Talk:MY Ady Gil/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:Earthrace.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Earthrace.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please pull a suitable image from Wikicommons for this page. Or give me a link that describes how to. --Lee Begg (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


I don't understand the interest of this boat... Which new record did it set? It completed the circumnavigation in more than 60 days? What is it for a record? Bruno Peyron did much better in 2005, he completed the circumnavigation in just a bit more than 50 days with a sail-powered boat!!! Only with the force of the wind!!! Maybe the article might need a bit more of explanation on the interest of this boat and of the record... I personnaly don't understand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It is well spelled out now. however, we can't take away from the noteworthiness of the project or record completely so tried to not over power it.Cptnono (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Part of the recent interest in this boat stems from it's stated plan to join Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and potentially be on Whale Wars. --0nonanon0 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Animal fat

Many articles cite the animal fat to be the primary component of the biodiesel this ship uses. It should be included in the article. -- (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed?Cptnono (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Nicely TY-- (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


Retaliation? According to the Japanese fleet it was crossing in front of their ship towing prop-foulers. That statement is a bit premature at this point. (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Watch out for WP:RECENTISM and potentially incorrect sources at this point. We don't need to update the article to match every news report.Cptnono (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
No, but bias should always be avoided. (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Unfortunately, Watson is on the record saying he spins the truth. Without a statement from the Japanese or independent review of the footage, any claims by the need to be worded carefully. The shooting and kidnapping incidents experienced similar problems. Lets just take it easy and make sure we aren't taking a side with the writing (that includes the Japanese).Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to start reverting edits that are worded in line with Wikipeida's neutrally standards. I don't want to edit war so any comments are welcome. It appears that several edit summaries from different editors agree that "ramming" is not yet appropriate. It can be used but needs to be attributed.Cptnono (talk)
Follow-up: It looks like SemperDoctus beat me to it.Cptnono (talk)
There are a few claims which as of now seem to be incorrect or unverified. First and foremost the ship has not sunk and claims that the ship sinking and describing it in the past tense are all premature. Secondly, I agree that it should be called a collision. Thirdly, it was not broken in half. As the video clearly shows, the front part of it was broken off.Wikieditorpro (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I changed the article to reflect the latest news that the ship has not sunk. (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's been claimed in some discussion that the Ady Gil was out of fuel (or very low I guess) - no idea where that was sourced from, I can't verify at all.Sycophant (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a video which should be added to the page for people to make up their own minds; (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't think it looks like SSCS's press release is accurate but that isn't for me to judge. Is the youtube video a copyright infringement? We can't use it if it is. We also need to be as careful linking to SSCS's enemy as much as linking to them due to potential POV concerns. Keep it in mind. Cptnono (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
YouTube video is sourced from ICR and attributed to them - per their requirements, so no copyright issue. There is also this video from Sea Shepherd's perspective as well: Sycophant (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I've referenced the two main YouTube links (I realise YouTube is not a preferred source, but the ICR site is incredibly slow and Sea Shepherd's seems to be dead).Sycophant (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Should the YouTube video be added to the External Links section? It is a freely available file. (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese video was removed due to a violation over at Youtube. We'll see what happens with SSCS's. They both show it at such different angles that this will never be resolved in the press (at least that is my assumption from the youtube comments). We will more than likely need a few good quotes and sources as it develops.
The YouTube video above is still up - it's accurately attributes ICR as the source per their website: "The ICR welcomes media organizations to reproduce photographs and other material from this website on the condition that all reproductions used for newspapers, television, websites and other visual products are attributed to the Institute." - I have also posted the same ICR video on my YouTube account with attribution (although that is not the one I have linked). Sycophant (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh it is! The one in the article history is gone. A bot might remove it but if they say it is OK then it should be OK. I hate linking to either but this might be a case where we link to both SSCS and ICR if they throw the videos up directly.Cptnono (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, who added bolds to all of the refs just recently? WP:MOSBOLD applies I believe.Cptnono (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

involved in a collision? You can see here that the Japanese ship has about 20° tilt to their left. The tilt is due to hard turn to the right. Fuzzy (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the video ( the device holding the rope used to entangle the propellors car be seen, because of the acceleration of the boat the rope taughtens (see 0:26). It's obvious they were trying to get in front of the ship to entangle it's propellers. (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any information on the maneuverability of this boat? Some sources have said it can turn on a sixpence. Others that it is designed to go at high speed in a straight line. Can it go backwards? Does the growing wake behind mean that it was accelerating forward or is this how the motors work? One said that the wake would be unequal on one side if it was trying to turn. Kwenchin (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a split screen video of the collision on youtube, --Zven (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop speculating - deciding who did what and who is to blame is not Wikipedia's task. Ingolfson (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Ingolfson, I regard to your comment, I have not speculated about anything, All I have done is referenced a video which contains footage from both parties combined as evidence of a collision between vessels, this content is also contained within the article itself. If you can read anything into my sentence otherwise I would be very surprised. --Zven (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Why take it so personal, Zven? I was talking about the discussion above, NOT your specific post. Ingolfson (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with being personal, your comment a short time after my post on the discussion thread and was indented which implies a conversation in continuation of my thread. --Zven (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Are Ady Gil and Bob Barker same boats?

Can anyone explain me? Which boat collided? I just saw on Yahoo news and I wanted to add to the Bob Barker article until I found this one, Ady Gil article. AquilonianRanger (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Different vessels. From Sea Shepherd: "Ady Gil was severely damaged and almost sunk in a vicious and unprovoked attacked by a Japanese whaling harpoon vessel many times its size. The crew barely escaped with their lives and were rescued by our newest vessel the Bob Barker." —Pengo 02:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OF the two videos of the collision referenced above the Sea Shepherd's is taken from the Bob Barker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

those are outriggers, not sponsons

The article currently says that the boat is a trimaran that has sponsons. Here is a picture of the Ady Gil out of water [1]. The article should be reworded to say that it is a trimaran with two outrigger hulls; the word pontoon might apply, but no part of the boat meets the criterion of a sponson "at or below the waterline"; and the stability should not be presented twice as if it is a trimaran AND it has outriggers, that's wrong, it's just one thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


According to Captain Paul Watson on ABC's News Breakfast Australia (referenced on several blogs), the Ady Gil has sunk. Does anyone have a valid source for this? I couldn't find anything on, and I don't want to reference the blogs. Double-J (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you're right - Watson confirmed as having said it sunk while under tow. Shame, a nice looking boat. Little grape (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Watson is not a Captain. — NRen2k5(TALK), 19:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Times & dates

Can we please get some consistency in the article about times and dates. The article states that Ady Gil sank on the 8 January, yet I edited the List of shipwrecks in 2010 on the 7 January to add a reference to the fact that the ship had sunk. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The time and date issue originates from the original Sea Sheperd article. It names Jan. 8th as the day of the sinking (in Australian time) but the time is listed as 17:20 GMT. This is confusing as the correct date in GMT is Jan. 7th, or alternatively Jan 8th, 4:20 EDT (they are the same moment in time). We can avoid confusion by calling it the early morning hours of Jan. 8th, (Jan7th, 17:20 GMT) or sth. like that. As the date starts aging this will not make a big difference anyhow. --Wik! t (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Edit conflict-Seems it can't be decided for absolute certain the darn thing has sunk or not! Earthrace currently has it abandoned, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society currently has it sunk! (after being sunk/abandoned/back to sunk over ≈6 hour) c/w references to 'prove' it! Who knows! Lots of POV here. Should probably give local and UTC times for clarity, if practical-- (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. username 1 (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

EarthraceAdy Gil — It's the new name right? Or does popular usage apply here? — username 1 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Considering it just sank, this is the name its likely to live on with in popular memory/lore. I am equally not opposed to waiting a bit to see what names is more popular when some of the media from the incident dies down.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support As per Labattblueboy. (Actually I though it sank 8+ hours ago! Thats what Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has said for over 8 hours!)-- (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Should have been done a while ago - the correct current name of the boat is Ady Gil, not Earthrace. Little grape (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I'm, not completely on board with this (heh heh) per my comment above. Its history as Earthrace was damn notable and I would support a move back if it is shown that Ady Gil was just a name painted on it by SSCS and not a registration change.Cptnono (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another rework

The current rework had a number of aims which I have hopefully succeeded in:

  • Added more about the circumnavigation attempt into the lede. She was record-breaker Earthrace first, anti-whaling collision-vessel Ady Gil later.
  • Removing most of the hubbub around the "sunk" "not sunk, only abandoned" "sunk too!!!". Rephrased so that it says it was abandoned. If someone wants to re-add something in that line, please DO NOT just reinsert - get a reasonable MEDIA article that covers the conflict, rather than just playing off refs against each other. It's not a game who can cite more sources for the one view.
  • Split the content a bit. This article now contains the "technical" side of the Ady Gil and of the collision. The aftermath / repercussions / namecalling / political actions - all that goes into the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations article. I have also placed corresponding cross-links. Otherwise we are constantly trying to add all crucial points into BOTH articles.

Hope people agree with my changes. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally, when making major overhauls, discussion precedes execution. That is, discuss the major changes you'd like to make first, then make the edits.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the general way is WP:BRD.--Terrillja talk 06:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
agree with BE:BOLD--Merbabu (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You know, for some reason, your comments don't surprise me.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Say it or don't. A passive aggressive personal attack is worse than saying it constructively and having it in the open.Cptnono (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, it doesn't surprise me that these editors support major, unilateral editing decisions made without prior discussion. Is that better?Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Collision with Shonan Maru 2

This is not good English. I fixed it once, but it's been reverted apparently: "Crew on all three vessels at location, the Shōnan Maru 2 and Sea Shepherd's Bob Barker and Ady Gil, took footage of the incident,...." You can't say "at location". How about, "Crew on three vessels, the Shōnan Maru 2, the Ady Gil, and the Bob Barker, a Sea Shepherd Society support ship, took video footage of the incident,...."Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no comments, so I'm going to fix this again.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional video from Shonan Maru

There's an interesting video at [2] which puts a somewhat different complexion on the interactions between Ady Gil and Shonan Maru. You can see Ady Gil's tactics, which are to repeatedly cross the bow of the Shonan Maru towing what looks like a heavy hawser. A green laser is shone repeatedly into Shonan Maru's bridge, and (most startling of all) someone fires an arrow from the Ady Gil which hits the side of the Shonan Maru. Little grape (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't add "original research" to articles. You can add a line that "prior to the collision, the Ady Gil had been harassing the whaling vessels" and put a link to the video, and for good measure, a news article stating that information. But you can't watch the video and say "X did Y to Z, and then Y did...." That's your interpretation. But if you find a reliable source that makes those observations, it's ok. So the bowgun comment is not supported by any reference other than your or P------'s personal observation. That's a no-no on Wikipedia. The reference for that line does not say anything about a crewmember brandishing a bowgun and does not link to a video.Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Not OR - it's the same video from the same camera that's ref'd elsewhere in the article. Instead of the more common 50sec version, this version is 4mins long and puts the event into context. Little grape (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You can link the video to a line in the article, (How about the "Interdiction Tactics" section? It needs references!) but you can't interpret the video. I think it's ok to say, "A video taken by the Shonan Maru 2 before the collision shows the Ady Gil attempting to disrupt the whale hunt." But you can't give blow by blow coverage of the video. For that you need a reliable source. I'm sure you can find a news article with that information.Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. I think 'interdiction tactics' should come prior to the collision para, but we can do that later Little grape (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to talk about arrows being launched, you need to have a reference for that line. Either a video or a news source, etc. I don't see a reference backing up the arrow attack statement.Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Done Little grape (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not an arrow - it looks like a potato!Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be one mighty fast potato then. Little grape (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I heard they used a potato gun! You might want to say "The Ady Gil harassed the Shonan Maru 2 before the collision." and let people draw their own conclusions from the video. If you put in too much detail, it's original research. At least remove the line about the arrow. Definitely OR.Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a ref for the 'potato gun'? Where did you hear it? It's well established that at least one arrow was fired. Here's just one ref for that [3], there are plenty more. Quote from Underwater Times: 'The Sea Shepherd activists have been escalating the viciousness of their sabotage including hurling projectiles containing hazardous butyric acid and firing line-launch rockets against Japan’s research vessels. However, their carrying and possession onboard of a lethal-force weapon makes one ponder whether they would hesitate or not to produce casualties.' Little grape (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Your link says they found arrows in the water, but doesn't say anything about anyone firing any arrows at them, not even one. I can't find a news article with the potato/spud gun mentioned, but it is being discussed on blogs. But the fired arrow thing HAS to have reliable reference. That's a very serious allegation. It has to be removed until you find a good reference. If you pause your video, you can see the potato.Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I just changed "arrow" to "object".Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Changing it to 'object' dilutes the seriousness of the attack. And you're well aware that blogs are not reliable sources. I'm changing it to 'projectile'; note that you can clearly see the smoke and sound as the crew member fires directly at the Shonan Maru 2, and the Underwater Times refers to 'lethal force' weapons, 'firing line-launch rockets', and 'hurling acid-filled projectiles'. Little grape (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The underwater times only published a press release from the ICR. One wich is not neutral in the slightest sense. See WP:SPS.--Terrillja talk 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not a press release, it's a story published in a reputable publication. Please go and read it again, and explain why you think it's a press release. Do you have a copy of the 'press release from ICR' you can point us to that mirrors the UT article? Little grape (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) "The text of Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research press release follows:" Paragraph 3. There is absolutely nothing in the UT article that they wrote that hasn't already been stated. The rest is (as labeled) an ICR press release, one that is not neutral in the slightest. ICR does not have to be neutral, we do.--Terrillja talk 21:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop removing properly sourced content. The video shows a crewmember firing the firearm (note the puff of smoke), and the projectile is clearly seen to pass at high speed from the gun/cannon/whatever and hit the side of the larger ship. Furthermore, the article in the Underwater Times supports the video and details further attacks by the Ady Gil. Can you suggest why you regard these cites as 'interpretation', and suggest a more accurate form of words? Little grape (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we're each missing the point - you claimed the Underwater Times had simply reprinted a Press Release. I asked for your evidence, as it appeared to me that the UT article was written by that publication. You've replied stating 'paragraph 3'? What do you mean? I'm simply asking you to point to a Press Release that says exactly what the UT article says - is that so difficult? Little grape (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Your interpretation of the video is that smoke (could be baking soda and vinegar, which produces a lot of CO2 gas and is not a "firearm"). If you find a proper reference for crew firing a projectile and state it in a neutral manner, I have no problems. Right now you have unsourced OR and a poor source. Paragraph 3 of the article states that the following is a press release. Read the article, go to the third paragraph and compare it to my quote above.--Terrillja talk 21:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Baking soda and vinegar? Again, is this just guesswork by you, or can you point me to any evidence that supports your claim? Here's another source that reports on the use of lasers and the 'firing of projectiles' [4] and Watson's use of prop-foulers. Little grape (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It's basic chemistry. My example was that powder does not necessarily mean smoke which does not necessarily mean firearm. Ok, so you have a source (a quote from another ICR press release) stating that they have seen the use of lasers and prop foulers. But nothing that says that in the video the ady gil was attempting to disorient anyone. So your addition is still original research.--Terrillja talk 22:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Also this 'Green site' (albeit a blog) states that Ady Gil was trailing prop-fouling lines behind it as it crossed in front of the Shonan Maru 2 just before the collision [5]. There's also a photo of a crew member from Ady Gil firing a green laser at the larger vessel. This photo shows the projectile-firing weapon [6], as does this one: [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little grape (talkcontribs) 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I just don't think that you are getting it. Posting more pictures and making more assertions about what you see does not prove your point. It just furthers my suspicion that you don't understand our policy on original research. As I said before, find a reliable source, paraphrase what they have printed neutrally and it's fine. If you keep posting more and more links and adding your own interpretations, you are toeing the line on disruption.--Terrillja talk 22:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It's odd that you make demands for sources, then when they're provided you resort to what appears to be wikilawyering. You cannot on the one hand claim that unsourced OR is going into the article, then complain when multiple refs are provided for you? Presumably you now don't dispute that it is accepted that Ady Gil crew members a) used a weapon to fire projectiles at the larger ship, b) shone lasers into the bridge of that vessel, and c) made attempts to foul the propellor by deliberately racing across the bow dragging a hawser. Perhaps you could confine your reply to coming up with a form of words that communicates these facts in the article? I'll start by altering 'firearm' to 'weapon' if that helps you? Little grape (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You don't have a single reliable source to support any of that. As I said, find a reliable source to support this. Not a press release about earlier events, not one about SSCS tactics for the last 30 years and not posting videos and telling people to watch them as a reference. Simply, if you want to add it, source it. Reliably. And it's not wikilawyering, it's getting tired of the exact same argument over and over with no indication that you have actually acknowledged what the problem is.--Terrillja talk 22:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you've thought about the circumstances of the collision. There were no 'neutral parties' on hand, just the opposing sides. Thus we are forced to rely upon accounts from both sides when putting together a neutral version of events. All we have is 'press releases' or statements from each side, and contemporaneous photographic and video evidence. There is no need to 'interpret' the video or the photographs - they clearly show the laser, hawser, and weapon - there is therefore little purpose in debate, unless you wish to dispute the authenticity of the video and photographs. In which case we'd have to remove *all* videos and photos from the article, because *all* of them were shot by either of the opposing parties. See the problem? Furthermore, these three (laser/hawser/weapon) have been reported on in reputable publications, some of which I have listed for you. So what exactly is it you want to remove, and why? Should we remove *all* references to the collision and sinking because there are no independent witnesses? And remove *all* video refs as being 'unreliable'?Little grape (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)If you look at the text of the collision, it states that both sides took video of it. No interpretation of whose fault it was or any of that. Youtube can be used to show that they took video, it can not be used to support your own interpretation of what you see. I don't debate that they are towing a rope or have a laser. What I have an issue with is your orignal research stating that they are trying to snag the propellor and disorient the crew. There is absolutely nothing to support that, and there is no proof in the video that the laser was ever pointed at the bridge. For all you know, the laser is some sort of laser sight for a camera and the rope on their stern is to protect the back of their ship. My point is that you do not know why they are doing what they are doing and adding your own interpretation is original research. --Terrillja talk 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

From the photos of the launcher, I would say they are using compressed air (see the red hose) and the "smoke" is water vapor. That's my personal GUESS. Here is one definition of firearm: "A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant." So you don't have enough evidence to call it a "firearm". And if they are using an explosive charge, they probably wouldn't need the hose. And anyway, you'd need a reliable source identifying it as a firearm. We can't do that.Ghostofnemo (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - let's just call it a weapon Little grape (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Interdiction Tactics

Why did this entire section disappear without any discussion? It did need references, but for the most part it seemed like that would not be a problem. Just the OR should have been deleted.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I reworded the deleted "Interdiction Tactics" section and put it at the top of the "Collision with Shonan Maru 2" section, and added some references.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice job Little grape (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
And re-added the complete original research. Find a cite for the blatant speculation as to the motives or I'll remove it.--Terrillja talk 19:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Referenced now. However, for the future, please read our policy on orignal research and reliable sources.--Terrillja talk 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Why are you removing material and the news media references that supported it, on your own, without any prior discussion. Can you explain why the news articles were not up to your standards, and what references you are basing your unilateral removal on?Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is a line from one of the deleted news media references cited, discussing the propellors: "Sea Shepherd activists had been throwing rancid butter missiles at Japanese ships and attempting to interfere with propellers before the collision occurred." This is not a quote from the whalers, it's a line in the news story at This is starting to look like deliberate vandalism.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is a line from the other, deleted, supporting reference: "The skirmishes have grown increasingly sophisticated with the activists deploying laser-like devices and stink bombs, and the Japanese fleet operating military-style acoustic weapons and water cannon." at Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I had already said that the whole "tactics" bit had to be referenced, some references were added but did not correlate with the sentence before them, there were no references on original research as to motives and what appears to be an editorial or letter to the editor was being used as a source regarding the collision. So I referenced the tactics parts and edited it in line with the reference, something that neither one of you had done, removed the editorial and used another, more neutral reference that they edged forward and generally made sure that whatever was in those sections was supported by a neutral reference. I'd say that was an improvement. if you wanted to use the references you prefer, you could have added them to the article on the unreferenced original research, however you did not, so I replaced it with one reference which covered all the events we needed to reference.--Terrillja talk 15:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Official name?

Resolved: Article name now Ady Gil —Pengo 10:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we ask an admin to reverse the main article/redirect logic between "Ady Gil" and "Earthrace"? Her last name was Ady Gil, and I would have moved it, but I need an admin to do it as the redirect has history. Is there consensus for a name move? Ingolfson (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was PR no. For example, if they were just working under a lease like agreement and the registration was never changed I couldn't see changing the title. I don't know if PR and paint makes a name. If the owners (whether it was SSCS or not) agreed to the name change then I don't see a problem. I honestly could never tell from the press releases if it was a sale, lease, or whatever.Cptnono (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of referenced material regarding collision with Shonan Maru 2

This referenced material was removed from the article. It should be restored: New video footage taken onboard the Ady Gil just before the collision seems to back up their claim that they were rammed by the Japanese vessel. cite_web|url= footage from Ady Gil before high-seas smash appears to back Sea Shepherd claims|publisher=HeraldSun|publication_date=January 11, 2010 Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. Weight. It is disputed and that source is given to much validity. The Japanese footage makes them look fine. The SSCS footage fails to show the actions just before the collision (crossing their bow). To controversial. Let the reader decide for themselves. Also, "new" footage is a no no. Write as if it is going to be read next year.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Quick follow-up: According to a piece in the xxxx, yada yada. Footage interpreted by other sources such as xxxx says blah blah. That is obnoxious though. This is a developing story so we need to be more cautious.Cptnono (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The reader cannot decide for themselves if material is removed from the article. I do agree that "new" can be removed from "new video footage". This is referenced material, a news article referring to a video of the incident that has been released to the public and the media. It is highly relevant to this section of the article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You are disregarding weight. I can find sources that say Hitler was a great guy. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Who is at fault is disputed. We can present the info without pushing one article saying it was the fault of the Japanese. There is no reason to push a view/assign blame while investigations are ongoing. Also, read WP:NPOV and WP:ENGVAR. Thank you for attempting discussion instead of edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not dated material or material based on opinions. The article referenced is not an editorial. The video discussed in the article will always exist. It backs the claim that the Ady Gil crew considered their day's work done and were not at battle stations trying to maneuver in front of the Shonan Maru 2.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the url of the YouTube video that is referenced in the article: (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It is cherry picked. The boats actions before the collision, if the engine was running, and all sort of other variables are not addressed in the clip. Unless we are going to spell out every piece of analysis, then we can't do it. If you want to write something to counter the SSCS claim (a review of the Japanese footage or criticism of SSCS's) then it will be presented in a neutral context. We already have links to the videos. What isn't OK is finding and providing sources only to push a view point/verify one claim and not the other.Cptnono (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Have you read the article? The article points out that the captain of the Ady Gil is overheard issuing orders to stop the engine. This is not a pro or anti article. It's a news article from the news media. I think you have deleted a referenced entry because of YOUR opinion about the incident, not because the news media is being biased.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
If you read the article, you'll see at the very top they refer to a source that takes the Japanese side as well.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I do think that the video needs to be linked to and the fact that it shows the skipper telling them to stop gives a unique view which none of the other videos have shown. I'm sure soon enough another media outlet will pick the video up and report on it and we can update it then, but not including it at this point would be doing the readers a disservice. Providing the story with an NPOV statement seems like the way wer should go.--Terrillja talk 02:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Just discovered there's already a link to the video higher up in this section of the article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the news article is safer than the video. The news article is a third party source and the video was released by the Sea Shepherd Society.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, how about this: "A video taken on board the Ady Gil just before the collision seems to support their version of events, that they were at rest in the water when the Shonan Maru 2 steered a course towards them." (link to article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostofnemo (talkcontribs) 02:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That is just as bad. You need to present the dispute. You haven't done so with that edit. That single video with a single source is not sufficient without making note that the Japanese steering into them is disputed, the one video only shows a snippet, the full context. Furthermore, you take the possible accidental nature of the course change/waves with that edit. Provide sources you disagree with and you have neutrality.Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you are free to add your information and references showing other possible interpretations.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ono|Cptnono]] (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't have reinserted (essentially what you have done) without consensus. Tagging the section. The section has too much weight in one direction now. Your edit along with the mention that they would do anything to protect themselves (allusion to it being done on purpose) are my major concerns. \Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I went to great lengths to discuss this. It's unreasonable to say that referenced material must be removed unless balancing material is also included. I made a contribution and I referenced it. You are free to do the same. But do not remove other people's contributions unless you have a better reason than "it doesn't present all the possible interpretations".Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
As the section stands at this point in time, it is not neutral. Discussing it and finding a more neuteral way to present the information are two different tings. You have also cherry picked sources.03:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
What if there is no "balancing material" to be found? You are free to find them and add them if they are out there.Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
When in doubt we should include all material from reliable sources (such as the article in question) If the article is then missing balance the only responsible course of action is to add a reliable source that brings the story into balance. It is never appropriate to remove a good source in order to achieve balance (in order to trim redundancy or fix a broken link you are fine). If no sources can be found then it can be deemed that reality shows a bias and wikipedia should reflect the biases of reality, rather than striving to be definitively inaccurate. -- (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Tried to neutralize it some and just state the facts, the deck crew were not acting in opposition to whaling at the time, does not get into who said what or what the crew belowdecks were doing.--Terrillja talk 03:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There is opposition material. Instead of finding it and discussing how to include it we were arguing about your edit. Regardless of what could be added, you included a line with questionable neutrality. Terrillja seems to have saved the day so it is good enough for now. I'll remove that tag. It still needs clean up but that is always needed. I don't exactly love the recent edit (why were they even in proximity, is it true that there was an engine failure, what happened 25 seconds earlier in the video) but the ram thing was the big concern.Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
What engine failure? I didn't hear anything about it in the video, did I miss something?--Terrillja talk 04:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
That was one of many rumours I have heard. Obviousley NOT putting anything like that in until it was verified. There are so many different stories and interpretations (the possible wake of the boat is another example). Need more good sources!04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You two know more, and are more objective than the professional news media, obviously. I guess your personal opinions trump objective, professional sources. (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. One source is one source. I can't really feel bad for having concerns about its inclusion while disregarding the other side. Also, SSCS's media campaign worked well but we have to be able to see past it.Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Previous comment was me, sorry, forgot to sign in. Anyway, Terrillja obviously hasn't even read the article. It says in the news article, which was written by professional journalists, and published by a news organization that is not affiliated with any of the parties involved, that the captain is heard saying in the video to his crew to cut the engines, well before the collision. Please, my edit was carefully based on the reference, and it was even less assertive than the reference. The reference uses the word "rammed", which I omitted.Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Read it three or four times actually. A bit of good faith would be nice. Yes, I heard them talking about stopping the engines. Stopping the engines is the the same as an engine failure, so I'm not sure where that attack of bad faith came from. --Terrillja talk 06:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The news article says the captain ordered the engines shut down, it appears the Japanese ship "rammed" the Ady Gil, etc., etc. but you say you edited my contribution to bring it in line with "the facts". My contribution was carefully, and even over-cautiously, based on the article. When you said you were "just trying to state the facts" it implied I was over-stating them.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You were reporting on what is clearly speculation by the media, even they state it as what it appears is happening. I put doen what can clearly be seen. The deck crew was sitting on deck and was not engaged in anti-whaling ops. No speculation about whose version it confirms or speculate about the movement of the ships in relation to each other. You stated what was in the news article, however it was clearly speculation on their part, which you in turn got caught in. My edit wasn't in reference to you as an editor, it was in reference to the fact that the news article contained speculation which we cannot go by.--Terrillja talk 06:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The comment that you replaced my contribution with is totally out of synch with the referenced article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the lead sentence of the article. Compare this with your edit: "Fresh footage appears to back Sea Shepherd anti-whaling protesters' claims that a Japanese vessel rammed them last week." Now, here is your edit: "A video taken on board the Ady Gil just before the collision appears to show that the deck crew was resting and not engaged in any anti-whaling actions when the Shōnan Maru 2 approached."Ghostofnemo (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You admit, in your first post in this discussion section, that you were "neutralizing" my contribution, and since it was directly based on the news article, you were "neutralizing" the news. I insist that you revert your edit of my replacement text to reflect the actual content of the news article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is another news source saying the Ady Gil was "rammed" by the Japanese vessel: Fourth paragraph: "The Ady Gil, a lightweight 70-foot boat, was rammed Wednesday by a Japanese ship providing security for the whalers. The boat sank under tow Friday."Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one from the L.A. Times: Headline: Rammed anti-whaling boat Ady Gil sinks off Antarctica.Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's another from Times Online, 10th paragraph: "Video footage of the incident appears to back the claims by the Ady Gil crew that they were deliberately targeted by the whaler. The footae (sic) shows the Ady Gil lying stationary in the water, as the Shonan Maru 2 changes direction to steam at speed toward them. the Ady Gil crew are seen clambering into the back of their boat as the Japense ship, firing water cannons at them and nearly submerging them with its wake, ploughs into their boat."Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's yet another professional news organization using the word "rammed" to describe the actions of the Japanese vessel: "This photo received and taken on January 6, 2010 from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society shows the Sea Shepherd's ship Ady Gil (L-front), a wave-piercing boat formerly known as "Earthrace", being rammed by Japanese whaling vessel Shonan Maru No. 2 (R) in Antarctic waters." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostofnemo (talkcontribs) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's another story from the L.A. Times, in case you think the other story just snuck past the editors:,0,4710554.story "Both the boat rammed by a Japanese vessel and the craft that rescued six activists off Antarctica were bought with donations from the entertainment industry figures."Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Television New Zealand uses the "r" word in headline: "Rammed boat hoped to be salvaged" So, Terrillja, could you please revert your edit?Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


This apparent rush to apportion blame and create the definitive version of the event right this moment is silly. Firstly, we are not news, rather we are writing an encyclopaedia for the long term. This event is not over, and there will be a lot more written about it.

Thus, why not just create a basic entry that only discusses non-disputed items:

  • Boats were involved in a collision.
  • Ad Gil damaged (and you can describe the damage), abandoned and presumed sank as a result.
  • Both sides dispute fault – without trying to explain the contended version of events.
  • reported injuries

I trust those points above are agreed upon? Anything extra that you can’t agree on gets removed. You don’t need to say anymore than that – and why say more, when we are only speculating.

It’s a pointless debate, and I suggest the page gets locked til there is a resolution either on (a) a detailed account you can all agree with, or since that’s most unlikely, (b) a minimalist approach as I suggest above. --Merbabu (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the disputed reference? The news media ARE drawing conclusions based on the evidence: Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
What conclusions the media draws are irrelevant – only more so when it’s the centre of such a pathetic and time wasting debate. Rather, it’s verifiable facts that we want – not verified media opinion.
You should all just WP:CHILL. The amount of words and time wasted is pathetic and misses the point of wikipedia completely. --Merbabu (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
So you suggest the news media are making up stories and not basing them on facts?Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
No I'm not. You're still missing the point. --Merbabu (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is from the Wikipedia page "Reliable Sources": "News organizations - Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." What I have added is based on a reliable reference. The people who are removing and changing this material are not providing anything to support their actions except their personal opinion that this is unfair, as is the moderator, apparently.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this what you want to add and in these words:
"New video footage taken onboard the Ady Gil just before the collision seems to back up their claim that they were rammed by the Japanese vessel
That's speculation on behalf of the media - (while it might or might not be "correct") it's opinion and it's unattributed. Why are you so keen to attribute blame? Just state the undisputed facts and keep it simple (and hence NPOV and accurate).
And please don't say the moderator [me?] is unfair - that is uncivil, doesn't WP:AGF, and undermines a collaborative environement needed for consensus - and consensus is more important than any "rule" we can dig up. --Merbabu (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the edit that I'd like to see restored. This is what I thought we had worked out after our discussion:

"A video taken on board the Ady Gil just before the collision seems to support their version of events, that they were at rest in the water when the Shonan Maru 2 steered a course towards them."Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just an opinion. It's not a fact, and it's not news. Someone else could look at it and say the same video supports the "other side's" version of events. --Merbabu (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It IS news. It is NOT opinion. Here is my source: (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to my suggestion for WP:CHILL and stripping out that which can't be agreed on, later we might be able to say that “enquiry A found that B did C”. ie, the fact here is that A found "blah blah". But, the fact is STILL not that "B did C". --Merbabu (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You claim I am speculating and being uncivil, but again, you are ignoring the news reports and claiming that what happened is a complete mystery. Why do you so distrust the news media? The cited reference is a news story from a mainstream news organization, not an editorial.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm going over to the Underwear Bomber article, and I'm going to argue that it's unbalanced and unfair to al Queda because it is based on a bunch of suspiciously opinionated newspaper articles that are jumping to sensational conclusions. I'm going to water down the article, based on my own personal sense of what is fair, so that it isn't unfair to al Queda. Neutrality above all! Maybe the guy's underwear just spontaneously burst into flames? It's possible! You can't say he had a bomb unless you also find a balancing story that he didn't have a bomb. Maybe he had his underwear dry cleaned and the chemicals didn't all rinse out? Maybe it only looked liked he was working for al Queda, when he was actually just scamming them for airfare? We must have balance! You have to find that balancing article before you say anything about a bomb or al Queda. The media obviously have an agenda and are intentionally trying to mislead the public into jumping to impartial, non-neutral conclusions. Wikipedia editors are better equipped than professional journalists to separate fact from fiction!Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't do that. Stay on topic and chill out.
Sea Shepherd releases talking points and certain news agencies pick up on it. For example, "at rest" is clearly not the case when you click on the link and watch the video (which is from the Japanese perspective). Another example is the hose spraying. The hose isn't moving. It is static and aimed to the side. This is just my interpretation but I honestly can't fathom how anyone can see anything different. SSCS has made there media push. Hopefully, independent observers and the Japanese will get some more stuff in print so that it is suitable for inclusion. IN the spirit of common sense, I would agree with removing bother lines mentioned above. Cptnono (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see my additional references at the end of the section above (Arbitrary Break)Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand. Unfortunately, we can find references that say it was "rammed" and that it was a "collision" and all sorts of other stuff. Cherry picking. Just because two sources say something doesn't make it so. We kind of get stuck differentiating between truth and verifiability. The goal is to present referenced material Within that goal can be how it is presented, the weight it is given, and if Wikipedia validates it (since some readers just take it as news). SSCS did a media blitz and it was covered. We still need to know the difference between PR and what happened. And hopefully, this will all be sorted out with time (one reason we are not news here)Cptnono (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles are not born as completed projects. I'm saying there are several news organizations reporting this as a ramming. I'm not insisting it was definitively a ramming, but there are news organizations that are reporting this possibility. I think it is misleading to pretend this isn't the case. Now, if someone can find references supporting the whalers or some other point of view, those views can also be presented. But don't expect one editor (me) to present every possible scenario. I feel my contribution is being unfairly censored. Letting my well-referenced comment appear doesn't prevent others from adding other well-referenced contributions. But removing and watering down my contribution does result in an article that is out of synch with what the news media are reporting.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo, This might be helpful to you. Also, long term editors are a little wary of new WP:SPA editors. --Merbabu (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
First you claimed it wasn't news. Then, when I supplied more news based references, now it's a dead horse. I"m not just flapping my gums here - I'm providing references. Where are your references that justify suppressing what the news media are reporting?Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • When I ask for your references, I mean something like a story that the news media are taking payoffs from the Sea Shepherd Society to place stories favorable to their organization. Or a story that one of the editors who seems biased is married to a Sea Shepherd activist, or something like that.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your SPA accusation, I would really, really like to move on. I got started on this because I thought the Ady Gil was a really cool ship, and I heard it was submersible. I first edited some techincal data that was incorrect (sourced). Then, as the story unfolded, I tried to keep the article in synch with what was being reported. I was extremely surprised to discover that this is considered such a major threat. Whose interest is it in to ignore what the news media are reporting?Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In case you've forgotten, here is the wild-eyed, extremist, Single Purpose Account based line that I'd like to see restored: "A video taken on board the Ady Gil just before the collision seems to support their version of events, that they were at rest in the water when the Shonan Maru 2 steered a course towards them."Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoo hoo! I finally found a source that goes into detail from both sides. We can say RAMMED and anything like that as long as it is attributed and balanced with the other claim as far as I am concerned. Surprisingly neutral piece considering it is the Japan Times.[8] Any thoughts?
In regards to SPA and all that fun stuff. Editors need to watch out for soapboxing, activism, and neutrality. Nothing wrong with a new editor as long as they don't have an agenda. Nothing wrong with having opinions either. Just make a good effort to follow standards. We all (well I do at least) slip up so just keep an eye out.Cptnono (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I about fell off my chair when I read that - I'm sure this only appeared in the English edition! There's no link to a Japanese article. But you've shaken my cynicism about Japanese society! I would never have believed it if I had not read it with my own eyes....BTW I'm not a racist - I've been living in Japan since 2005.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need to actually use the word "rammed", but it is floating around in the media.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

siding with appearances

I don't like the direction this article takes by appearing to side with the SSCS on appearing to have been hit by the whalers. (Let's ignoring the fact that in the video the ady gill fires up props at the last second sending them INTO the bow of the larger ship). Several editorials are quoted and the article has adopted thier wording. This is not the direction we want to take with a wiki article. Also, the NZ government had some pretty strong words about the responsibillity of the Ady Gill ship members in the incident but the article seems to focus on the whalers being responsible. I'd like to eliminate weasle words (like appears), stick with the facts and create a more reliable, neutral article. (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
Both sides are presented, the fact that both sides took video is referenced, the Ady Gil edging forward is stated, I don't know what you are looking for, but I'd say it's a pretty good example of both sides getting their views put forth as well as the independent media. If you have an issue with it, add other referenced material or state specific issues. The broad "I don't like it, fix it" doesn't accomplish anything.--Terrillja talk 05:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The direct text from the times: "Video footage of the incident appears to back the claims.." and the text from The Age: "After about 12 hours, the Ady Gil withdrew from the battle. It was idling in the water when, from a distance of about 75 metres, the Shonan Maru No. 2 powered up." So I took the conservative approach and said based on the video and the age that the crew appeared resting on deck and the boat was idling. I should have said that the boat was idling so I would be perfectly in line with the ref, but instead I decided to take the more conservative appears to be route. So I softened reliable sources to make them more conservative as there is always some element of doubt and somehow we're all POV pushers. Seriously?--Terrillja talk 05:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, he admits it! He is managing the news to fit his personal sense of balance!Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
One thing that has not been mentioned is positions of vessels, Ady Gil initially being to the starboard of Shōnan Maru 2 and what maritime navigation rules 'normally' apply. Comments about the 'NZ governments strong words' don't take into account that only one video footage was available at that time from the Shōnan Maru 2, in the following days two more points of view were made available as both sides involved in the collision made press releases. --Zven (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove the tag until the issue is resolved. That being said, the article repeats the observations of some non-experts on the subject and seems to be taking thier side. My conention is that it appears one way to some and another way to others, but the section reads as if we are agreeing with one side, without having notbale expert opinion on that side. It would be one thing if a PHD in maritime law says it was their fault or their fault, but just noting some commentators obervation on what he sees in a web clip is not encyclopedic. Let's discuss how to improve before removing the tag again plz. -- (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added some more of the other side and attempted to clean up some of the language that used weasle words and appeared to be siding with the SSCS. I'm not the best editor, I do best at noticing and calling attention to problems, but since you needed my assistance I do not mind lending it. It's gonna need some cleanup to make the words look just right but all the info for a neutral accurate presentation of the info is there. Peace. -- (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? In the last sentence of the paragraph above a much more neutral source is cited with the same opinion, but instead you cited an opinionated la times blog post after complaining about opinion pieces being cited above. How does that make any sense at all? If you want to move the good reference, do that, but adding the same statement and citing a (terrible) source doesn't follow any logic. I'm not even going to get into the atrocities committed against the english language there either.--Terrillja talk 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, so without getting insulting, perhaps we can take all of the above problems and come up with a solution that is well-cited, neutral, sourced in notable experts and of encyclopedic quality. I believe it is not impossible. But I need your help. :) (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the first thing to do is give each side's explanation. I've been meaning to get to that myself. In regards to sourcing, all of the "observations" by professional writers is simply that. If we are going to use a pro-SSCS press release observation (who I personally don't see how they see that 100%) we should add the observations that say otherwise. If the courts or international community get involved it will be madly interesting. Until then, I really wouldn't mind cutting all of the random newspaper contributor thoughts and observations on the incident. As I mentioned earlier, they are professionals but easily swayed by PR campaigns and personal feelings.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
No, quality news sources are not easily swayed. It is their job not to be easily swayed. What makes a news article "random"? Stop bashing and second-guessing the news media.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought this was finished awhile ago according to the time stamps. You alright? Are you not OK with the current addition? An although it is not our job to interpret the sources, it is up to us to present them correctly. For example, the video on the Ady Gil has a great cut in it that throws off the chronology. We can't and shouldn't make a mention of it without a source. We can give it less weight if reporting of it is obviously biased or contradicted by other sources. If you only pop up when they are in port I am going to start suspecting something ;). Seriously, any current concerns? Cptnono (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I reworked some things, moved all the opinions of both sides and the media up, created a sentence which covers both viewpoints that they were approached first, but they edged forward to make it worse, etc. Things that need to be done- switch the youtube link for the link to SSCS, more reliable since anyone can post to youtube, the injury sentence doesn't really have a "home" now, but overall I think this organization makes a bit more sense than scattering opinions all over the place.--Terrillja talk 20:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe the sentances accurately respresents either's view. One side places all blame on the Ady Gil for powering up and intentionally placing themselves in the course. The other side blames the Whalers for intentionally ramming a stationary ship. I think you've made a new sentance that mixes all the opinions in a new way but not accurate. -- (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, check out the new sentance. I tried to briefly summarize each viewpoint without appearing to take sides. You like? -- (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems okay to me. I have made some more tweaks, but just organisation changes really. Ingolfson (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The wording currently demonstrates the views of both sides without an inherrant bias in the article. I'm going to remove the tag. If anyone thinks the issue is not cleared up, please re-add the tag. Well done folks. -- (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


I actually think this article could be good enough for B. It wouldn't even be that hard to get to GA with a little TLC. Two things that jump out at me:

  1. "Potential Ady Gil 2"-I agreed with the edit that moved it into the above section. Speculation, PR, more about SSCS than anything else,and this article is about this vessel. Oddly enough, removing the subsection header would discount its prominence and make it tie in better. Thoughts?
  2. Images - Images are good but galleries are bad and overwhelming the text with potentially unrelated (to the section at least) pictures are even worse. We need a link to commons with all of these displayed and thrown in just because they fit space wise. Any objections?Cptnono (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why suggest Ady Gil collided with?

When you suggest that the Ady Gil collided with the Shonan Maru 2, you are passively stating that Ady Gil actually acted in causing the collision. In fact Ady Gil was at a dead stand still when the Shonan Maru 2 made a hard turn to starboard intentionally, or unintentionally colliding with Ady Gil, as evidenced in the video footage from the Bob Barker. I suggest you revise to state this fact or wait until the official investigative results are posted before prejudicing international opinion with a suggestive title. This is not an attack, just a suggestion. Imjustgreg (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your concern. That is disputed and we can't take sides. "Collide" is more neutral (especially with contradicting evidence from both sides) than anything else.Cptnono (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are making the mistake of looking at the videos. Describing what you see on the videos constitutes "original research" no matter how obvious it is to anyone that looks. Wikipedia only allows quoting of written sources not interpretation of videos/photos etc. (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are making the mistake of assuming and not reading more sources. Some say ram some don't. One part says ram and other disputes it.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It's ok if Terrillja and Cptnono interpret videos and second guess the news media, because they are more objective and professional than most journalists and new editors, who should never be trusted because of their bias, lack of objectivity and low professional standards. They have given themselves special permission to remove or change news story referenced contributions if they, personally, feel the news source is "biased".Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if the above comment was interpreted as a personal attack. (It was removed by Terrillja and I was accused of making a personal attack on my talk page). I don't see any attacks on anyone except the lowly, ratpack media, who are so distrusted that you feel you have to interpret and correct their articles for balance. If you feel that this is not what is happening here, please explain why you feel that way. It seems clear to me that you are doing this from your own comments on this talk page.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Exhibit A: "I should have said that the boat was idling so I would be perfectly in line with the ref, but instead I decided to take the more conservative appears to be route. So I softened reliable sources to make them more conservative as there is always some element of doubt and somehow we're all POV pushers. Seriously?--Terrillja talk 05:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)"Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Exhibit B: "You were reporting on what is clearly speculation by the media, even they state it as what it appears is happening. I put doen what can clearly be seen. The deck crew was sitting on deck and was not engaged in anti-whaling ops. No speculation about whose version it confirms or speculate about the movement of the ships in relation to each other. You stated what was in the news article, however it was clearly speculation on their part, which you in turn got caught in. My edit wasn't in reference to you as an editor, it was in reference to the fact that the news article contained speculation which we cannot go by.--Terrillja talk 06:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)"Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Exhibit C: "Unfortunately, we can find references that say it was "rammed" and that it was a "collision" and all sorts of other stuff. Cherry picking. Just because two sources say something doesn't make it so. We kind of get stuck differentiating between truth and verifiability. The goal is to present referenced material Within that goal can be how it is presented, the weight it is given, and if Wikipedia validates it (since some readers just take it as news). SSCS did a media blitz and it was covered. We still need to know the difference between PR and what happened. And hopefully, this will all be sorted out with time (one reason we are not news here)Cptnono (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)"Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Exhibit D: "You two know more, and are more objective than the professional news media, obviously. I guess your personal opinions trump objective, professional sources. (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry you feel that way. One source is one source. I can't really feel bad for having concerns about its inclusion while disregarding the other side. Also, SSCS's media campaign worked well but we have to be able to see past it.Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)"Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
What is your point? Some sources say it was idling and then rammed while some dispute that. Instead of pointing fingers and arguing you should read more than just a couple cherry picked sources.Cptnono (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a nasty post that appeared on my talk page and my response. It pretty much sums up my point: "The talk page is for discussing changes to the articles, not discussing editors. Continuing to do so is disruption, which is a blockable offense. You didn't get your way, sorry, but move on. --Terrillja talk 13:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)" My response: "I'm not discussing the editors, I'm discussing, and questioning, their edits and editing philosophy - that they have the know-how and credentials to second-guess the news media and spin their articles as they see fit. I don't believe that philosophy will serve Wikipedia well." I might add that threatening other editors for daring to discuss questionable edits has a chilling effect on rational decision making.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I really feel that most of this discussion is irrelevant as it's ultimately the responsibility of both ships to avoid collision. Instead of arguing logistics, I would like to propose that this statement be rewritten as "Aby Gil and the Shonan Maru 2 collided...." instead of "... Aby Gil collided with..." as this proposed rewording is more neutral. (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul Watson quote

Cptnono changed my edit quoting Paul Watson, in the section "Collision with the Shōnan Maru 2 and abandonment", and added a line about Paul Watson initially saying one thing, and then changing his story. However, if you go to the article he has referenced to support this claim, there is only one Paul Watson quote in the article: "We are up against the might of one of the most powerful governments in the world and they will justify and defend any violent actions by the Japanese whaling fleet," says Paul Watson. I think my original edit should be restored unless he can find a reference that supports his edit.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats what happens when people REMOVE AND CHERRY PICK SOURCES. I will double check what source it was in and reinsert it. Be more careful next time and I will try to do the same.Cptnono (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Sweet. Found it. It was SSCSs original statement all of the original reports were based off. Watson later said something else.Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The person quoted indirectly in your new reference is Captain Chuck Swift, not Paul Watson.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. That is why I removed Watson's name from the line. Pay attention.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
From your comment above on your edit: "Watson later said something else."Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We should clarify institute for cetacean research

I know it is linked to in this article, but when I read through once I couldn't for the life of me figure out who the ICR was ... They aren't really cranking out much research ... perhaps we can replace the second mention with something like "representatives of the Japanese fleet". -- (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Photonic Disruptor

Photonic Disruptor is not a generic name for the device used. The "Photonic Disruptor" is a registered trademark of XADS, Inc. If you do not agree with this then you should change it to "Dazzler (weapon)". Kwenchin (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.Cptnono (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
My view was that it was used as a generic name for a product since the wired story did not capitalize it, smilar to how band-aid is used to refer to an adhesive bandage product regardless of brand. dazzler is fine with me.--Terrillja talk 16:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

ps The Wired story start off "according to a story in the New Yorker ..." wouldn't this be a better reference as it actually includes the interview with Paul Watson? Kwenchin (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hooding of Pete Bethune

Are Japanese suspects routinely hooded like that? I've seen many of them on TV wearing hoodies (hooded sweatshirts) or with sweaters over their heads, but I've never seen a Japanese suspect hooded like an Abu Ghraib prisoner. I think this line may be misleading readers to believe that all Japanese suspects are hooded by the police. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've separated it into two lines to avoid giving the impression that Japanese police routinely hood prisoners, and added a link to the hooding article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Though it is a Japanese TV news on the inspection on the next day of the arrest, you can see the hood from 0:56 to 0:58. Thinking about the wind, I think it's understandable. Oda Mari (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It is the hood of a windbreaker and they are helping him out.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, it does appear it's the hood from his windbreaker. I'll remove the hooding link. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Cptnono (talk)'s undiscussed removal, why include the note about the black hood? Because it's the truth. It's shown in the BBC video and mentioned in the article about Bethune's wife being concerned that they are treating him like a terrorist. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You can't use synth to scandal monger. A note that she said that would be fine but trying to connect the dots yourself to make her point is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. And it was not a terrorist hood. It was a windbreaker jacket with its hood up. Why even make the allusion?Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss removal here BEFORE removing referenced material. "Cptnono (talk | contribs) (→Collision with the Shōnan Maru 2 and abandonment: WP:NOTSCANDAL we know this is not accurate so including this like this (feel free to add a sourced rebuttal) is scandal mongering and not NPOV. That source does not have to be neuteral.We do." You are implying Bethune was not called a terrorist and that he was not hooded when he was removed from the vessel? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have and the edit was poor. I'll be happy to take it to the POV noticeboard. I don;t care if he is labeled a terrorist but the hood is a nonstarter. Add in they calle dhim a terrorist if you want. You need to read the guidelines. Also, I removed "however" per WORDSTOAVOID and put it above to keep the chronology.Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
"There were also angry scenes nearby as about 15 people shouted at Mr Bethune as he stepped onto land. Some held up banners saying "Eco-terrorist get out of this earth""
Japanese media have expressed frustration at a NZ activist's anti-whaling protests, with one newspaper accusing him of terrorism and another blaming cultural misunderstanding for the situation. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Do it. I don't mind that in. We might need to watch out for WP:RECENTISM but no worries getting the info in now and revisiting it when the storm has calmed down.Watch the weight for now but overall a line or three about the response should be just fine.Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
In the BBC video, he clearly has a black hood over his head. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No it is not clear and other videos show that it is clearly a gray windbreaker. Like I said, we can go to the noticeboard but your time would be better spent adding in the terrorist, Japanese nationalist protester, whatever bit.Cptnono (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is the line you removed: "Japan took extreme lengths to protect Mr Bethune from waiting reporters and protestors. They called him a terrorist, and with his head covered by a black hood it looked like he was." We have that from a news source, we have the articles above, and we have the BBC video. But you're saying we don't have enough evidence to prove these assertions AND that simply stating the facts is scandal mongering? Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, add the terrorist bit back in from the other sources if you want. I was only trying to drop the hood line. That source is not telling the complete story. We know this from viewing the other video. We cannot in all good conscious allude to his gray hooded coat being something you would see in an Iraqi jail. If we do that we are scandal mongering and doing a disservice to the reader. If you want to add in "so and so and so and so and so have called him a terrorist... protesters shouted mean things... yada yada yada" that would be great. Cptnono (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not certain those videos were taken on the same day. The one from Japanese TV may have been the next day and he was explaining what happened to the Coast Guard. I don't know. Can you prove the Japanese video is of Bethune being arrested? Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
We don;t need to play this game. Do you want me to go get the list of logical fallacies here on Wikipeida to say why that is just a weird question to ask? The one you are looking to use only shows a small fraction of his head. How is that for starters. Chill out on the hood thing. You can present the info of them accusing him of being a terrorist without it.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is another video of a hooded Bethune being taken into custody: Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's another video showing Bethune inspecting the crime scene the following day! So he WAS hooded when he was arrested, and the footage in the windbreaker is from the following day. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You are seeing what you want to see. I see it potentially being the same jacket but pulled we down. There is 1 sec were you get almost a clear view and nothing more. The reporter doesn't mention it either. And even if it was a different hood, it could be argued that it was just like the blue tarps and not to treat him like a terrorist. You are pusing for something that is not clear, presents POV scandal mongering when no scandal may exist (comparing him to Bush's war on terror), and is pointless unless you are trying to make a point. Why aren;t you putting in the info about the protesters or them calling him a terrorist? Why is this your sole concern? We can simply wait for an interview. I am sure if he was hooded and felt that it was inappropriate he will say so. His lawyers will be releasing statements soon enough. As is, it is way out of line trying to draw comparisons just to make the Japanese authorities look bad here. If this sort of thing is allowed we could be creating a story where one does not exist. One reporter made one off comment about it that is easily questionble and if we allow it here it could turn into dozens tomorrow. We don;t make news or connect dots just for fun.Cptnono (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we have to believe our own eyes and the news media on this one. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
My eyes disagree with yours. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Hooding at Ady Gil Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC twice) I clearly wrote the video was of the next day's inspection. I called Japan Coast Guard and the woman I talked with said if Bethune had refused to be hooded, they wouldn't have hooded him and it was something you couldn't force someone you should arrest. If you cannot believe me, ask them by mail. If he was forced to be hooded it will be made known soon by himself or by his lawyer. Oda Mari (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The current edit misrepresents the source. It implies she was shocked by his arrest, but the news source clearly states it was the IMAGES of the arrest that shocked her: "They called him a terrorist, and with his head covered by a black hood it looked like he was. The images came as a shock to his wife, Sharyn Bethune." Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to put everything media have reported in the article. IMHO, his wife's reaction and about the hood are trivial matters. As I wrote in my edit summary, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Please read this. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the fact his wife was shocked may not be Wikipedia worthy. I did not insert that line. But the fact that he is being called a terrorist, and was hooded like a terrorist, is definitely worthy of inclusion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it might take a while for resolution on the Neutrality Noticeboard. The current edit says his wife was shocked by his arrest, but that's not what the reference says. The reference says she was shocked by the IMAGES of his arrest. I'm going to insert this for now, just to make the line in the article accurately reflect the source: "They called him a terrorist, and with his head covered by a black hood it looked like he was." I won't link to the hooding article for now. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok couldn't do that, because it looked like it was quoting his wife. I paraphrased the article instead. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You are stillinfering that there is a link between the hood and him being called a terrorist. Cptnono (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm just paraphrasing the news article and backing it up with AP video. I'm not inferring anything. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Please remember. This is an article about Ady Gill, not about "Pete Bethune" nor about his arrest. Even if it's an article about him, IMO, the sentence "According to Japanese Fisheries Ministry official..." and the followings should be removed. As I wrote in my previous post, this is not a tabloid. And also this is not a news paper article. As for the hood, See the end of this. The hood looks like his windbreaker's. Note that probably the link will be dead on Sat. (Japanese standard time) . See also the images taken on the next day when he was taken to Shonan Maru for the inspection. And see 1:09 of this footage too. Oda Mari (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Peter Bethune was the captain of the Ady Gil, until it was sunk after it was hit by the Shonan Maru 2. He was detained on that Japanese whaling vessel while trying to deliver a bill to the captain for the damage it caused to the Ady Gil. He was arrested in Japan for trying to deliver the bill for the Ady Gil. The footage you linked to shows Bethune with a hood over his head. I can't tell if it's his hood or one the police provided, but the fact is, his head was covered with a hood. It's not for us to decide. That's what the media are reporting. What happened the next day is not material to the disputed line in the article. It could be the same jacket, a different jacket, a jacket the Coast Guard gave him, we have no way of knowing the relation of what he was wearing during the arrest vs. what he was wearing the following day. The question is, did Bethune cover his head with the hood, or did the Coast Guard do it? That is the question. It would be interesting to know if his hands were bound, too. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The question should be (with your edit) if it was for sensory deprivation or privacy. Most prisoners do have cuffs so nothing wrong with that.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
As I wrote above, The woman who answered my telephone call to Japan Coast Guard told me "We have to ask suspects first if they mind being hooded. When refused, we do nothing." As far as I know, every suspect in Japan except ones with seriously wounded and needed medical care first gets handcuffed. So it is natural to think he was handcuffed as well. If there was something wrong with the procedure for arresting him and the treatment after the arrest, it should be him or his lawyer who protest it. There's no such news so far. It's not too late to write about it when the news comes, only if it's really needed to add. Just mentioning the arrest is needed to the article but the details of the arrest are not. Oda Mari (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
So we have two editors hear who clearly think it should be removed and one at the noticeboard who looks to have leaned that way. Consensu isn;t a vote but I think all three have provided sufficient reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
So three editors trump the news media? They have NOT provided sufficient reasons. They are doing "original research"WP:OR that contradicts the reliable sources WP:RS. It doesn't matter why they hooded him. It didn't say why in this article or in the news article or in the video. It just stated or showed the fact that he was hooded. Now, if he put the hood on his own head, I would agree it's misleading, but I'm sure the Coast Guard did that. If he was handcuffed, he could NOT have put the hood on himself. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's just stick with stating the facts surrounding his arrest. We can drop the part about his wife's reaction. I was not the one who put that in the article, anyway. How about this: "Protesters present at Bethune's arrest called him an "eco-terrorist". Bethune's head was covered with a black hood when he was taken into custody." And reference that with the AP video of the arrest. This information is notable because it explains the context of the arrest. He wasn't just led off the boat in handcuffs on an empty pier. It was a news event covered widely in the media around the world. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I left the 3News reference, because it backs up the video, but left out the reaction of Bethune's wife. That seems very NPOV - just stating the facts. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed the WP:ELNO in your removal note and did some research. That's interesting, because there is at least one other link to a YouTube video in this article and three in the external links. Linking to video sources is widespread in Wikipedia. What is your rational here? Are you saying linking to videos is banned in Wikipedia because they require java script or flashplayer? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:YOUTUBE. Do you have reason to believe this is a copyright violation? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Ghostofnimo, please add your name to this edit of yours for other editors to know who posted it. I correct my last post. I checked on arrest in Japan and learned not all suspects are handcuffed. It depends on the flight risk. I think the hood matter is too trivial to put in the article. It's a fact that Bethune was hooded. But so what? And why do you think who put the hood on his head is important? It doesn't matter at all. If there's any point, it should be whether he was hooded against his will or not. There is no news about it so far. So the fact of hood is not worthy of mention in the article. Wikipedia is encyclopedia. Not a news story. Oda Mari (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
This is important because prisoners in most countries are NOT routinely hooded. Bethune has been accused of being a terrorist. The news story that is referenced points out the fact that he was hooded and that it made him look like a terrorist. Regarding the handcuffs, was Bethune handcuffed? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion of this information seems pretty straight-forward to me. So I have to ask at this point, and I'm assuming good faith, but this intense desire to remove simple observations that have been reported in the news media about an event that seems to be worthy of inclusion just leads me to ask this. Do any of the editors involved in this dispute have a WP:Conflict of interest? I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Sea Shepherd Society. I am not a Greenpeace member, but I may have donated money to them 25 or 30 years ago when I was a college student, one of many, many groups who solicited me for donations and to whom I made donations. I do not belong to any anti-whaling groups. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As someone above mentioned, it's a windbreaker hood, and someone was holding it for him since his hands were shackled. The wind is obviously blowing fairly briskly, too (you can see the hood flapping), so it appears to be simply a case of them being polite. Given the time of year, being on a ship, and him being bald, having the windbreaker hood up would be very useful in keeping a little bit warmer in the brisk wind. This is very obviously not a case of hooding (as described in that article). For one, the hood doesn't cover his entire head since it's just the windbreaker hood, and it's obvious he's not being tortured. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The line in the article says his head was covered by a black hood. It says nothing about torture. We do not know why his head was covered. You are guessing. If you can find a WP:RS that explains why his head was covered, please add that information. For now, all we know is that his head was covered by a black hood as he was taken into custody. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look very windy in this video: Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to note: this discussion is going on simultaneous at two locations, here, and at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Hooding at Ady Gil Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That was made clear a couple days ago. You are going against consensus and have been reported for edit warring as a preventative action: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User talk:Ghostofnemo reported by User:Cptnono
Does that mean the discussion has ended here and at the Neutrality Noticeboard? Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I assume it ca continue but you flooding it resulted in a lack of response. There really is no more question as to what should be included. No one agrees with you even after its manipulation. Simply take the edit down and focus on other aspects. We are spending too much time on this. Cptnono (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to put the AP news video reference back in. It supports the "eco-terrorist" claim. There seems to be no indication of a copyright violation at this time. The Sea Shepherd Society posted the video, and I would assume they have legal counsel who would advise them not to commit copyright violations. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC) The line about Bethune's hooding was removed by Cptnono (talk). I am awaiting resolution of his complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User talk:Ghostofnemo reported by User:Cptnono before I attempt to reinsert it, since it accurately reflects what happened and seems to be worthy of inclusion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it mentioning he was wearing a hood because that's true (his windbreaker obviously had a hood, as seen in several of the videos and reports. However, he was not hooded, and including a link to that article is blatantly false and misleading. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)