Talk:Paul Watson

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IronDuke (talk | contribs) at 01:54, 7 May 2012 (BLP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

And yes, he was convicted according to multiple sources. Here's a couple:[1][2] Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Title could be reworded to something more neutral. — BQZip01 — talk 04:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
— BQZip01 — talk 16:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Point taken and I concur. — BQZip01 — talk 11:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
To the contrary, giving people a editorially neutral portrayal of the situation is not synthesis, but accuracy. The manner is in how we do it. I believe that the points made later in the page are more clear. However, he has been convicted of a felony in Canada too, so we run into similar problems. Lastly, there is a VAST difference between self-serving comments and factual portrayal (as discussed below). — BQZip01 — talk 21:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

(Thread inject for clarity) To be clear, your summary is essentially correct. — BQZip01 — talk 21:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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: [5][6][7][8] 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)[reply]
Note 2 of those 4 sources are already listed & quoted in the summary above. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is becoming less about content and more about temperament. I see very strong feelings here (on the text and edit summaries) that is not consistent with creating a neutral article. Those with strong feelings about what MUST be included in the article might want to take a step back and let other editors with less of an agenda come to an agreement on NPOV improvements to the article. 173.233.72.34 (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@BQZip01: The comment posted above: "The guy is a liar and actively promotes lying..." is clearly not an editing strategy that is helpful in improving a BLP article. Inserting a quoted statement, however well referenced, is not acceptable for the purpose of attacking the subjects character. BLP violations are taken quite seriously. I urge caution on this matter. 68.28.104.227 (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are indeed correct that it is not an editing strategy. It is his claim. He lies "if it promotes [his] agenda" (his words, not mine). I never added the original claim. I added only the clarifying remarks. Respectfully, multiple IP comments in a matter of a few hours on topics not previously edited seem rather suspicious.
So let's stick to the topic at hand. People claim he is a terrorist. He claims isn't and claims he has never even been convicted of a crime. The facts state otherwise. Putting in another quote in this context is appropriate (i.e. never been convicted of a "serious crime" or whatever) if this claim is addressed elsewhere, such as a "controversy" section). Leaving this claim alone on its own merits gives the impression that he indeed has no convictions.
"It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides." — BQZip01 — talk 17:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break for Civility

BQZip01, I could attempt to associate this edit here with you, but it would be an unfounded personal attack, and an obvious violation of WP:civil. As such, I would never consider it. Your comments concerning myself and/or other editors with remarks such as "rather suspicious" linking to WP:meat, does nothing to further discussion on improving the article. Please consider limiting comment, at this page, to the concerns of article content. Dynamic IP currently editing as: 68.28.104.251 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was suspicious, not conclusive. However, I've had a user following me around and acting under both named/IP accounts (confirmed). That is one reason my talk page is protected (and each time the person feigns innocence). My talk page HAS a link to a page for IPs/unconfirmed users to comment to, but, thus far, only one person has actually used it.
You are absolutely correct that it doesn't help the discussion (which is what this is). Accusing me of an unnamed violation of civility is out of line. Running to WP:BLPN and taking something I said WAY out of context when we have a civil, ongoing discussion is also not helpful. — BQZip01 — talk 21:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You referred to a living person as an idiot and a liar in separate comments. Comments like that are inappropriate regardless of context. --Terrillja talk 21:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to EVERYONE, not just him, with regards to idiocy. As for the "liar" comments, that is solely based upon Paul Watson's own words where he both endorses and admits to the act of lying (reference to "Earthforce"). — BQZip01 — talk 21:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...here's a little evidence that my comments about meatpuppetry are not completely without merit: [9][10] — BQZip01 — talk 23:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you and your IP friend from Virginia Beach, have a common vocabulary list when refering to others. FWIW 108.121.207.55 (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terrillja/all, I hope you can clearly see the pattern developing here... — BQZip01 — talk 15:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, here we are

Ok, so the consensus seems to be to remove this quote and replace it with another within this section. I also see support to place this quote in the controversy section with appropriate disclaimers. Would this satisfy everyone's concerns? — BQZip01 — talk 14:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in absentia

My first edit! I came to this page while reading about the Ady Gil collision. I saw the term 'in absentia' and did not know what it means so I referred to Wikipedia. Then I thought that other people not knowing the term should have a link to explain. So I added a link. Mondegreen de plume (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. "If I were reading this article, would the link be useful to me?" is always a good way to look at it. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) has more information if you are interested.Cptnono (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is he a fugitive

Should he be in Category:Fugitives wanted by Norway? __meco (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if there is a reliable source that that would allow his inclusion, per BLP 12Minutes to 10pm 00:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember BLP

This article seemd pretty slanted against Watson -- quotes taken out of context, for starters. Watson is undeniably a controversial figure, but that doesn't mean we're allowed to portray him in a false light. To that end, I've made some changes. Please do not revert. IronDuke 01:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Watson&oldid=491105578"