Talk:Paul Watson

Old comments

As written, this article has a strong anti-Watson slant throughout the entire article. I would do an NPOV rewrite myself (as I did for the Paul R. Ehrlich entry, which also had a strong anti-Ehrlich slant before the rewrite) except I don't know enough about Watson or enough biographical info to do a good article. This article definitely needs some attention. Kaibabsquirrel 15:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since no one is disputing this article's contents, I'm going to change the tag from NPOV, which is used for disputes, to "Biased", which is used for articles where there is no active dispute. Regardless of the tag, it does need work. -Willmcw 06:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I did a complete rewrite today and removed the tag. Kaibabsquirrel 01:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, much improved. The only significant thing that I notice missing is an account of the Makah whaling matter. Watson got a lot press coverage over it and even still the pro-Makah webpages are among the top Google hits for Watson. It probably deserves a paragraph. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:37, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I thought of that but wasn't sure whether it should go here or in the Sea Shepherd article. Kaibabsquirrel 21:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Either one. I note that you, citing duplication, deleted a reference to the Norwegian conviction which said he served jail time. Now references in both articles imply that he did not. Is that correct? Cheers, -Willmcw 22:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Best I have been able to find out, Norway sentenced him to 120 days in absentia, Dutch authorities at first detained him because of the Norway sentence but then refused to extradite him. So he never served any of the sentence. He did spend 60 or so days in detention in the Netherlands before being released. Relevant articles: [1] [2] [3] Kaibabsquirrel 22:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add that as well. If the time was only a detention while extradition was being considered, then it would be helpful to have that stated. Watson himself mentions his jail time with pride, so some mention should be in the bio. Thanks for the research. -Willmcw 22:52, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

On the 1998 Makah whaling issue this sentence does not make historical sense: "anarchists associated with Indymedia supported the whaling." The first Indymedia centre was not established till the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999. Therefore the description is inaccurate. Does it mean "anarchists who would later become associated with Indymedia?" --Takver 06:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Now it just says '...and anarchists supported the whaling' which makes it sound like all anarchists. Could this be made a bit more specific by adding something like 'anarchists who would later become associated with Indymedia'? I don't know anything about the groups so I hope someone else can make it more accurate. 81.109.115.135 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

marriages

A question came up on Sea Shepherd and I noticed that neither of Watson's wives are mentioned here. That's a significant oversight, as at least one has gained media and legal attention for her activities. -Willmcw 00:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Presence at Wounded Knee contested

I have removed this sentence and the note by Paul Watson as the information in the note provides more than enough evidence of his participation at Wounded Knee.--Takver 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"but his presence there is contested by a number of Native American participants who write of his claims as further grandstanding."

Note added by Paul Watson

(3) During the summer of 1999, there was much discussion on Native American internet chat sites that Paul Watson did not participate in the occupation of Wounded Knee. Evidence that he was a participant at Wounded Knee in March 1993 can be found in reports filed to and published in the Vancouver Sun newspaper. Specifically these reports were published on March 14, 1973 and March 23 1973 by Robert Hunter. The reports were filed from Paul Watson to Vancouver Sun Columnist Robert Hunter during March and April 1973. Both Paul Watson and David Garrick (who was also a participant in the occupation) wrote and published accounts of their experience at Wounded Knee in the Vancouver weekly newspaper the Georgia Straight.

In the book – Voices from Wounded Knee 1973, published by Akwesasne Notes. This was a publication by the Mohawk Nation in Rooseveltown, New York. © 1974. ISBN 0-914838-01-6. Library of Congress Catalog Number 74-82402.

The author is pictured on page 65. 2nd person from bottom left of the picture: wearing a Cowichan woolen sweater, seated with chin resting on right hand. The author is also pictured on page 76. Upper right corner of picture: Last person in row of people marching. Wearing Cowichan sweater and hat. Page 201 Center rear of picture. Wearing Cowichan hat, appears between a woman in a long coat and man with cowboy hat. Page 245 – David Garrick appears (1st person on left, standing with walking stick.)

fr:Paul Watson

"Animal protest industry"

This appears to me to be a neologism created by the editor. Is there any source to call him a member of this so-called industry? As it appears to be unsourced derogatory information it may be reverted on sight. -Will Beback · † · 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes section

The section needs references... I've removed it per WP:BLP pending actual sourcing being provided.--Isotope23 21:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Quality of references

Should we care for a quality of references and whether the referenced source is trustworthy? I'm new to Wikipedia, but I hope so. In this case the reference labeled [4] that goes after saying Paul Watson is an eco-terrorist should be removed or changed for a more credible source. Ollyn 08:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That reference [4] is to a site belonging to Center for Consumer Freedom, which is a lobby group for a variety of businesses. It is appropriate to include their viewpoint, but it'd be best if the source were clearly labelled. Another point is that they don't actually use the term "ecoterrorist". They do use similar terms. It'd be better to get the quote right. -Will Beback · † · 19:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that activist cash is CCF's resource. (By the way, it reads Paul Watson is an environmental terrorist, which is just another wording of eco-terrorist.) That's what I see to be the reason why the reference should be changed. CCF happens to be anti-environmental. Quoting them on any environmental issue in negative light may be biased. I suggest to either find a more credible source to refer to (but I doubt one would find such a source with labeling Paul Watson as an eco-terrorist), or change wording to one saying that Paul Watson is called an eco-terrorist only by organizations (or their lobbies) that he opposes to, with an appropriate reference to such organizations. If it's ok with you, I will work it out. Ollyn 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Avon Ladies?

The source referenced for the Avon Ladies quote doesn't mention that line. Does anyone have another reference? Greenman 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's perhaps his most famous line, and is often repeated. He corrects a quotation of it here: [5]. He quotes himself to a National Geographic writer here: [6] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Captain's license

Anyone know where he has his captain's license from? Or if he actually has one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.168.80.162 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A Gray whale or Sperm whale?

I was reading Peter Heller's Whale Warriors (2007), and I noticed a quote of Watson's he writes about seemed strange. In this quote Watson says that in June 1975, he and Robert Hunter were confronting Soviet whalers off the coast of Siberia. Here they were hunting gray whales. A big, dying male gray whale surfaces near Watson's zodiac, and in this whale's eye he sees "understanding." He said that moment changed his life forever. He also says this was the first time they used zodiacs to get in front of the Soviet harpoon guns. Now, on here and on Watson's website it says this encounter occurred (in the same month mind you) off California, and involved sperm whales. Perhaps this little tidbit should be included here? Anyone agree? Jonas Poole (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, maybe he just forgot over time. There's no reason to assume the story is false, or to assume he's lying about his inspiration for his work. It seems like you're just finding things to "prove him wrong" as if forgetting a whale type implies that his entire political reasoning is wrong. - Anonymous, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.68.230 (talk)

There's a big difference between a gray whale (a baleen whale) and a sperm whale (a toothed whale), as well as Siberia and California. I don't think he forgot what happened, seeing as how he clearly made both stories up. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

To be honest, I don't think Paul Watson is a terrorist. He was, however, accused of being a terrorist by a government official today[7], and (to my surprise) he meets the criteria laid out in Category:Terrorists. Anyone have an opinion on this? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

His cat should be obvious: Ecofascist. --tickle me 17:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

He is obviously a terrorist as is everyone that is on his ships and those that fund the Sea Shepherd Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Williams has made no subsequent comments (that I can see) calling Mr. Watson a terrorist and has taken no action to have him officially listed as a terrorist; he has not called for Mr. Watson's extradition form the USA and arrest in Canada. In fact the reasons for calling him a terrorist seem to be down to Watsons comments rather than actions. Given that I see Williams comments as opportunistic to get himself in the papers during the Seal hunt. By all means leave the comments but its also fair to add that Mr. Williams has made no effort to formally list Mr. Watson as a terrorist or have him arrested on terrorism charges. --Albert.white (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Watson is not a terrorist...not even close. He has not been charged with terrorist activities, can fly commercially, has never been convicted of a crime or even sued. Sea Shephered specifically does not attempt to injure anyone in its operations, and most importantly does not pretend it will. He meets no logical defeinition of terrorist that I can see... --Sonofkenny (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Assassination" attempt

Who keeps deleting the ballistic information in this section? It is a fact that a rifle bullet would easily go through the soft body armor he had, when he was claimed to of been shot. A pistol would never be that accurate on the high seas, so that is ruled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I do. The specific vest that he was waring is unknown, the caliber of the bullet is unknown, the distance is unknown, the ballistic effect of the badge he was wearing is unknown... Unless we can get some more info, then it is unsourced and it should not be there. --Terrillja (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It can easily be known. He claims to have the vest. He just has to show it. The "badge" will not stop any round. it is immaterial in the case. The distance is also known...he claims it was from the japanese ship. Next. It is impossible to score a hit like that on rolling seas, on a crowded deck, from a distance. Everything points to him LIEING. If you really wants to be shot at, he should go up against the Scandinavians, or Koreans. Ballistics are a pretty simple thing. Soft armor will not stop any rifle round. So it easily points away from his story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the body armor page here on Wiki, you will see that even the lowest end body armor is designed to stop rifle rounds. Plus, you have no way of knowing how many grains were in the round. As for the "impossible shot", you cannot say conclusively that a marksman didn't fire 5 shots prior to that which missed completely. "Impossible" is fairly presumptuous. Just because YOU can't make the shot doesn't mean NO one can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.150.115 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No, soft body armor WILL NOT STOP RIFLE ROUNDS. Even in the video when they dig out the "bullet" you can see it isnt real. Then wen they show him holding it, you can plainly see it is totally different. There has been zero proof he was shot, and zero proof that the japanese even had guns. All those cameras and nothing captured? BS

Watson's claim is bullshit of course but there are no sources which state that. Hence we cannot refute it in the article. -- Nevard 03:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So I just watched the final episode of whale wars and I have to say the alleged shooting should stay just that, alleged. Here is why. First, the vest he was wearing was a level 2 or 3 vest. Sure it would stop most common handgun rounds, but absent was the massive bruise that comes with being shot while wearing a vest. Next, the claim of three trauma plates does not hold. He was clearly seen flexing the vest. Three steel plates together will not flex, additionally where he shows being shot is outside the area a trauma plate normally protects. If he were shot with a true rifle round, like a .223 or 7.63mm this article would have a section on his death as true rifle round would have gone right though him and that $400 vest he was wearing. Low end Kevlar vests will not stop rifle rounds. Check out the specs of vests on galls.com. The whole incident is suspect and should be clearly noted as alleged. Last, being a avid shooter I can tell you, I have never seen a bullet mushroom like the one he showed. The one shown looked much more like small concave bowl and not a clear mushroom shape as it should have if it were stopped by the vest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.69.73 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Watson is a consummate media figure who is not known for his veracity. "Alleged" is as much as can be claimed in the absence of forensic verification. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My take on the "shooting": Possible but not real plausible. I've spent a bit of time on this topic cleaning character assassination attacks on Watson (and I don't like the guy - I think he's a fascist), but I think the shooting is just a bit "convenient" and a tad on the hokey side. The guy on the bridge says he's looking to see if they pick up a gun, and then Watson is "shot." Smells like one of their stink bombs. Now, on the other side of the coin, the idea that a man is "thrown backwards" when shot is Hollywood, not reality. A small caliber bullet does not have enough mass to send a big man reeling just from the impact. Many, many people have been shot and not even known it until later. (If you have ever seen anyone shot and killed, they don't go flying like in a John Wayne movie. They simply drop dead.) Also in Watson's favor on this claim: They didn't know the Japanese would resort to violence, yet the "fake" scenario has Watson creating (while tailed by camera men and in mere minutes while in pursuit of the Japanese) false evidence and an elaborate plot to fake a shooting. But like I said, my OPINION is that the whole thing stinks. I don't know how he did it, but somehow, I think he "manufactured" the shooting. If I am proven wrong, I will apologize to him. But that's what I think. He is a media junkie and would, I have no doubt, lie, cheat, steal, and manufacture a fake shooting if it helped stop whaling. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I had edited in some info but someone removed it for not having sources cited. To be honest I'm sure that this "shooting" is complete BS. What would a good source for body armor info be? It needs to be something that clearly shows his soft armor wouldn't have stopped a rifle bullet. their claim of "trauma plates duct taped together" isn't supported by anything to boot. there's nothing on the video that shows any evidence of that. i think that in order to inform the reader properly, something needs to be added stating something like: "It should be noted that the armor Watson was wearing was not rated to stop full-power rifle rounds as would likely be used in any assassination attempt, and there is no video evidence of trauma plates, nor a plate carrier." your average joe who reads that section is going to see "oh, his body armor must have saved his life", it's misleading as is. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If the claims of attempted assassination are not credible, perhaps they should be eliminated from the article? It appears they are at least disputed. That suggests they might reasonably be deleted. The section really adds nothing to the article anyway? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that both sides have different versions of what happened, and that trying to get an NPOV version is hard, since there was not an impartial 3rd party there. However, the event certainly is very notable, and the article would be lacking without it. --Terrillja _talk 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the part should stay, both parties treated it as a big event. I also think that we're missing pertinent info there; as I said above your average reader wouldn't realize that the armor he was wearing would not have stopped a rifle round. perhaps even include a link to wikipedias own article on body armor? 76.25.115.99 (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have said above, the exact armor worn is not known, the caliber bullet is not known, and unless the Australian federal police release the armor, stating its ballistic capabilities is purely speculation. --Terrillja _talk 15:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to patronize you, but you don't seem to understand body armor. There is no, repeat no soft body armor that is capable of stopping a rifle round. 'hard' body armor uses ceramic plates, which ARE capable of stopping rifle rounds. Military personnel use "hard" armor. Essentially, hard armor is a regular soft vest that has pouches you place "trauma plates" in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interceptor_with_side_SAPI.jpg is military body armor. two plates are inserted (front and back) and aren't flexible. There is no soft body armor that can stop a rifle round. In the video Watson himself is clearly shown flexing the vest, and there is no evidence of any ceramic plates nor the carrier required for them to be used. furthermore it is extremely unlikely that a rifle round would pass through a rifle plate, through an underlying Kevlar vest, but would be stopped by a badge only millimeters thick. as stated above, the video clearly shows no plate inserts, no plate carrier, and Watson is clearly shown flexing the vest. there is NO soft body armor that can stop a rifle round. there needs to be some kind of information about the body armor thing. about the caliber used, there's no way in hell that shot was made with a pistol (assuming that it was made at all). in the also-extremely-unlikely event that he was shot with a submachine gun, the armor he was wearing would not stop a round from one. "SMGs" use rounds that are loaded much "hotter" than rounds designed for pistols. For a more thorough writeup go look up +P, and +P+ loaded rounds. Based upon the appearance of the vest (just a bare kevlar vest, i.e. a cheap one) I'm almost certain that his vest was rated for rounds out of a pistol, not the higher velocity ones from a subgun. the only real possibility is that a rifle was used. His vest wouldn't have stopped a rifle round. The subgun rounds thing is too complicated to put in the article, but my earlier suggestion stands. I would be happy with something saying "it should be noted that watsons vest was not rated to stop a round from a rifle, as would likely have been used in any assassination attempt". Unless his own crew shot him (hey, I wouldn't blame them) a rifle was used. And also it should be noticed that there were no gunshots on the Japanese tape nor any on the sea shepherd's. It would be a loud distinct blast, and it would sound different than the flashbangs being used. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Greenpeace

Watson was not expelled from Greenpeace, he was removed from the Board of Directors and subsequently resigned.

See interview with Watson here...

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2008/12/25/sticking-it-to-the-man-21st-century-styl

--Sonofkenny (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)