment of sources was incorrect -- as I also state above although perhaps not directly enough -- last summer [16] when this was brought up before. PrBeacon (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The assessment that some writers may have been bamboozled is correct. Regardless, ther is nothing wrong with the info in the lead there is something wrong with "He WAS the cofounder but Greanpeace says no." It needs to be something along the lines of "here is a dispute. Watsons says x and Greepeace says y" Extra details should be in the body after that.Cptnono (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we do have to take in account the unclear founding time of Greenpeace when referring to founders. Some sources from PrBeacon [17], [18] and [19] says Watson was a founder, but in 1972. Greenpeace is usually referred having been born in 1971 from the first protest: Guardian [20], Newsweek [21], Los Angeles Times [22], BBC [23], Canadian Broadcasting Company [24]. The Don't Make A Wave Committee was founded latest in 1970 as they held the Amchitka concert to raise funds for the protest in 1970[25], [26]. There is some difference in the statements as to who founded the committee, as Greenpeace[27], an interview with some of the founders[28] and a book about Greenpeace (The Greenpeace Story) all have some variation on the founders, but none of them includes Paul Watson. The Sierra Club Magazine is ambiguous on the founding, as it says Watson joined a group (i.e. The Don't Make A Wave Committee) protesting the tests, not that he was one of the founders of that group[29]. The Don't Make A Wave Committee was renamed Greenpeace Foundation in 1972, so it was basically the same organization as The DMAWC [30].

This is quite difficult to convey shortly in the article without messing up the reader. The personal impression I have of all this is that Watson was not a co-founder of the Committee (i.e. Greenpeace) in 1970, but he was an important player when the Committee changed its name to Greenpeace in 1972 and nowdays he refers the renaming in 1972 as founding of Greenpeace so that he can call himself a co-founder. He probably has the membership card of Greenpeace number 007 because prior to the renaming the organization had a different name and hence couldn't have "Greenpeace member" cards. He does state in his biography that he is "a co-founder of Greenpeace in 1972"[31]. What I would actually suggest is renaming the article The Don't Make a Wave Committee to History of Greenpeace so that the issue can be explained in detail and the reader can make his or her own interpretations of these cited sources. Then adding "see also: History of Greenpeace" to this article.Shubi (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As always, though, we have to take anything from Watson himself with a grain of salt, considering his fondness for dishonesty (calling himself a Captain being an example that comes immediately to mind). — Lord Emperor TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 19:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@Shubi: The three sources you mention, the ones which exclude Watson from list of founders, are all from Greenpeace. Since they are one party in the dispute, we must look to secondary sources -- sources which may or may not get the date right only because the founding was apparently informal at first with no clear date. Even primary Greenpeace sources are unclear on the exact date. I also disagree with how you present the DMAWC and Watson's role there. That group evolved into Greenpeace it wasn't merely renamed. PrBeacon (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources on the year 1972 may also mention that as the founding year because all those sources are primarily about Watson, who himself states he was a founder in 1972 in his biography and the articles may have used Watson as a source for that information. We might never know, so we might as well say something like that "media reports concerning Watson and Sea Shepherd often refer Watson as a founder in 1972, while media reports about Greenpeace often state Greenpeace being founded in 1971."

While the interview which does not refer Watson as a founder is hosted on the Greenpeace site, the interviewed themselves aren't all affiliated with Greenpeace anymore. Jim Bohlen, who names the founders in the interview, hasn't been with Greenpeace after Amchitka. So the source isn't Greenpeace but Jim Bohlen himself. Others don't seem to disagree with him, and as far as I know, Dorothy Stowe and Dorothy Metcalfe haven't been with Greenpeace for decades either. Newspaper from 1990 mentions only three founders of DMAWC and does not include Paul Watson [32]. The same with The Canadian Encyclopedia [33]. Barbara Stowe, the daughter of Irwin and Dorothy Stowe also states that Watson "wasn’t there right in the beginning". And you may disagree on my view of what happened, and I'm not trying to get my view of the situation through to the article - that would be original research. I agree that there is no clear founding date for Greenpeace as it exists today. Greenpeace Foundation in the early 70's was somewhat different in it's methods and focus. There are several secondary sources referring Greenpeace having evolved into it's current form instead of being founded. That is why I'd discourage referring anyone as a founder unless the ambiguous founding time and founders is also mentioned. Articles shouldn't just state that "GP was founded in 19xx by ZZ, YY and DD". However several sources state that the organization DMAWC was renamed Greenpeace Foundation, so the founding date of Greenpeace Foundation as an legal entity is the founding date of the DMAWC. I'd like to see an article detailing on what do all the different relevant parties and different secondary sources say about the founding time, founders and renaming. Then the reader can make up his or her own mind about the issue and what sources are reliable. That's the way I tried to write about the founding in the article about Greenpeace.Shubi (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) ok, who combined these 2 sections, there supposed to be seperate! while there dispute over wheter or not he was a founding member, which hes was a mem of the dont make a wave committee, its undisputed fact that hes the 8th member of greenpeace! the first is diputed, so people will argue over it, but the later is fact. either uncombine the sections,or add this fact to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What edit do you propose to make? - Sinneed 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, yea that was me combining, not sure what the big deal is. IP#69.115, you started both and then tied together .. "its worth mentioning that hes the 8th member, because that pretty much proves hes a founding member." .. Anyway, the issue of member number seems somewhat trivial, thats why i asked for third-party source earlier. PrBeacon (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

him being the 8th member allows people to decided for them seleves wherether he counts as a founding member. with these 2 sections combined, the argument over wheteror not hes a founding member spills over to this part69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose to do away with "Controversy"

Place these all chronologically. Include the dispute about whether or not he was a founding member or early and influential member in the chunk for early Greenpeace work. I do think the lead should remain with the undisputed facts that he was an early and influential member of Greenpeace, rather than that he was a founder.- Sinneed 15:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts? I don't want to chew through this and have someone then revert, it's annoying. :) - Sinneed 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. I know WP generally frowns on these separate sections, especially for BLPs. Personally I have no objection to having a 'Controversy' section as long as it's properly sourced and balanced. And as you say it's frustrating to go to the trouble of reworking it into the rest of the article when inevitably someone will come along and ask "Where's the criticism section?" without bothering to notice the integration. Also if we call him controversial in the first lead sentence, then some readers will want to jump right to that. PrBeacon (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

controversial and outspoken

This was removed from the lead again today, this time by an established editor.

While in very general, characterizations such as "controversial and outspoken" are not best, especially in a wp:BLP, these 2 bits of his public persona (whether they are the actual man's "self" or simply part of his "public face") are directly responsible for his wp:notability, and well supported by the sources throughout the body. The 1st sentence of the wp:lead should explain why the subject is notable. The lead itself should rest on the body.

I have restored the 2 words again. Any concerns?- Sinneed 13:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. He is both and sources in the body of this back it up (WP:LEAD). Let me know if hey are not and some can be grabbed from related articles. However (LOL), "claim" might be in violation of WP:AVOID in your other edit. I understand why you used it but we shouldn't discount what he says (well I often do) necessarily. Consider it but I don;t know of a better fix.Cptnono (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but wp:avoid would apply to our words, rather than those of the "speaker". I think it is clear that neither Greepeace nor Watson are neutral, and I think the text shows that. "claims"..."characterizes" seems a good way to sum up the 2 "sniping" at one another, without offering a judgement as to which is right or wrong.- Sinneed 13:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be better than two lines countering each other but AVOID is one of my pet peeves so thought it should be brought up just in case.Cptnono (talk)

As a thought, eliding the "as he sometimes claims" with "..." might be appropriate if those specific words cause a concern, though I do think the claims/characterizes works well.- Sinneed 13:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would keep that quote you added over that structure since it might make it a bigger issue. We'll know if it comes across biased if other people bring this up. I might be over thinking it.Cptnono (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the two terms staying in the first sentence, but they are repeated in paragraph 2 (as is 'direct action,' twice). Imo, the lead as a whole would read better if p2 was rewritten with that in mind. PrBeacon (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, I would support that. :) - Sinneed 02:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Killed again in a cleanup. Restored again per above and other discussions.- Sinneed 14:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggest: re-write lead

Actually I think he's more notable [now] because of their show on Animal Planet (and its promotional efforts like appearances on Larry King Live). The first sentence seems a bit overstuffed with qualifiers.. so we could do some rearranging to find middle ground, avoid repetition and improve overall readability:

Paul Franklin Watson (born December 2, 1950) is a Canadian animal rights and environmental activist,[1] and president and founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS). Watson and his crew are the subject of a controversial reality show, Whale Wars, based on the group's direct action against Japanese whaling.

In 1969 Watson joined a Sierra Club protest against nuclear testing, a group which evolved into Greenpeace where he became an influential and outspoken member. He argued for a strategy of intervention that conflicted with Greenpeace's interpretation of nonviolence. He was voted from the board in 1977 and subsequently left the organization to form the SSCS.

He also promotes veganism, voluntary population control, and rejecting an anthropocentric worldview for a biocentric one.[2]

That way you have 'controversial' in the first sentence. 'Outspoken' is already in the second paragraph with Greenpeace. Though I started out just rearranging a bit, I've also incorporated a few other changes discussed elsewhere on this talkpage. Thoughts? PrBeacon (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Since no objections have been made in the past month-plus, I'm inclined to go ahead and make the change. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

...and he and his are the subject of a reality show because he is controverial and outspoken. I see no need to remove these key points from the 1st sentence, heavily covered in multiple sources through the body. I am not sure we need hammer "controversial" in more than once in the lead, that seems pointless, so I agree about having it only once.- Sinneed 20:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"...and a biocentric, rather than anthropocentric, worldview.

I neither support not oppose that bit, just suggesting wording.- Sinneed 21:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well. I apologize for not understanding. I did not realize that was the current state. I really thought we had killed the hammering-in of "outspoken" before. Changed the wording on the population control and the world view. I realize it was presumptuous of me to make part of your proposed change, and I apologize for that as well. :( - Sinneed 22:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, I'm fine with gradual changes. What about the middle paragraph? The existing phrasing to start it, "The Toronto native..." is fine but I think the second sentence is overly clumsy. And I still think we need to replace "ousted" (this was discussed before as slightly POV) in the third sentence, I'm open to other suggestions. I'd also like to see a clearer connection to the start of Greenpeace (evolving from SC group, as we also discussed) since we're conceding the point about his being a founder (at least in the lead, since GP denies it), but I'm not sure how to rework those two bits together smoothly. I'll keep trying and suggest something later. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In pop culture trivia magnet

The Faroese band Týr recorded a song in their album Eric the Red titled "Rainbow Warrior", after the Greenpeace boat, which also attacks Paul Watson and covertly mentions him in the chorus (May your ship sink, Rainbow Warrior floats / No more, there are no lights on / That obtrusive creep all, What's on). Melodic Hard Rock Today Interviews Týr

Do we need this? It seems harmless trivia but these sections tend to bloat beyond reason, and I see no notability on the song (unlike the annoying cartoon, whose lampoonings are often newsworthy events).- Sinneed 20:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

i really dont see how thats a reffernce to paul, the rainbow warrior was sunk by french agents, and paul wasnt even on board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Attitudes about his activism- needs changes

the quote about its alright being a terrorsit as long as you win" is out of context. he was stating it in a historical sense, like how the american revolotionaries were considered terrorits by the british. not in the kill whoeer you want as long as it suits your goals sense alot of biased people put it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Arrest warrant from Tokyo

Looks like Japan may be stepping up the fight against Watson and SSCS, but is this worth including? The Washington Post [34] carried the Kyodo news story but there aren't many specifics, and it seems like a familiar tactic by the Japanese. One or two editors (Seashepherdlies & IP-190.6.225.73) posted the following:

In April 2010, the Japanese Coast Guard obtained an arrest warrant for Watson on suspicion of ordering sabotage activities against Japan's whaling fleet. It said Japan will seek his arrest through the International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol). "Japan Coast Guard wants Sea Shepherd leader"

..first to the lead, then to Arrests section -- the second attempt included a link to the WashPost story, but it got scratched. I could have simply added the 2nd ref in the correct spot, but (because of WP:recentism guidelines) I'm not sure if the item should stay until any further action is taken. PrBeacon (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with moving it from the lead. It does deserve a mention in the main body. Watson has a history of charges like this so it fits in the section just fine. I would only consider it recentism if we went into excessive detail on this particular one.Cptnono (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

it's worth mentioning, but dosnt change anything thing about what going on, they were trying to arrest(or worse) him for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs better sourcing. Surely such a wp:WELLKNOWN person will have more coverage of this warrant if real. I expect to drop it under wp:BLP if there is none quite soon.- Sinneed 05:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I provided a new source. [35] Oda Mari (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I did restore the wp:dead link, as an interested editor might find the new home of it at the site. Easily reverted if anyone disagrees strongly.- Sinneed 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of News pages of NHK are only temporarily available. It's meaningless to have it. See [36] [37], and [38]. So I am reverting your restore. Oda Mari (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. All the best.- Sinneed 18:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He was featured and critisized in an episode of "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!"

Could be added to the "media"-section, along with south park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.184.36 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Which episode?Cptnono (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Coming along nicely

I think you all deserve a nice cup of tea and a sit down for your efforts. Keep up the good worx... Aikidesigns (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 June - POV - anon add

I have removed the POV tag, as it seems to be a driveby. If anyone thinks it actually belongs, it is easily reverted. I do think that it needs some discussion here... I am dubious of the need for the tag.- Sinneed 14:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition to interpol

New news articles are hot again citing Paul Watson being called an eco-terrorist. Whether he is or not, it should be cl;early noted that many consider him to be. Let's keep the article in line with the facts of what the relevant expert opinions are and not inject our own please. :) 68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

eco terrorism category clarification

Paul Watson has been called an Eco-Terrorist by governmental reports and figures. It's all noted in the article. I'm including Paul Watson in the Eco-Terrorism discussion, not because I think he is an eco-terrorist, but because so many notable experts do. He is part of the discussion as is noted in this article, it should be linked to the wiki category. Have a nice day. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Side note, Watson even engages the discussion at several points, He discussed how rediculous it is to be called a terrorist, he also talks about the benefits of being called one and uses the term to his advantage. Point is not that he is or isn't. The point is that he is a large part of the discusion on eco-terrorism. Watson recognises it in this article even. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Watson further adds to the conversation on eco-terrorism in "Terrorists or Freedom Fighters" which is also noted in this article. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism, not eco terrorism, and he doesn't refer to himself as such. Discussing it was not make someone a terrorist. See WP:OR.--Terrillja _talk 17:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm not calling him a terrorist either, I'm saying he's part of the discussion on eco terrorism. Paul Watson concedes to that himself when he discusses it. The point is though, he is a notable part of that discussion. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Side note for clarification, I am NOT advocating that this article go into an "Eco-terrorist" category. We are not calling Watson an eco-terrorist. We are putting this article in the category of articles that deal with the topic of eco-terrorism, which this and SSCS do. I hope that helps. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cute terrorism

"In response, Watson said that calling him a 'terrorist' might be cute, but it had no foundation in reality, as he had never injured anyone, or been convicted of a crime.[55]"

This line has a couple problems. MoS wise we need to quote it or paraphrase it if we use it at all. WP:SPS (1. the material is not unduly self-serving) is also be a problem. Most troubling is that it is not true (which is why it is unduly self serving). See the line "In 1997, Watson and his then fiancée Lisa Distefano were convicted in absentia by a court in Lofoten, Norway on charges of attempting to sink the small scale Norwegian fishing and whaling vessel Nybrænna on 26 December 1992, and sentenced to serve 120 days in jail[42][43] but Dutch authorities refused to hand him over to Norwegian authorities although he did spend 80 days in detention in the Netherlands before being released.[42]" I would expect that we could find sources saying he was the ause of injuries as well but have not looked yet.

I assume a proper secondary source can eb found and the line can be worded better.Cptnono (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And yes, he was convicted according to multiple sources. Here's a couple:[39][40] Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Not really, it's his response to the accusation, so a quote is quite appropriate, and it isn't too self serving, rather it is in response to the specifics of accusation. If the refs said he was convicted, that would be different, but the current refs for the Norwegian thing don't say so. I have also reworded the Norwegian court bit in line with the refs as well, they don't say that he was charged, only sentenced. I'd assume that you have to be charged, but I don't know anything about the Norwegian court system or the specific circumstances here.--Terrillja _talk 22:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd question the reliability of those two since they have different amounts of time served (60 or 80 days) and one expands the quote to "never convicted of a felony". That is a big distinction as well. Keep in mind that news orgs regularly copy wikipedia as the gospel, and the version of this article at the time is eerily similar...--Terrillja _talk 22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On closer inspection, the article at the time had a 60 day figure listed and we now have 80 days with a source. Wonder where the news gets their info these days?--Terrillja _talk 22:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

False statements are self serving. How about we find a source that isn't in violation of SPS and make it clear that he is not being truthfull. In one source I just added he said he has not been convicted of a FELONY. And they were not copying Wikipedia in the 80s and 90s.Cptnono (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but his interview doesn't say that, so I'd look for another source that supports either version, or change the text to say that he claims such, as the sources apparently contradict each other. As for the '80s and the '90s, those sources aren't from then, the first is from 2008, which is when I had linked the article version. I'll see what it says in 2007 (when the second source was printed), but the discrepancy between them is interesting.--Terrillja _talk 23:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the Quebec seal hunt added. Sorry for not being clear. And there should be a source from 1997 on the Norway thing. I recall seing them ut have to track them down. For that disputed line, I have no problem saying what he claims (although the word "said" might be better) as long as it comes from a secondary source (I think the New Yorker said something similar but again have to double check) and that it is clear what reality is.Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems that this has been brought up again. Unless google translation is screwing up, the Norwegian article doesn't say convicted, only sentenced. I'd assume that you need to be convicted to be sentenced, but alas, I am not a norwegian law scholar.--Terrillja _talk 07:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already provided sources that do say convicted. Also, it is still not true according to independent sources so that needs to be clarified.Cptnono (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And I have removed it. WP:SPS )unduely self serving) and WP:BLP (both positive and negative is covered there). We have secondary sources that show that he was convicted. They have been provided here. No they were not on the line since they were not directly related. Unneccassary line anyways. He has responded to the label in other sources as well (sometimes slightly diferently like "never convicted of a felony") so use those.Cptnono (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Terrillja, if you "don't know anything about the Norwegian court system", then don't make assumptions. I don't know of any western court where you can be sentenced without a charge being brought against you or getting a conviction. By the exact same logic you could say "I don't know what specific kind of court they are talking about, so we shouldn't include it," or "What does a conviction really mean in Norway? I sure don't know." Go with the common definition of the words unless shown to be wrong otherwise. You apparently like this guy. Fine. I don't care. But that doesn't mean claims of his should be given more weight than the actual facts. This guy continually claims things that aren't true and uses half-truths/outright lies to back up wild claims. Giving a statement of his such weight without context to show it is a false claim is disingenuous.

Cptnono has provided two sources that are perfectly acceptable. Cptnono, I believe removing this point does us a disservice by not showing that this person often makes claims that aren't true or are distorted in order to give the impression that something else happened. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added it with the specific sources Terrillja asked for and rephrased to make it a direct quote. He didn't say he'd never been convicted of a felony, but that he'd never been convicted of a crime. Those are HIS words from HIS website, not a paraphrase. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

But he has been convicted as already shown. So it is a false statement he made in a self published source. That is unduly self serving and against our standards. If you want to add his response you will have to pull it from a secondary source. There are secondary sources available where he tells the complete truth (never convicted of a felony) So that will work. We cannot use something in violation of WP:SPS. It might have been fine if editors were allowed to add the quantifier at the end saying that it was not true but if people are going to dig their heals in then we simply need to have it out until something better is provided.Cptnono (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

How is saying something demonstrably false in any way "self-serving"? It makes you look like an idiot, not promotional. It is fine if you put in that he later stated he'd "never been convicted of felonies", but that would be adding, not deleting. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, Crimes and Misdemeanours, isn't that a Dostoevsky novel? ;) Crossing a railway intersection while the signals are flashing is an offense which may land you a jail sentence if you don't pay the fine. Intentionally ramming someone else's vehicle into the path of an oncoming train is a criminal offense which pretty much always winds you up in a prison cell. The key word here is "crime" and/or "felony" - not whether someone was sentenced in a court. "Sentenced" and "criminal" are not the same thing. Was the sentence a felony or a misdemeanour sentence? Franamax (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Title could be reworded to something more neutral. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the wordsmithing as it tends to be pushing a point of view: that the subject is making an untrue statement. If the intent is to show the subject making untrue statements, then the article should reference a reliable source stating such. It is not the editors place to form a conclusion and place it in the article. 12Minutes to 10pm 01:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference is his own website. Kinda hard to be more reliable than that...and it meets all the criteria of WP:SELFPUB. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not for the distinction 12Min makes. We have to resist the temptation to editorialize, however much you like or dislike the guy. And I would remind folks that BLPs have much higher standards than general articles. I believe the SSCS article discusses Watson's use of media and public relations.. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is my point exactly. We AREN'T drawing a conclusion. We are presenting two FACTS: He makes claim A; claim A is false. There is NO disputing this in any form or fashion. I'm not editorializing and calling him a liar. I'm not saying this makes him a bad person. I'm not making any editorial comments at all. You don't remove information that is bad about someone in the interests of making an article neutral (even a BLP) when the subject does something that brings discredit upon himself. A couple of examples that discuss this:

• [41]
• [42]

— BQZip01 — ^talk 16:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, you are taking one statement and trying to use synthesis to disprove it. If you state that he says x and separately say he was charged with y (in a neutral manner, not as a rebuttal or attempt to question the validity of statement x) the reader can draw their own conclusion. And both of those "sources" are so completely biased, I would call them pretty much useless. --Terrillja _talk 16:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(first part) And I'd be fine with that. Feel free to rephrase. (2nd part) Those sources were indeed biased, but I was simply pointing out that others were making the claims, not just me. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Either we have an editor that doesn't get it, or one that cannot hear what we are saying. for the latter, RBI. For the former, here is another try:

Given that an answer is painfully obvious... lets say that you have a picture and in it "the sky is blue". We can all agree here as editors that this is a fact. As part of an article however, with this picture included, the reader can draw his own conclusion, or we could quote a reliable source that states that "the photo contains a sky that is blue", but as editors we are not to draw that conclusion ourselves, that is original research. BQZip01 this is not a point for you to to clarify for us, this is policy. A more suitable venue, should you feel the need to persist, might be for you to have policy changed so that editors can enter their own conclusions into articles here at Wikipedia. Until then, please let this rest, as continued persistence could be seen as being disruptive. 213.107.66.50 (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Mr IP, a simple discussion (which as you have seen in the above line has ended amicably) is inherently NOT disruptive; it is a discussion. Don't accuse me of wrongdoing when I've done nothing of the sort. My edits were even labeled as "revert if you feel necessary".
2. Common sense would dictate that we can make simple and noncontroversial comments about photos. Taking a picture of and posing an example of a blue sky and saying "this is a blue sky" is what we do all the time.
3. The information I posted CAN be contained (as shown above), we just need to work on phrasing.— BQZip01 — ^talk 01:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no SYNTH if we simply remove the problematic line. There should be secondary sources clearly saying his rebuttal to being called a terrorist. The source spreads a falsehood which is exactly what unduely serving is.Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this? Secondary source that has a quote that is not a completely false statement. Their have been claims of injuries but an attributed quote would be fine with me.

Cptnono (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, you are misreading policy (see WP:SELFPUB for more clarification): "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as...the material is not unduly self-serving" "Self-serving" is a case where Person X claims things that cannot be otherwise proven (i.e. "I can fly like superman!"). In this case, it is not self-serving as it is a statement of fact: "Paul Watson claims he hasn't been convicted of any crimes." It doesn't matter what the claim is because the statement itself is demonstrably true: PW indeed does claim this. It would be different to state "Paul Watson hasn't been convicted of any crimes" as a fact and cite the same source. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely disagree with your interpretation. So we can use the secondary source I provided which makes a similar statement or we can take it to the RS noticeboard. There is no reason to use a questionable source over a reputable source.Cptnono (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Cptnono. It's your way or the highway? Let's see what others say first.

Do you agree the statement "Paul Watson claims he has never been convicted" is accurate and acceptable with the given source? It is 100% demonstrably true. If not, why not? A statement of fact (by definition) cannot be unduly self-serving. Using the second source removes that claim and replaces it with another claim (also demonstrably proven to be false). Mr Watson is playing word games: Canada doesn’t use the word ‘felony’, they have ’summary conviction offence’ which are lesser crimes and in the US would be a misdemeanor and ‘indictable offence’ which would be called a felony in the US. So technically he hasn’t been convicted of a felony, but that is like saying someone wasn’t convicted of drunk driving because the actual crime is called ‘driving under the influence’.

How about an interview with a third party where he makes the same claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzKZCgn8bPA — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, I think you are failing to make the distinction between what a person claims and stating what a person claims as fact. The first is completely verifiable while the second is not. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

whoa whoa whoa. You may all be mixing up "convicted"/"sentenced" with "convicted of a crime". Crime as in criminal law, and the criminal law of which country. If the wording is to contain "despite the fact he was convicted" then it absolutely must say convicted of what and where and why it was deemed a criminal offence. And if it is the Norwegian "sentence" than the fact that Holland would not act under presumably a codified extradition treaty would have to be explained. Cptnono's source is OK for Watson's statemenmt he hasn't been convicted of a crime and that quote seems legitimate for this article in its context after the mention of terrorism - it presents one side, which may well be demonstrably true. If there is also reliable sourcing stating or showing that he has indeed been convicted of a crime, then it should be shown as yet "another" view, with appropriate qualification. His actual words should be in quote marks. The "despite" wording is ungood, as it invites the reader to form a conclusion. Franamax (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken and I concur. — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to add balance if we simply use the secondary source. Adding lines to force a balance would be just as SYNTHy since we would be leading the reader. Simply use the secondary source that says almost the exact same thing.Cptnono (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

LF some clarity

Although I've read through the thread twice, I'm still not exactly sure of the finer points and distinctions. Here are some of the sources (I can amend this if someone feels any of them need more context):

1. [Watson] "Calling me a terrorist may be cute but it has no foundation in reality. I've never injured anyone, been convicted of a crime, nor am I under investigation for any crime" - SeaShepherd.org, Apr 2008
2. "Watson is adamant that he is no terrorist. 'We have never injured a single person, never been convicted of a felony, or been sued. Sea Shepherd does not condone, nor do we practise, violence,' he says." - Guardian.co.uk, Jan 2010
3. "..in 1997, Watson was convicted in absentia in Norway on charges of sinking a whaling ship, serving 80 days in a Dutch prison." - News.Scotsman.com, Jan 2008
4. "He.. says he has never been convicted of a felony. He was convicted in absentia by Norway and sentenced to 120 days in prison on a charge related to the 1992 sinking of a whaling ship. He spent 60 days in Dutch custody, but officials refused to extradite him to serve out his sentence." - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mar 2007
5. (in Norwegian) "..dømt til 120 dagers fengsel for sin medvirkning i senkingsforsøket. I vår ble Paul Watson pågrepet i Nederland og begjært utlevert til Norge for å sone dommen. Verdens mest berømte hvalforkjemper ble ikke utlevert, men sonet i praksis dommen ved å sitte 80 dager i nederlandsk varetekt mens utleveringsbegjæringen ble behandlet." - Dagbladet.no, Dec 1997 google translate --> "..sentenced to 120 days in prison for his involvement in the reduction experiment. This spring Paul Watson was arrested in the Netherlands and filed extradited to Norway to serve the sentence. The world's most famous whale champion was not disclosed, but in practice the sentence served by sitting 80 days in Dutch custody while extradition request was processed."

As far as I can tell, BQZ wants (a) the quote from Watson about not being convicted, followed by (b) a rebuttal source which contradicts him because it mentions the Norway conviction. [added:] Others are saying above (and in edit summaries) that this is synthesis and potentially non-NPOV -- we need a source saying he is lying about the conviction, as BQZ says, or else we can only present the two different accounts and let the reader decide. Is this accurate? -PrBeacon (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC) revised 06:03, 8 October

The Guardian should be the rebuttal for to the label of "terrorist" and think it should replace the one from SSCS. Listing convictions to contradict the SSCS quote would not be preferred and is probably against a few guidelines. The Guardian is unquestionably RS and Watson was more truthful in that quote. And regarding convictions, these: [43][44][45][46] along with the ones you provided discussing criminal charges belong in the related section (currently titled Controversy#Charges and prosecutions) and not to balance the line. "Controversy" might need a section title change but that is a whole other discussion. Cptnono (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't get any more accurate that using his own words from his own site (this is permitted via WP:SELFPUB) and stating "Paul Watson claims..." is 100% true without assigning ANY truth/falsehood to said claim. It is just as accurate to say I claimed that I flew to the moon on an airplane made of cheese without assigning any truth to said claim. Removing what he said just because he was wrong isn't appropriate and distorts the accuracy of the portrayal of this man. This is from the site that he owns and he can change it/clarify it any time he wishes, but chooses not to for almost 3 years now. You could certainly say that "years later/in further claims, Paul Watson didn't address the claim, but only stated he was never convicted of felonies," or something similar.

As for providing rebuttal to said claim, the source from the Pittsburg Post-Gazette seems to provide this linkage. We could simply cite that.

Separating that claim from any contradictory evidence (6+ paragraphs apart), lends weight to the accuracy of that claim. It could certainly be moved elsewhere and the comments about never being convicted of a felony placed in the original spot. I see no reason not to do so if that addresses Cptnono's concerns. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the points I made in my comments in this related discussion probably apply here as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We could use the Pittsburg Post-Gazette. However, since the statement is wrong it would need to be clarified. Doing so would cause too many SYNTH and layout concerns. People call him a terrorist. The line is his rebuttal. Adding all of the facts saying why it is wrong would be out of place. An easy fix is to use another RS that is less of a false claim such as teh Guardian. Both are direct quotes from him so I don't see the problem. This isn't nearly as complicated as you are making it BQZip01. But if you want to use the Post-Gazette and then the Guardian to clarify it than it is better than using the SSCS source. Seems silly to use two lines when one would do but at least this way the reader will likely understand that the first quote was not a true statement (even though it wouldn't be necessarily if we just used the Guardian).Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The guy is a liar and actively promotes lying if it serves his agenda (as explicitly stated in Earthforce).

"Since the statement is wrong..." Which statement? If it is Paul's, then yes, we know. If it is the Gazette's then where? This is a RS too. — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)