Talk:Pete Bethune/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Pete Bethune. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Whale Wars

Just a heads up. Looks like episode 1 of the new season is available early on demand. Woo hoo. Bethune is featured within the first couple minutes.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

During the first episode, Watson said he was grooming another member of SSCS to be the captain of the Ady Gil. I'm not sure if Bethune was just ready to get back home after the operation, if he wasn't a full-on member, or what. Also not sure if it is appropriate here or if it only warrants a simple line over at the main vessel article. Can anyone follow-up with this if they come across a source? Not terribly important but the ins and outs of what was going on with the boat seemed worthy of mention here or over there.Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Harris (Bethune's lawyer) excluded from court - why deleted?

This was deleted from the article. "Harris has not been allowed inside the courtroom for some of the proceedings." http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/bethune-could-get-fair-trial-lawyer-20100528-wi7b.html It is a fact. It is reliably sourced, and it seems notable that his attorney was not admitted to the trial! Please restore this and stop deleting relevant, reliably sourced material. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Because you are again creating a scandal when one isn't there. To clarify to the reader, we would need to add "A lawyer representing New Zealander Peter Bethune thinks the anti-whaling activist could get a fair trial in Tokyo." and "He said he knew what had happened in the court 'because the hearing was pretty much all scripted, scripted in the sense that both the prosecution and the defence gave their opening statement but that opening statement was based word for word on a written statement that was provided to the judge days ago' ." That would add way too much weight to a nonissue. And as another editor pointed out to you, where were the other lawyers? And why didn't Harris make a stink? More than likely because there wasn't a problem. You are making it a problem when the sources have not done so. Stop scandal mongering.Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing I would need to see first is evidence that he's even allowed to be in the courtroom. Is this the same Daniel Harris that writes chinalawblawblog? If so, my guess is that he is working as a gaiben, which is someone with a foreign law degree working in Japan as a lawyer. I doubt he's an actual Japanese lawyer (a bengoshi), since nothing on his site mentions the level of fluency needed to pass the exam (less than 30% of Japanese applicants pass it in 3 tries over 3 years). If my guess is correct and thus is correct to call himself a lawyer. However Gaiben are never, under any circumstances, allowed to act as the official attorney in Japanese court; instead, they work together with a Japanese attorney who handles that part of the case. That is, Bethune basically has a team of lawyers, one of whom is Harris, and some of whom are Japanese lawyers. So, yes, it's a fact that Harris is Bethune's lawyer, and it's a fact that he wasn't allowed into the courtroom. But Bethune's other lawyers will, and Harris is forbidden as a matter of law. This is entirely non-notable.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, realized I want to add another, more general point. GhostofNemo, you are correct that, in many cases, what you are adding are facts. But simply being a fact is not enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. There are countless facts about individuals, many of which are notable, but the majority of which are not. When dealing with current events, we need to be especially careful that any given fact reported in a news article (especially "facts" based on hearsay) is notable, in part by understanding the context in which those facts occur. I apologize, but I like explaining by analogy. If you had a news article that said "It rained for two straight weeks," that would be a fact no matter where in the world it was being reported; it would be a notable fact if it were in a report about the Gobi desert, but it would be entirely non-notable if it were in a report about Seattle. So as you're following these news reports every day, you need to be careful that including information from those meets Wikipedia standards, especially when understood in context. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My solution would be to let my edit stand, and then YOU could also add a reliably sourced note about the details of Japanese legal representation. The line in question is from a reliable media source, so it is not as if I am pulling stuff out of nowhere and trying to shoehorn it into the article. It's relevant because the media are reporting it.

Now, Cptnono, what Bethune's lawyer said is, "All indications and reports are that the lead judge and other two judges are fair-minded judges." Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentoined yesterday, explaing why it is a not scandal would give the not scandal undue weight.Cptnono (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a fact Harris was barred from court. Now, if someone wants to try to justify his lawyer's exclusion from court, and has a reliable source to back that up, great. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're still missing the point; it might be true but it has no encyclopaedic value. At best it's trivial. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he just drew a losing number for one of the seats for the public. That's all. No one intentionally excluded him from court. Oda Mari (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen any evidence from you saying he was "excluded." He wasn't able to get in, because there were not enough public seats available. He was no more excluded than you or I were. The judge didn't say "you can't be here." He just didn't get a seat. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on! He's Bethune's lawyer! Whadda mean there wasn't room in court, he was unlucky not to draw a number, and it's not notable! When was the last time you heard of a defendant's lawyer not being allowed into the court where his client is being tried!? Highly irregular. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you not read this post explaining why, if acting as a Gaiben, he wouldn't be allowed to act as the official attorney in a Japanese court? In such a case he becomes just one of the public. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Lawyer Dan Harris said that even though he represented Bethune he was not allowed in the court. "It was very restricted," he told Radio New Zealand on Friday. "There were over 400 people trying to get into approximately 15 slots." http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/bethune-could-get-fair-trial-lawyer-20100528-wi7b.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That explains why he would have been excluded. Because he wasn't an official attorney he'd have to go into the draw for one of the public spots. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The news media are calling him Bethune's attorney. Do you have a RS that he is not Bethune's attorney? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said he wasn't his attorney. You clearly haven't read what I (and everyone else) has written above. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You just said above he was excluded because "he wasn't an official attorney". The news media are calling him Bethune's attorney. I think the man is probably Bethune's attorney. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant that as a gaiben he can't represent him in court, which has been explained previously. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for saying so, but I feel like you're deliberately displaying cultural insensitivity. In Japan, people can have multiple different attorneys of multiple different classes. One class, bengoshi, are allowed to appear to in court--this class includes only those who've passed the Japanese bar. Another class, gaiben, are allowed to assist the client, and often do much of the work for cases outside of Japan, but cannot appear in court. Both gaiben and bengoshi are commonly and accurately translated into attorney or lawyer in English. What you are saying now is exactly like saying "He doesn't get a fork to eat with--he has to use chopsticks! Have you ever heard of a person not being given a fork to eat with!" As CaptainNoNo pointed out, if this were a real issue, why wouldn't his lawyer being screaming about it in the NZ press? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it fair to point out this cultural difference to our readers? It's quite shocking to me, but perhaps Harris, who has experience with this, has come to accept it. It's also shocking to me that he hasn't complained about this or Bethune's confession to the police, after which they tacked on additional charges. He may have adapted to this too, but for most readers of English Wikipedia it's notable that he was denied access to an attorney before confessing and that his attorney was excluded from court. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be an interesting and notable thing to put in an article about the Japanese justice system. Not here, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bethune may end up spending the next 15 years of his life in a Japanese prison based on the fairness of his trial. I think that makes this notable. At least the media have mentioned it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, it's POV to assume that the Japanese are treating Bethune fairly (or unfairly). It's NPOV to point out how he and his attorney are actually being treated. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"I ask about his treatment in the prison and Bethune says he has no complaints, in fact in reference to the prison guards he says 'there are some good blokes in here'." "'Embassy staff report he is well and continues to be in good spirits,' McCully says." It doesn't sound like he is complaining much so you should stop worrying about it.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Treated well" and "treated fairly" are two different things. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would not recommend this as RS but it looks like "Captain Bethune is being represented by a highly capable team of Japanese lawyers." and "On the first day of the trial, Captain Bethune’s lawyers and the prosecutor read their opening statements" I do not believe there is any question that the scandal that never was can now be put to rest.[1] Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You've proven he had Japanese lawyers in court now, but you still haven't proven that Harris was allowed into court. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We could change the line to, "Although Bethune was represented in court by Japanese lawyers, Harris was excluded from some of the proceedings." and use both references. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Or you could let it die. He apparently has a highly capable team of Japanese lawyers who provided an opening statement. Better luck next time. I don't see any reason for you to continue arguing now.Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I proved why Harris wasn't allowed in court. If he has not passed the Japanese bar, then there is no other needed reason why he wasn't allowed in as a court lawyer. I have not passed the Japanese bar either; thus, I imagine, I wouldn't be allowed to be in court as his lawyer. How is it even slightly notable that Japan followed a relatively mundane procedure in determining who is and who is not allowed to be a lawyer in court? Why would it be notable to say "Harris, a person who did not pass the Japanese bar, was not allowed to act in court as Bethune's lawyer, although he is allowed to advise him outside of court? Meanwhile, Bethune does have a number of other lawyers who did pass the Japanese bar who were allowed in the court." Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Because Harris is the "lead" lawyer according to many reliable sources. He's often referred to as "Bethune's lawyer" in fact, instead of as "the chief of Bethune's legal team". It's notable he was excluded from the trial, even if it was allowed by Japanese law. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-breaks-down-giving-testimony-trial-3573290

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=115283&fm=newsmain,nrhl

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/108066/bethune039s-lawyer-optimistic-fair-trial

http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/breafkast-friday-may-28-3570547

The horse's corpse is looking pretty beat up. There is no scandal or anything worthy of mention even if the guy is the boss. On a side note, I have seen nothing calling him the lead of the legal team. I have been looking for more info on his lawyers if anyone comes across it. Cptnono (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You may be right there. He doesn't seem to have a title as chief counsel, but he is called "Bethune's lawyer" by many sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just added two see also links to the section - [Criminal justice system in Japan] and [Attorneys in Japan] - that might help with this. The system is different from what most readers are familiar with (US or UK system), so having a link to some background information is useful. I did the links in the section as they are related only to that section, not the entire article. Adding mentions in the article, especially with any negative connotations, is WP:COATRACK. Ravensfire (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bow and arrows

So any thoughts on the recent edit and revert?[2] I think some mention is needed. However, I have huge concerns with the quotes in the source. (I assume the SSCS had a screening of the first episode of season 3) I also don't know if it deserves a whole section. And it needs to be clear that the goal (according to Bethune who I have no reason to distrust) wasn't to shoot whalers.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against addition, but it needs a better source than Watson trying to get his point out there. I wouldn't put it past him to throw Bethune under the bus and there wasn't much in the source that the publisher actually stated, more just quoting SSCS, which is notoriously unreliable.--Terrillja _talk 04:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it may not warrant a whole section. Perhaps it could be added to a section detailing his involvement with Sea Shepherd? Also, there is footage on YouTube of arrows being fired from the Ady Gil at whaling ships. Regardless, it isn't really for us to speculate as to his intentions. The passage as it stands reflects facts regarding what has been said. As long as it is reported as a quotation and not fact I don't see the problem. It is significant that Sea Shepherd has severed ties with him, particular after Bethune sought to distance himself from the organisation.--Knyets (UTC)

I'm worried about weight on various issues and accidentally bloating it. Bethune has said it was to contaminate the carcasses (silliness in my opinion with the amount of stuff on the tips) and SSCS backed it up kind of by clarifying that it was "certainly never intended to use the bow and arrows against any person." Then the fact that the source is an SSCS quote farm (who have admitted to manipulating the truth) make its use in a BLP worrisome. And then there is something small like Watson already saying he had another Captain being groomed for the boat so Bethune probably wasn't coming back anyways (my assumptions from a quote on Whale Wars only though so not possible to include like that) Something should be in though.

Any other drafts of the section? I'm thinking 1)Bethune putting in some distance 2) SSCS not inviting him back on Ops saying it was because of arrows 3) SSCS said they did not believe he meant to use them to cause bodily injury or something. Section wise I would say keep it in the trial bit for chronological reasons.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP prevents me from saying what I want to say about Watson so how about this:

On 4 June, Sea Shepherd ~~released a~~ announced that it was no longer going to be formally associated with Bethune since a bow and arrows were on the Ady Gil during the anti-whaling operation. It is not believed that the weapon was intended to be used against any person.(edit:[3]) The group said it would continue to support Bethune during the trial in Japan.[4]

? --Cptnono (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You might need to change "Sea Shepherd released a announced that" to "Sea Shepherd announced that". --AussieLegend (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Need...more...coffee.Cptnono (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that link to support the statement "It is not believed that the weapon was intended to be used against any person." That statement especially concerns me since you're not attributing that claim to anyone in particular, which makes it seem like it is "generally believed." Am I missing something? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

F me... I really need to stop editing without more coffee. I had another source pulled up and failed to insert it. SSCS said that they do not believe it.[5] Bethune also explained his intent during the first episode of whale wars. Does that ABC source work or does the line still need adjusting?Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The ABC source is fine. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This popped up an hour ago. I agree with it personally but think it would be tabloidish to include. I have added the above paragraph. If anything else is needed that might be a decent source.Cptnono (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The ABC source also seems fine to me; however, I think it should still state that "The SSCS did not believe that...." Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Good call.Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted Reenem's change. The ABC source says "Sea Shepherd will not select him to participate in future campaigns." The BBC source says "[Bethune] would no longer 'be formally associated with, or be a representative of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, because his methods are not in complete alignment with the organisation'." Neither of those explicitly mentions the word "revoke" or "membership." The first, in fact, doesn't even imply he can't be member; until we see other sources clarifying the difference, I don't think we can go as far as using the phrase "revoke [his] membership." Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can Anyone Translate This Article Into Japanese? (And put it on Japanese Wikipedia)

Real human translators only (please). Online translators are terrible.

69.171.160.192 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Recentism in the lead

Just becuase some editors did not no about him before the Ady Gil sinking does not mean there is not wide coverage discussing his record well before then. The lead has been modified in way that looks like WP:RECENTISM and also disregards that the info is now duplicated in the paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Name Change

Why was the name of this article changed? I looked at a random selection of the references, and, while they don't use his middle name, none of the ones I looked at use the name "Pete." I believe that we're usually supposed to use the name that they are commonly referenced by. However, I'll wait for a more experienced editor's advice... Qwyrxian (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Plus, whatever you did to the redirects didn't work correctly, I think, because I'm not getting redirected properly from other pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME gives guidance on this; "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article. " Reliable sources used in this article seem split over "Pete" or "Peter" but Pete Bethune is probably more common than Peter Bethune. Peter James Bethune was not really the correct article, but neither is Pete James Bethune. When middle names are used it's more correct to not abbreviate names. Unfortunately, an administrator will now need to fix this, but I'll refrain from making a move request in case somebody has a different opinion. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In all the things I've ever read about him this is the first time I've seen his middle name.. or even an initial for that matter. A survey of what's used here as sources refers to him most commonly as Pete Bethune. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The only person in history to be water cannoned during a mayday while man overboard from a sinking ship

My understanding is that interfering with a rescue and trying to intentionally drown a man overboard is punishable by death. If the Sovereign Nation of the Antarctic Seas issues a death warrant this may be the most significant aspect of this man's life. Scottprovost (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the ridiculousness of claiming 'the most significant aspect of this man's life', *what* 'Sovereign Nation of the Antarctic Seas'? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right, he has done many things that may be very significant but being a victim of attempted murder on the high seas is of interest. Mayday and SOS protocols are crucial to safety on the seas and flagrant violations of those protocols is worrisome. Scottprovost (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You are staring to soapbox. Don't do that. "Intentionally" trying to drown him is also disputed.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that officers of the Japanese Ship sprayed men in the ocean with a water cannon while their ship was going down and men were overboard was never disputed. Video from the Japanese ship showed the attempted drowning and violation. The only thing disputed is if some extenuating circumstance could have justified it. The International community reject such an assertion. Placing a Red Cross on a ship that is not a hospital ship and placing research on a ship that is a commercial meat packing plant are similar violations and should be considered carefully. Scottprovost (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen a source that said it was officers of the ship? Have you seen a source that says if it was intentionally tracked onto them after the collision? Is the rest of your assertions better at an article specifically discussing whaling in Japan or are you trying to make a point on this talk page? This is not a forum. Present some sources and proposals for inclusion or else it is rehashing old arguments without attempting to improve the article.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Rotting Butter

I do not believe it to be accurate to say that P.B. carried with him butter which had begun to rot. It is one thing to liken the chemical structure of a gladd bottle full of buteric acid to that of "rotting butter" but to say that's what it was or that that's here it came from is misleading. Proposed fixes anyone? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC) The specific source says "Rancid butter" which implies that it had been a harmless dairy product purchased at the local grocers, gone stinky and bad... still inacurate. What to do? 68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It wasn't related to the boarding anyways. And that source is easily replaced by others. It is not butter but the chemical is similar to that produced by rotten butter or stinky homeless guys.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Man! You are a busy fella! Thanks! :) 68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

n-Butanoic Acid, Ethylacetic Acid; Butyric Acid Causes eye and skin burns. Causes digestive and respiratory tract burns. Harmful if absorbed through the skin. Every MSDS must list ACUTE HAZARDS/ SYMPTOMS that are many. It has a low toxicity in high concentrations but it would be scientifically inaccurate to say it is non toxic. It may not be highly toxic or life threatening in the concentrations used but one could not say it is non toxic by US EPA/OSHA standards Scottprovost (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC) [[6]]Scottprovost (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain what this has to do with improving the article? Forum chatter is not allowed. Without a reason directly related to article improvement, your message will need to be deleted. --13² 05:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia pages, from time to time, will have scientific error in them. Some of these errors can cause injury or death. When Wikipedia declares hazardous chemicals to be non hazardous, Wikipedia can become subject to strict liability through gross negligence. Always use proper scientific terms and never contradict NIOSH. Scottprovost (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, dilute acid is not toxic. Vinegar is dilute acetic acid. Acetic acid is toxic at high concentrations, however putting vinegar on your skin is generally harmless. By your logic, the citric acid of a lemon in iced tea makes the iced tea toxic. I think not.--Terrillja _talk 20:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops!

The recent redirect killed the talk page history. We need that. ANyone know the best way to recover it?Cptnono (talk)

The edit history wasn't killed. When the article was moved from Pete James Bethune to Pete Bethune the talk page was left behind. I'm working on fixing that now. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks dude. And hang your head in shame, IP! :) Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hood round two ding

Bethune has commented on the hood now. It is much less of a concern now that he has acknowledged it. I still think dding it would be too much weight (hell, we couldn't even put in that his wife dumped him) and what he says really should be taken with a grain of salt, but the door is certainly open if anyone has any ideas on how to do it in a way that does not give it a ridiculous amount of prominence. Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Got a ref on that? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Found one and added it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response. It was in one of them I added but looks like ti is taken care of already.Cptnono (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

His comment on this issue seem like a throwaway statement (that is, something that doesn't have enough importance to meet a the standard of Relevance), and one that betrays any understanding of normal police procedures in Japan. Just the fact that he said this doesn't make it relevant, as I'm sure he has said a great many things related directly or indirectly to his captivity and legal status. My feeling is that out of caution for POV issues, the sentence should be removed. Thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the fence right now. I don't think it is needed but it was contentious before so wanted to bring it up.Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the relevant quote from the now deleted line's reference: "The UK is a party to both the international covenant on civil and political rights, and the European convention on human rights. Both prohibit inhuman and degrading treatment. But even under customary international law, humiliating and degrading treatment is prohibited in all circumstances." If Bethune's human rights were violated during his arrest and detention, surely it is relevant. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the deletion that includes the referenced article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=364511505&oldid=364503183 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Dammit GoN. You missed the point completely. If your reason for the edit is that it was some sort of crime you see then it shouldn't be in. If you can honestly say the sources made it a meaningful part of his life story then we might be good to go. I don't buy into the 10yr benchmark some Wikipedians do but I do believe we should not be leading the reader to the conclusion that individual editors have. Cptnono (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's HIGHLY irregular to hood a prisoner for an act of civil disobedience. Some people consider it a crime to even hood captured soldiers. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if you think it is a crime. Do the sources? The fact that he mentioned it meant that it might be good enough but if you are doing to push a POV you need to get off of this article. I am on the fence but am biased from discussing it. However, I am confident that I am not inserting such material to make a point.Cptnono (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bethune says he was hooded. Some legal scholars say hooding prisoners violates international law. How is that POV? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bethune says he was hooded. ~~Some legal scholars say hooding prisoners violates international law.~~ There you go. See the difference?Cptnono (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be obvious to some readers that hooding prisoners is a violation of human rights, but I'm sure many people are unaware of the seriousness of this behavior by Japanese authorities. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it may not be serious. It may not have been torture. You asserting that it is does not make it so. Even Bethune has not said that he was tortured.Cptnono (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My RS and the deleted lines are not calling it torture - they're calling it a violation of international law. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the deleted lines. I believe I've addressed the deletor's objection: "Terrillja (talk | contribs) (20,728 bytes) (Undid revision 364503183 by Ghostofnemo (talk) EU law is not international law)" The source says it's a violation of international law (see above). Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It specifically refers to conduct during war. This is not a war. Any further interpretation is synthesis.--Terrillja _talk 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the comment about the UK (oops, I have to go back and remove the reference, too), because those aren't the same thing. In the UK reference, they are referring to prisoners having their heads covered by a bag or sack. That is, the prisoner's entire head is covered, as if they were an animal--the prisoner cannot see at all where they are going and must rely entirely on being led by the guard. The "hooding" that Bethune is referring to, in Japan, means basically that they put a sweatshirt on him with a big hood over his head. He would have still been able to see where he was walking, and his face wouldn't have been completely covered. This is standard practice in Japan to protect the accused. These two types of hooding are not at all the same thing. In fact, I would argue that the event Bethune is referring to is so small that it is not Notable.Qwyrxian (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source to support your assertion that his head was not covered completely? Bethune says he was hooded "like a terrorist or a psychopath" not like a common criminal on a perp-walk. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the reference: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3728678/Whaling-activist-fears-long-jail-term and here is the quote: He has told the Sunday Star-Times from his Japanese prison that authorities have treated him like a terrorist or a "psychopathic killer" – covering his head with a hood and surrounding him with up to 100 guards." and "I had a hood over me, like I'm a psychopathic killer. It was bizarre." These comments do not make sense if it was the hood of his sweatshirt or jacket. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you look at "round one" of this hooding debate, there are videos of Bethune hooded, and his head appears to be completely covered with a black nylon hood. His face is not visible. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You can view the video here (hood visible around 1:10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gkzjNoOxPQ Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been deleted again, for yet another reason: Terrillja (talk | contribs) (21,951 bytes) (→Arrest: maybe in a war: "In addition to violating international humanitarian law - the law governing the conduct of armed conflicts and military occupations" this isn't a war.) Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the article. Note the words I have capitalized: "Hooding is a form of sensory deprivation. It is disorientating, frightening and possibly dangerous for THOSE SUBJECT TO IT (particularly when their hands are also tied). Hooding also serves to dehumanise the PERSON subjected to it, possibly leading to rougher treatment at the hands of his captors. Indeed, television footage of British troops escorting hooded SUSPECTS did not show them acting with much solicitude. Hooding has often been used as a "softening up" technique prior to interrogation. The fact that it is being practised by British troops does not give one confidence as to their behaviour once the cameras stop rolling and interrogation starts." Nothing about SOLIDIERS or TROOPS or POWs. By the way, didn't you know that Bethune was detained on the high seas, and not in Japan? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

He was detained on a Japanese vessel, which by international law is considered to be Japanese soil. They didn't pluck him out of the sea. You are taking an article on wartime activities in war zones and the legality of hooding and trying to connect it to a civil matter. Pure and simple synthesis to advance a point.--Terrillja _talk 20:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Second this point, which I didn't think of before--in order to keep the line, you first need to establish that the hooding described in the UK article is comparable to what happened to Bethune. Furthermore, you must demostrate it through external sourcing. Since it appears that you are the one making the connection, that qualifies this as original resource. So the second sentence should be removed. Once we do that, I think we need to remove the first sentence, since it is no longer notable (it's no more notable, for instance, than him saying "I never got any good food in jail....").Qwyrxian (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, we have the video of Bethune hooded:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VpAXYNErHk&feature=related

We have Bethune being quoted in a reliable source:

"Bethune had been taken back to the Shonan Maru to re-enact the boarding, accompanied by a security detail of more than 100 people, he said. "I had a hood over me, like I'm a psychopathic killer. It was bizarre."" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10646961

And we have an article from a legal scholar http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/11/iraq.iraq in which he states

"However, what we have seen on our screens are pictures of hooded and bound individuals, many of who were obviously terrified by such treatment, being pushed around by British soldiers. Hooding - the placing of a bag or sack over an individual's head and securing it so that it cannot be removed - is a practice with an ugly history. It is not only inhuman and illegal; it is also often the harbinger of further rough treatment. Were such a practice to be adopted at home, there would be an outcry. It is difficult to see why practising it abroad on foreigners renders it acceptable. There are no good reasons to hood detainees. It does not provide any extra protection to the detaining troops once the suspect is bound, nor is there any need for British troops to hide their identify from their captives."

Note that he refers to the hooded persons as "individuals", "suspects" "foreigners" and "detainees". Nothing about enemy soldiers, war zones, POWs or even "combatants". He also says that this would not be acceptable in Britain. This clearly indicates that he is talking about the hooding of civilians, and not just in war zones, because Britain is not a war zone. IF you have a source that contradicts this, please share it with us instead of summarily deleting stuff without any sources to back your assertions. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And here is a new news story. Apparently protesters displayed a picture of a hooded Bethune outside the courthouse today. http://www.3news.co.nz/Bethune-to-take-stand-Japanese-coastguard-rallies-support/tabid/419/articleID/158457/Default.aspx "A poster of Mr Bethune being arrested was shown – handcuffed and led down some stairs wearing a hood." Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not notable? When was the last time you saw a civilian prisoner hooded like a terrorist? If the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) says it's a human rights violation to hood suspected terrorists, it surely must be a human rights violation to hood people arrested of common crimes.

"In their report, the ICRC delegates protested vehemently about the “hooding, handcuffing, beating, threatening” of prisoners and the way that they had been kept for days at a time in painful and humiliating positions." http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/6DZK8M?OpenDocument&style=custo_print Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Last time. Wikipedia is not scandal mongering. It is also not meant for you to be puzzling sources together to come up with a novel conclusion. There is no reason to repeat this. You have been told this multiple times. From now on every attempt at WP:NOT will be met with this time stamp. You have heard it enough times. If you can present reliable secondary sources discussing both Bethune and the hood in a way that you have been trying to imply then go for it. Until then stop it. Enough editors have said it so this is it. I think we are all done dealing with your disruptive assertions.Cptnono (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you issuing a WP:NOEDIT order then? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What is that? I'm not even going to be bothered by looking. You can edit all you want. However, I am sick of seeing you implying things on the talk page and am going to respond that way until you actually present sources that say what you are trying to say.Cptnono (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a repeated pattern. I make an edit, backed with a RS. It's deleted with no sources to refute my sources. I provide more evidence. It's deleted for another reason, again no sources. I provide still more evidence. Then people start threatening me that I'm violating consensus. Where are YOUR sources that I'm completely off base here? Such as one stating that hooding is an acceptable police practice? Or that Bethune was not hooded? Or that the person in the video is not Bethune? Or that there was no picture of a hooded Bethune held up outside the trial? His hooding has been mentioned in numerous news stories. You want me to provide some more examples? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a pattern too. You make an edit based on original research and then argue and argue when you have already been told that your interpretations and synthesis are not allowed. How is someone going to source that something didn't happen? Seriously, you have wasted enough of your own and others time here.--Terrillja _talk 13:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you changed the reason for your deletion! Now it says: "Terrillja (talk | contribs) (21,951 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Ghostofnemo; Contested whether or not his head was fully covered as in hooding, link is deceptive." Speaking of OR, his hooding is contested by WHO? Do you have a reliable source saying that all the hoopla about the hood is a false issue? That he really wasn't hooded? It just takes one news story claiming this is a hoax. Many editors have made assertions and stated opinions that he wasn't hooded, but no one has provided a RS to back it up. I, on the other hand, have provided numerous RS which mention Bethune's hooding, a video of a hooded Bethune, and other sources that discuss the legal issues involved. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I was apparently wrong about a picture of a hooded Bethune being displayed by Bethune's SUPPORTERS. Oh, the chutzpah - The Japanese Coast Guard is displaying it! http://www.3news.co.nz/Bethune-takes-stand-Sea-Shepherd-supporters-protest-outside-/tabid/1160/articleID/158522/Default.aspx Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Under a hood. Not hooded or completely covered as in hooding. I was under a hood yesterday too. A sweatshirt hood. And I didn't change my reason, I removed something different. Move along.--Terrillja _talk 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So you are using yourself as the source for your deletion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

After serious contemplation, and some time spent looking at Wikipedia guidelines, I went ahead and removed both sentences referring to the hooding (along with the associated references). I believe the Ghostofnemo is making a good faith edit by including this information, but is not following policy. Specifically, I'm looking at WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Peter Bethune is a notable person, and this event and trial appears to rise to notable status. However, that does not make every detail, and, more specifically, all statements made by Bethune, his lawyers, the Japanese courts, etc., notable. This page shouldn't read like a daily-updated news story--it should focus on only those aspects of Bethune's life that are and will remain notable at an encyclopedic level. That Bethune felt that he was treated unfairly or like a terrorist is simply a statement he made, and our goal is not to reference every statement he made. Unless this were to continue to be an ongoing issue (say, he or others made sustained international complaints about the hooding), we have to, because of the conservative nature of BLPs, keep this information out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bethune's hooding seems notable for several reasons. First, it has been mentioned by the international press in several articles and a hooded Bethune has been shown in news video. Second, Bethune himself has made statements to the media regarding his hooding. Third, it represents a possible violation of the subject's human rights by the Japanese government, which is holding him as its prisoner. Would you argue that the treatment of a Guantanamo detainee is not notable in an article about one of them? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeating previous arguments warrants a repeated response.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything at WP:NOTNEWS that applies to this situation. Can you quote a policy for us that would support your deletion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

[note WP:NOT again.Cptnono (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For example, this is from WP:UNDUE: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." In other words, reliable sources determine relevance, not editors, and I've got them. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is from WP:YESPOV:

"The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral, point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides.

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a particular topic. It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material."

Note the phrase, "all the disputes within a topic". Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you aren't interpreting those guidelines within the pillar of WP:BLP. The standards for BLP articles are not the same as for other articles--they must be more sensitive. Quoting: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." and "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. " Both of these apply--the hooding is too small a detail to be notable to an encyclopedia--again, until it is covered as a major issue (either in Japan or internationally), his alleged treatment during a portion of his arrest is not notable. Looking back to WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." The issue with hooding each occupied one sentence, if i recall correctly, in the news articles you sourced. They were by no means a notable part of the article. Wikipedia is NOT NEWS. It should not attempt to include every interesting statement made by or about the subject. Other than these two sentences, you haven't made any case (outside of your own original research) that this rises to the level of notability. The only result, whether you intended it this way or not, is to add POV to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Move on.--Terrillja _talk 02:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The hooding material was well sourced. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that it did not occur, except in the minds of some editors here. Many reliable sources mention it and not one RS has claimed the hooding allegations are unfounded. It regards his arrest and was posted in the arrest section of the article. It does not imply he was being tortured. So it was well-sourced, neutral, and on-topic. Bethune is notable in part because of his arrest. That's why he's in the news recently. So the hooding is relevant to his notability. The quoted line from WP:NOTNEWS regards including an ARTICLE on a news topic in Wikipedia, not including details of news reports about someone in their BLP. I have done NO original research. All of my edits have be sourced by RS! It is not POV. It is statement of fact and quotes as reported by RS. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the diff we are discussing, the deletion I'd like to see reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365323353&oldid=365225337 This is only two lines: one quotes Bethune on the hooding, the other states that a picture of a hooded, handcuffed Bethune was displayed to the public by the Japanese Coast Guard. Not undue weight I would argue. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Move on, you have already been told over and over why these were removed.--Terrillja _talk 02:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The news media disagree. Here are some of the articles mentioning the hood, to prove its relevance by its mention by reliable sources:

News articles that mention the hood:

Two news videos that considered the hood important enough to show during their broadcast:

What is your argument against inclusion, besides the fact that you wore a hooded sweatshirt yesterday? Do you seriously consider that to be an argument that trumps all this media coverage? Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop repeating the same arguments over and over again Cptnono (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If I follow your link there, I find this: "If you can present reliable secondary sources discussing both Bethune and the hood in a way that you have been trying to imply then go for it." That's what I just did, and what I've been doing all along. What's your next reason for exclusion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a knack for only picking certain bits when convenient. For example, not scandal mongering. You have made it clear that your intent is to show it in a way that is much more than what he said. You also failed to address all of the other "nots" brought up. I wouldn't bother listing a rebuttal to every single "not" since I doubt you are convincing anyone now after bombarding this page Better luck next time.Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The hood has been mentioned by RS media, also (yeah, OR) it seems a Japanese authorities attempt to dehumanize and package Bethune so he's not appearing as the happy-go-lucky white dude, neighborhood English teacher; but rather a "terrorist pirate". Anyway media noted it, editors are noting it, excuse me I just skimmed this discussion dunno who is arguing what, but yeah hood notable no? RomaC (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong, Japan does this for almost every criminal that is shown on TV (before their conviction), even when the criminal is a well-known Japanese celebrity. More importantly, this is not notable, it's not central to a discussion of either Bethune's life or the trial specifically. Just because a variety of news articles mention a particular fact does not mean it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia.Qwyrxian (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:YESPOV: "An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view." Please note the word "all". This seems to be a dispute within this topic. Once again, I jump through all the hoops, but it's clear that this will never be allowed into the article because some of the editors have decided that, despite numerous WP:RS, they just personally don't like it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I resent the repeated OR accusations. Where is the OR? I'm directly paraphrasing the WP:RS. Are you suggesting that I'm misrepresenting the sources? In what way? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's that diff again. How is this OR? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365323353&oldid=365225337 Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one making it a dispute and stop repeating yourself Cptnono (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"If you can present reliable secondary sources discussing both Bethune and the hood in a way that you have been trying to imply then go for it." Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We just had this conversation 24hrs ago. You are implying that ti is a scandal. You are giving it undue weight. You have said so yourself that you are linking this to intl law. It is obviously read that way by Qwyrxian which means you succeeded. If you had not admitted to it, merged it with that line that got tuck in about his diet in an inappropriate place, mentioned how many visitors he is limited too, his exercise routine, and other aspects of his confinement I could understand that it is simple commentary about his imprisonment. It isn't. You are trying to create a scandal that no sources have linked with intl law or torture. Stop only picking parts of arguments that you can combat and read the whole thing. Stop disrupting the page. Start focusing on other aspects. Have you even paid attention to his last court date? Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think those two lines are undue weight. There is nothing in the diff above about international law. If I did list every complaint he has, that would be undue weight. The hooding and the cabbage soup and rice diet are the only two complaints I know of that have been reported by the press. Well, being housed with convicted felons and being held in solitary confinement, but those were just mentioned in one article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when you are arrested you are housed with other alleged criminals. Your freedom is hampered by its very nature and the food is not always the best. That is the way it is. If you want to create an article on prison conditions in Japan I am sure there are sources available. Sometimes alleged criminals are transported. Every system has a different way of doing it. Sometimes the vehicles used to do it do not have many windows. That doesn't men the city is trying to deprive the inmates of their senses. If you had made a paragraph discussing his conditions (with mentions of more than just the negatives since some reports say it has been fine) it might not have been a big deal. Some editors might have suggested that it was not all that important and leading, but weight of the hood would have been reduced and it might have made it appear like you were not trying to lead the reader as you have certainly tried to do as mentioned in your comment up above at 11:29, 29 May 2010. So again, start adjusting your focus. Keep an eye out on sources. Hell, his new book will have plenty of info on his detainment so you might just have to wait a bit. Did you know that he is expected to serve less time according to his lawyer if convicted now? There are all sorts of other things to focus on.Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in many countries it's customary for suspects to be released on bail. It is not customary to house suspects with convicts. It is not customary to feed prisoners cabbage soup and rice three times a day. It's not customary to hold prisoners for months prior to trial. It's not customary to hood prisoners. AI has pointed out that the treatment of suspects is a problem in Japan. If you want to add information about how well he has been treated, based on RS, please do so. But please don't delete the referenced contributions of other editors. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "many" and some of your assertions are disputable. I'm not going to bother explaining to you the different aspects of different processes and conditions of the US or other country's justice systems since that is not what this article is about. However, I will point out that reliable sourcing is not everything. How you use them is a big part of it. See the list of guidelines and policies for further information.Cptnono (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

actually cptnono, reliable sourcing seems pretty much to be the core of wikipedia. if capt. bethune was hooded in a manner that useually precludes torture or similar actions it should be note, especially if there are proper sources. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars there you go. Verifiability is part of the NPOV pillar.Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

uh, so your agreeing with me now? 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the point was that there are not sources that say that, and thus it is not verifiable. --Terrillja _talk 00:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I was more getting at that sources are important but not the end all be all. Other editors have expressed concerns with the neutrality concerns weight to him saying he felt like a terrorist with a hood would provide. Add on top of that the concerns with attempting to lead the reader to draw the conclusion that he indeed was treated improperly and it becomes even more complicated. So basically, sourced ar enot everything and this has even been commented on recently by Jimbo Wales noting that people are using claims in RS to add anything and everything to articles. Cptnono (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources that say he was hooded (see above). But any mention of this has been deleted from the article by some of the editors. The deleted lines did not imply Bethune was tortured. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently they have bestowed upon themselves the power to be gatekeepers of information, and protect the public from information that they feel is not appropriate. Luckily, people can find this forbidden information by searching the news reports. You know what they say, "Don't rely on Wikipedia." Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Along with idolizing Kim Jong-il, my interests include making babies cry and scolding cute puppies.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

if somthing that happens might lead you to believe that he was improperly treated, then thats all the more reason to put it there! its not saying"he was tortured" its stating a fact that you can draw your own conclusion from! removing it is pro-japan biased by depriving people of information. and im not surprised by your hobbies cpnote. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Part of me thinks I should just ignore this....but the fact is that this issue has been debated here, at the Tokyo Two page, at an RfC, at WP:ANI, and, most recently, at the Original Research talk page. Every time it has been debated consensus has found that including both of those violates WP:SYNTH. GoN even tried to get the WP:SYNTH policy changed (or, in his/her words, clarified), and that failed. So we cannot include those two statements without violating Wikipedia policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In this case, the simple the fact that Bethune was hooded (we even have video), or even that he complained about it, cannot be mentioned in the article, despite several reliable sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

a simple fact with no reasons to back it up is not a fact. now, this siriously should be on wikipedia. if you dont then you are trying to put biased info up. you are not God, nor are you overlords of what poeple can or cant know. this is a simple fact what were trying to put up. the way you people are fighting to the death to keep it out makes me think your either hired by japan or just extremly biased outright. (im 69 115) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.52.29 (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The way you are fighting to the death to put it in makes me think your either hired by Sea Shepherd or just extremly biased outright. See how that wasn't useful in any way?Cptnono (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I'm arguing it SHOULD be in the article, not because I'm a paid agent of SSCS, but because IT HAPPENED! BTW, don't you think that the apparent stalking that is occurring when I start a whaling related page (Bethune, Tokyo Two) and the deletion of well-sourced, relevant and NPOV information, is not slightly suspicious? Why have the editors here call for a "topic wide" ban on my edits? Could it be they don't like to have things critical of whaling pointed out? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

and that comment was cpnote? since when do 2 wrongs make a right? anyway, back to the matter at hand. you dont get to be biased and get away with it. this happned. whethere or not he was tortured, we dont know and we dont pt up our thoughs, but this we do know happened. there for it should and WILL be added. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And it should and WILL need consensus. As I said at the very top of this discussion, the door is open. Others disagreed. Until consensus is reached it will simply be removed which doesn't help anything. Throw up some drafts and see if you can gain support. Until then, stop trying to make a point since it looks like everyone is tired of dealing with the same stuff when there are multiple other aspects of the guy's life that are important. In fact, if Ghostofnemo had attempted to actually improve the article with facts that might just be boring and non-contentious then he probably wouldn't have run into so many roadblocks.Cptnono (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

however, needed consesus isunfair, as one peerson disagreeing alwos them to get what they want, aka minority rule. weve all presented good reasons for this to be up, youve merly said it can leed people to think japan tortures him. therefore, its right for it to be added. now if we cant get this going somwhere, either for or against, i think we should contact an admin or somthing to solve this problem as we all have better things to do. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I said I was open to it and multiple editors said no. They convinced me. So now it is you and GoN only.Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

im saying, this is and event that happned, plain and simple. give me one GOOD reason it should not be in there. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason that the article doesn't state "While in custody, Bethune was made to go to sleep at 10:00 pm every night" and "Very few food choices are available to Bethune while in jail" or "During the trial, Bethune was examined directly by the judges, not by the opposing counsel." All of these things are true (well, I'm guessing on the bedtime), but none of them are important enough to put in the article. Having arrested suspects wear something covering their head is normal police procedure in Japan. WP cannot list every commonplace aspect of every event it covers. Furthermore, I don't think we could mention it without going into great detail to deal with the cultural misconceptions--that is, as far as I understand Japanese culture, a Japanese criminal (and even more so a wrongly accused person) would, in general, want to be hooded due to privacy concerns. After we're done explaining all that, we'd be giving far too much weight to an aspect of this event that doesn't deserve it. We should no more mention that he was wearing a hood than we should describe the color of the clothes he was wearing. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note for editors here. There has been some trouble regarding assumptions of the guy's treatment. Now we have an answer.

" 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.

I have no complaints whatsoever about my treatment while I was incarcerated in Japan, he said. "[7]

So that should put to rest many of the concerns.Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)