Jump to content

Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.41.80.161 (talk) at 16:46, 6 July 2010 (→Category Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Supporter User Template

{{Sea Shepherd Support}}☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the logo off of the article is more than likely infringement. You need another image that does not require a fair use rationale or the template needs to be speedily deleted. WP:LOGO and WP:IUP.Cptnono (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that since the banner basically serves as a link back to the article, and contains article information, it should be viewed as fair use. Not only that, but at the size that it is, it would be considered a "thumbnail" which is also fair use.☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 02:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linking back to the article does not make it fair use. And WP:NFCC states: "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions" I don't see thumbnails mentioned as an exemption to this anywhere. Can you point me to it?Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its fair use under US Law which is also represented in the wiki article on fair use: Thumb Nails are Fair Use, especially considering the circumstances in how this thumbnail was used, there should be no question that it is used properly. ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 03:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable since "...under very strict and limited conditions. This interpretation of fair use, in regards to thumbnail images, applies when thumbnails are used in an indexing system." Regardless, uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Wikipedia policy on non-free content. I will open up something at Wikipedia:Non-free content review to double check.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.png Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will also just write Sea Shepherd and have them grant wikipedia full access to their logo. I presume that this would be the best way of doing things? Or if you read their webpage it says that the copyright only applies to "commercial" use. Wikipedia is not commercial use. ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 04:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs to be released for commercial use. Take a look at the links provided for you. There is the OTRS system so if they are willing to release it then sweet.Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have a chance. I think it's well established on Wikipedia that logos may never be used except on articles that are directly about the owner of the logo. I remember that an editor was blocked in the past for persistently ignoring this because he disagreed. Hans Adler 11:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:MV Steve Irwin Melbourne.jpg is kind of cool and might be a decent alternative.Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone (who's better at wiki code than me) please fix this section so that the template graphic doesn't run over the archive box? And/or fix the archive box, it's overly long -- some way to list the archives more than one per line? -PrBeacon (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did some things to it. Better or worse?--Terrillja talk 22:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks. I'd still like to see the archive list smaller or in 2 columns, but it's no big deal. I'll keep looking for the right code. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could also put the template in a collapsible table, remove it since we have the wikilink, or wait for the thread to archive.Cptnono (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony before Congress - clarification

In the section "Activism" subheading "controversy," the article states. "In testimony on "The Threat of Eco-Terrorism" given to the US Congress in 2002, Sea Shepherd is the first group mentioned for having "attacked commercial fishing operations."" First, the sentence is clunky because it is written in passive voice (i.e. who said this?). The speaker was James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, who was testifying before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. Sea Shephard is mentioned only once, and simply states that it cut fishing nets. The context of the quotation does not match what is implied, and violates NPOV.

I suggest the following, if the statement is to be included at all: "In testimony on "The Threat of Eco-Terrorism" before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, FBI counterterrorism official James F. Jarboe mentioned Sea Shepherd's "cutting of drift nets" in 1977 as an "attack [on] commercial fishing operations" that was followed by an increasing number of acts of eco-terrorism." I think that gets closer to a NPOV, but would like input before changing the article. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.166.193 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was more than a mention. He points to it being the first act of eco-terrorism. I do agree that ti should be clear that they were not bombing anything with that attack though.Cptnono (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they HAD use bombs to sink ships. That's what got them the label. They had also used mines on several occasions as well. PLEASE restore the info. Looks like the articles been whitewashed in favor of eco-terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead change (thread revived)

I'm reviving this from archived discussions since no action was taken, yet.

Final Lead

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a non-profit, marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States. The group, which is often linked to the radical environmentalism movement, uses direct action tactics to protect sealife. Paul Watson founded the organization in 1977, initially naming it the Earth Force Society, after leaving the environmental group Greenpeace. Watson believed that more aggressive intervention was required to curtail exploitive commercial practices. Sea Shepherd currently operates the vessels MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker, and most of the group's activities take place on the open seas.
Sea Shepherd garners both support and criticism for their extreme activism against commercial whaling, sealing and fishing. Because of the group's extralegal methods of interference, various governments and organizations (and even its own members) have referred to the group as pirates or eco-terrorists. Their operations include ramming, disabling and scuttling ships as well as other forms of sabotage. Sea Shepherd asserts that these controversial actions are necessary as the international community has shown itself unwilling or unable to save endangered species.
The group also raises public awareness through media campaigns. [insert line about books, journalists joining them, and other docs here] [insert line about celebrity support here] In 2008, Animal Planet began filming the weekly series Whale Wars based on the group's encounters with the Japanese whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean.

I think this is a huge improvement. Only the 3rd para needs some help, but could go in minus the insertions. Feelings, everyone? Oberonfitch (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for others to weigh in, guess we're on slow cycle atm. As you suggested earlier, switching 'extreme' and 'controversial' in p2 is fine with me, and may even read better. We might be able to keep p3 short with a simple clause added to the first sentence about media. I think celebrity support is already covered indirectly with the ships' names in p1. PrBeacon (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would go ahead and make the change. It can be reverted if necessary; I think it is a huge improvement over what is there. I have no time to work on this at the moment. Back as work permits.  :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-PrBeacon (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag removed

Hi all

I have hidden the POV tag in the "Organisation" section "media relations" and put the message:

"This section is about the organisation of the group and how it uses media relations. This POV tag is continuously placed here when it should perhaps simply point to the section "controversy" below where all negative media coverage (supported by facts) is MORE than welcome:"

There is plenty of negative comment in there already:-

it shows him making up truths "Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently"
it shows his disdain for the media "He also states that the "truth is irrelevant" due the nature of mass media."

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPOILER ALERTS NEEDED

Like the mention of the sinking of the Ady Gil. That episode has not aired yet (as of this post) and now it's spoiled. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPOILER. --Terrillja talk 21:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was spoiled before we/WP discussed it. Major news coverage will do that occasionally. And isn't it in one of the teaser promos for this season, anyway? -PrBeacon (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never seen any news, not in my area anyway, and no, none of the promotional footage showed the boat getting hit or sinking. either way a spoiler alert system would be nice for those people that may not have known (like this case.) I am sure I am not the only one that did not know. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. Sometimes it is annoying. Unfortunately, WP:SPOILER is clear. In this case, the Ady Gil getting smashed was shown in the intro to the first episode so it was already spoiled.Cptnono (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dali lama mention in header incorrect

it says that he critisized them for there violent actions. he did NOT. he said he still suports there mission but "their (activities) should be non-violent". as they do, that needs to be fixed. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

er... The title of the article is Dalai Lama criticises anti-whaling protesters. Regardless, neither is needed in the lead and the quote "...their activities should be stopping" conflicts with Watson's attempt to make it look like he supports them. There is also a violation of WP:HOWEVER. And ramming other vessels is typically considered violent but we can keep our personal opinions out of this.Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
which makes that comment unesseary unless you wantyed to spark a flame war. im not even gonna get into that disagreement though 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characterization of SSCS

Terrorism (from meriam-webster.com): "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". Repeated attacks on whaling ships, including use of laser beams and acid harmful to their crews, satisfy this description. Furthermore, as stated in the 'Controversy' section, SSCS has been investigated and reported as 'Eco terrorism' and 'Single Issue Terrorism' by more than one government, citations 57-58.

Piracy (from meriam-webster.com): "an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery". Multiple paragraphs on the page cite seizure of drift nets, which matches the definition.

Vigilantes (from meriam-webster.com): "a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justic". Again, see contents of the 'Controversy' group, and citations 52-55.

If you feel that any of these three terms is inappropriately used to characterize SSCS, please explain why. From my perspective, they do not add or change the content of page, but merely use established and well-understood terms of the English language to describe actions performed by SSCS for which proper references have already been provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.210.18 (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources that describe them as terrorists, pirates, or vigilantes? Recently, for instance, the use of the word "eco-terrorism" was added to the article because an FBI report included them in that category. However, for a contentious and highly emotional words like "terrorism," we need to rely only on what reliable sources say. It doesn't matter what you or I think about SSCS, it matters what we can verify others have said. For example, you say that "multiple paragraphs cite the seizure of drift nets;" do those citations use the word piracy? If they do, we can look for ways to work these terms into the article. But we can't just assign the labels ourselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eco-terrorist has been a frequently used word to describe the actions of Paul Watson. I see that all references have been removed from "governmental respose" where governmental figures have described members as such. I hope someone restores that section to include all the that again. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


seeing as they dont take drift nets, they destroy them, that takes out your reasonin g for piracy. the onlythings theyve ever profitied from at sea, to my knowledge, is salvaging some stuff off a lost bouy, as mentioned on there website. the "acid" you refer to is rotten butter, and is less acidi than oragne juice so it cant really arm you, except it smells bad and maybe slight eye iratation, but you have to put it right in your eyes for that. vigalantes is somwhat appropriate, though it tends to conjur thoughs of old-west style law enforce ment so im not sure if thats apropriate. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They refer to themselves as pirates. Others refer to themselves as terrorists. The group has sunk many ships of people they disagree with. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

place all negative sounding info in "Controversy" please. Let's keep this positive!

Really? We can do better folks. This article sounding really POV as a whole. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. people are trying to slip in things to make them sound like terrorist left and right. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right? LIke those pesky FBI reports, Japanese officials and Australian politicians... what do they know. Sailors should be able to blow up people's ships without having all this mudslinging. [/sarcasm] In seriousness, I don't see how they could not seem like terrorist after blowing up ships. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy surrounds the group. That is reflected. And no, keeping it positive would go against neutrality standards.Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was sarcasm :) but I'm glad to see someone disagree. Actually, why is the FBI report tucked away with other things in the "controversy" section rather than in the governmental response section where it should be? Care to fix? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category Discussion

Because there is much discussion in the media noting that notable people refer to the SSCS as eco-terrorist, including governmental officials, I am reinstating this article as one that pertains to eco-terrorism. Pleas do not get all SSCS-defensive crying about how they are not terrorists, that's not the issue. More notable people than us consider them to be as such and even if opthers disagree, it should be reflected here. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several previous discussions about this that I'm just starting to read through to see why this category has been removed in the past. Should give some idea of the pro/con arguements used. Ravensfire (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know, it went all the way up the arbitration ladder at one point and still stood. Which is why I'm confused about it's removal once again. The main pont is, notable people have included them on the discussion of eco-terrorism, which is noted in the article. Categorization only follows article content. If we find that those cites are inapropriate, we'll remove them from the article at which point categorization should not stand. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society&oldid=372055243"