Talk:Pete Bethune

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject New Zealand / Politics  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (marked as Mid-importance).

Potential new sources[edit]

Bethune "was forbidden from talking", "survived on a diet of boiled cabbage and rice, shedding 8kg"
"Pete spent four months in a Japanese prison cell awaiting trial. “It drives you mad. It was a very violent place,” he said. “I was not allowed to talk to anyone. It is a form of solitary. I was sick of seeing men getting beaten up.”"
"You are stuck in a cell 23-1/2 hours a day"
But don't worry, you will never read about this on Wikipedia! I won't even try to put this in the article..... Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
"Pete Bethune spent 143 days behind bars in Japan walking around his tiny cell 1200 times a day" Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...let's go through one at a time.

  1. Is this a reliable news source? If it is (check WP:RSN?), the diet part seems okay, but not particularly important in his life story. Essentially, though, what that sentence really says is "the Japanese prison system refused to accede to Bethune's dietary preferences, which are extraordinarily rare in Japan." Nonetheless, I wouldn't strongly object to it being in the article. The "forbidden from talking" is hard to intepret in that article--does it mean "talking to the press?" To anyone? The next source is much clearer, so I'd rather use a quote from there, but...
  2. elephantjournal: This seems like the antithesis of a reliable source. It's very clearly partisan, for a limited audience, and not clearly reliable. I'd want to take the article to the reliable sources noticeboard and see what others think. But at least the quote there is clear. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. nzherald: A reliable source, but your choice of reference is irrelevant--since, basically, it says "he was in jail." At worst, it says, "he was in the equivalent of U.S. solitary confinement." But with proper phrasing I guess this could maybe go in, as long as it's not connected to any other source and trying to push a point of view (i.e., not WP:SYN and WP:NPOV).
  4. #2: This really makes me doubt this as a reliable source. Even Bethune himself wouldn't be a reliable source for that--what did he do, make a mark on the wall for every circuit? And, even if he did, is this fundamentally unusual, or different from what any other person does in solitary confinement? Does including it add some value to Bethune's life story? I doubt it.

So, in summary, it is somewhat possible that some of this info could maybe go in, if we can 1) verify the sources meet WP:RS, 2) can write the info in a neutral way that doesn't imply that there is anything unusual about these events, and 3) can agree that they're an important enough part of his life story (or even of the narrower story of his imprisonment in Japan) to be worth including. Let's see what others think.... Qwyrxian (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY. There is nothing new here and nothing out of the ordinary in terms of detention around the world. This is a dead topic unless new information is presented (and it hasn't been). Recommend close and archive.--Terrillja talk 17:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I support Terrillja's proposal. There's nothing more that needs to be said. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Bethune was treated like a terrorist, when in fact he was not a terrorist - that is what makes his treatment notable. It may seem normal to treat people this way in some countries, but it is not the norm for relatively minor offenses. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, he wasn't--in Japan, terrorists get executed (eventually). He felt like he was treated like a terrorist in exactly one instance that we know of (the covering of his face), but his treatment was normal, not only for Japan, but for other "civilized" countries as well--the U.S. for instance, routinely puts people into solitary confinement, and routinely rejects special dietary requests. The most you could say is that Japan's prison system is far harsher than that of some other similar countries. Now, you're more than welcome, as I've said before, to contribute similar information to Penal system of Japan. I actually think that article could use some more info (although you, of course, can't just add Bethune's info--you need general info showing what typical treatment is like, not one specific case). Note that, even in the articles you quoted, none of them state that Bethune claims he was mistreated (except for his claim that he didn't like not being able to talk). I bet some prisoners in the U.S. would even prefer to be in the relatively spacious accommodations that Bethune had compared to the massive overcrowding in the U.S. But all of that, both my feeling and your feeling, are just speculation. Your claim, which appears to be based on some sort of independent, objective knowledge, is that his treatment was out of step with his crime. Neither Bethune, nor his lawyer, nor any of the sources you quoted, say that, except in reference to Bethune's one earlier comment about having someone cover his face. You're more than welcome to your opinion. You just can't add it to the article, nor imply it by quoting unreliable sources out of context. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had the answer months ago: [1] .Cptnono (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm a bit confused by the formatting here -- especially now that I see the hidden note about further comments. Can any of the above content be split out? Say, starting with datestamps from last month.. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing any hidden or redacted comments from a quick ctrl+f. Looks like it was just collapsed because it was long and bordering on irrelevant as new facts were released.Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm being bold and moving the bottom of that collapse, and adding a new section title. I believe that the new sources GoN introduced deserve a fair hearing. Now, I don't think they belong in the article for a variety of reasons I addressed above, but we can't arbitrarily hide them. Yes, I agree that they don't belong in the article. I can understand why GoN thinks those sources belong in the article, even though it looks like consensus is that they don't. We do ourselves a great disservice if we just summarily dismiss things because we've had problems with the editor in the past. This is not the same issue that was raised before, these are not the same sources, and there is no synthesis going on (the primary problem before). Maybe some people think I'm being blind by continuing to AGF...but it's more that I think that we prove ourselves intellectually honest by showing specifically what's wrong with those requested additions, rather than just grouping them into the "been there, done that" category. Terilla was wrong to invoke WP:DENY because GoN is not a vandal (the only type of editor that DENY is directed towards), nor is xe acting like one. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the time spent awaiting trial, the diet and the solitary were all brought up explicitly back in June, and, as usual, discussed in a repetitive manner. So yes, they have all been discussed before. Vandalism is disruptive editing, bringing things up over and over and refusing to listen to others is such. As for his diet, keep in mind that SSCS is strictly vegan, presumably Bethune followed that after being detained as well, so the fact that he wasn't getting steak and pork chops every night isn't entirely surprising. He was staying in a prison, not club med, there is a limit to what a prison kitchen has available to it, especially when someone has specific dietary restrictions. I'll ignore the butchering of my username as well. As I said before, if there is new information to be discussed, by all means bring it up, but all of these topics were already discussed at length before.--Terrillja talk 06:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No one is being disruptive here, Terrillja. They simply didn't see this: "" In Japan he had been treated with dignity and respect, although he was locked in his prison cell for more than 23 hours most days" and "I have no complaints whatsoever about my treatment while I was incarcerated in Japan"[2]Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Apologies on the name, Terrillja. I was sloppy for not checking. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I've got four sources, some from the news media, some direct quotes from Bethune, that raise questions about his treatment, and you have one unattributed comment above and a broken link implying he was not mistreated. Can you do any better than that? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, you have 4 sources, of which 1 is absolutely not reliable per WP:RS (elephantjournal), two of which seems like they're probably unreliable ( can take it to WP:RSN, if you like--and one reliable source (the New Zealand Herald). Thus, the only fact you can really certainly verify is that he was in a cell 23.5 hours a day. We can't very well put that in the article, because that's true of almost everyone in jail anywhere. Sure, some countries have longer exercise breaks, or take their meals in common areas, but it's at least true for anyone in solitary confinement anywhere. What I mean is, we don't add the million and a half facts that are all true (Bethune was given food, Bethune couldn't talk to his family, Bethune couldn't use the internet, Bethune had to sleep on an uncomfortable bed, etc.). We add those that are particularly important, unusual, or unique. Should we add the same information to every single article on every person who's every been in Japanese prisons? It just doesn't make sense.... Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Videos of what happened[edit]

The Japanese whaling ship has its own page listing video of what happened and its side of the story. [3] And the Sea Shepherd organization has videos on its website. [4] Very fair and balanced to list both of them, since this event is something the guy is very famous for. Dream Focus 15:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

One really can't unconditionally trust the videos from either "side" though. Some videos have been spliced together from footage of completely separate incidents and then spread around to the media. See the previous discussion here for quite a lot of information. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

here: Video shown in perspective of the Japanese vessel -- unmanipulated footage. It shows it all. Unedited and undeniable.

If this doesn't go into the main article Wikipedia really sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

??? What do you mean it's unedited? What about all the title cards? All the jump cuts? Of course it's edited. "Unedited" means a single, continuous shot. In any event, adding the video wouldn't add anything, because watching it doesn't tell me anything. I see a ship wandering around the ocean--I can't tell who did what, what the surrounding circumstances are...heck, I can't even tell relative speeds or directions. Finally, though, there's no indication that the owner of the video is the poster, and since anyone can upload anything on youtube, we have no reason to believe it isn't a copyright violation. So, I have to say, no, we shouldn't link to that. As to the oher videos that Dream Focus, those may actually be more "useful", if we put external links to them, and clearly label them as being POV videos. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
That might be the most animated I have seen you, Qwyrxian! There are several issues with it. Plugging my essay (sorry): WP:VIDEOLINK addresses the several problems with using that video. Is the uploader RS? IS it copyright infringement? Is it altered? Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it was the claim (which I thought was the first claim, given the order at the time) that the IP made that said video was unedited, when within less then a minute there's a clear scene change, that caused me to become "animated". I'm willing to entertain a wide variety of ideas, and to help people understand policy/guidelines (at quite length, as you know), but I don't like people flat out making obviously false statements. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I was only teasing. It was not really even "animated" :) Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Banned from Japan ?[edit]

The statement that Bethune was "... banned from Japan for five years, ..." was added in this edit, without a reference. The other references associated with his conviction mention "suspended for 5 years." Is this 'banned' statement an error and this edit how it came about? Many on-line sources say the same, but I have Googled and cannot find a reliable source that predates this WP edit. For example does say it. It seems possible 'banned' and 'suspended' are somehow becoming confused - 220 of Borg 05:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. The truth is (note: following is pure OR, so it's not going in the article) that Bethune is basically banned for life from Japan. Japan has extremely strict policies about any past criminal activity. I'll explain but i have to go--in a few hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
(cont'd) For example, see this article, which shoes that Russell Brand, Paris Hilton, and others have been denied entry to Japan for any drug related charge, no matter how long ago in the past, no matter whether it had anything to do with Japan or not. The thing is, there wouldn't be any mention of this in the news reports, because it's a decision made by immigration upon attempting to enter Japan not something that the court decides. But, since we have no way to verify the fact that it's likely that he'll never be allowed to enter Japan again (although, I suppose an exception would be made if he were to be arrested for some anti-whaling activities again), we shouldn't have it in the article. Thanks for noticing that, 220 of Borg. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Pete Bethune - unsourced personal allegations deleted from talk page[edit]

Please see before adding any information like this to the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
A web search turned up no reference to this. The policy says this type of material is not allowed on an ANY Wikipedia page, so I'm going to delete it here, too. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)