Vanished User 1004 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 507: | Line 507: | ||
::::::::"Based on the rapid-fire reverting" - possible misreading of the log. On the disagreement<s>.</s>: If your words were wise, the reflection was wise. If not, then not. Again, if we know the Myspace page is his, then we are golden, and can mention the episode to the extent the source does, under [[wp:SELFPUB]].- [[User talk:Sinneed|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sinneed</span>]] 22:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
::::::::"Based on the rapid-fire reverting" - possible misreading of the log. On the disagreement<s>.</s>: If your words were wise, the reflection was wise. If not, then not. Again, if we know the Myspace page is his, then we are golden, and can mention the episode to the extent the source does, under [[wp:SELFPUB]].- [[User talk:Sinneed|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sinneed</span>]] 22:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::I don't much care for your insinuation. Do we need to take your comments to a noticeboard? --[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 00:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::::I don't much care for your insinuation. Do we need to take your comments to a noticeboard? --[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 00:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::[[wp:talk]] and [[wp:AGF]] - there is no insinuation there. Please remove your focus from me entirely and place it on the content.- [[User talk:Sinneed|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sinneed</span>]] 01:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:If WP in a formal way "knows" that his myspace page is his, we can cite *IT'S* content under [[wp:SELFPUB]]... but only what he says about the episode. It would not cover other content of the episode itself. Not even the bits in the previews. it would not, for example, cover the content from anon. We are not censoring.- [[User talk:Sinneed|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sinneed</span>]] 15:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
:If WP in a formal way "knows" that his myspace page is his, we can cite *IT'S* content under [[wp:SELFPUB]]... but only what he says about the episode. It would not cover other content of the episode itself. Not even the bits in the previews. it would not, for example, cover the content from anon. We are not censoring.- [[User talk:Sinneed|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sinneed</span>]] 15:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:03, 30 October 2009
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Assassination" attempt
Who keeps deleting the ballistic information in this section? It is a fact that a rifle bullet would easily go through the soft body armor he had, when he was claimed to of been shot. A pistol would never be that accurate on the high seas, so that is ruled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I do. The specific vest that he was waring is unknown, the caliber of the bullet is unknown, the distance is unknown, the ballistic effect of the badge he was wearing is unknown... Unless we can get some more info, then it is unsourced and it should not be there. --Terrillja (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- It can easily be known. He claims to have the vest. He just has to show it. The "badge" will not stop any round. it is immaterial in the case. The distance is also known...he claims it was from the japanese ship. Next. It is impossible to score a hit like that on rolling seas, on a crowded deck, from a distance. Everything points to him LIEING. If you really wants to be shot at, he should go up against the Scandinavians, or Koreans. Ballistics are a pretty simple thing. Soft armor will not stop any rifle round. So it easily points away from his story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually if you look at the body armor page here on Wiki, you will see that even the lowest end body armor is designed to stop rifle rounds. Plus, you have no way of knowing how many grains were in the round. As for the "impossible shot", you cannot say conclusively that a marksman didn't fire 5 shots prior to that which missed completely. "Impossible" is fairly presumptuous. Just because YOU can't make the shot doesn't mean NO one can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.150.115 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, soft body armor WILL NOT STOP RIFLE ROUNDS. Even in the video when they dig out the "bullet" you can see it isnt real. Then wen they show him holding it, you can plainly see it is totally different. There has been zero proof he was shot, and zero proof that the japanese even had guns. All those cameras and nothing captured? BS
Watson's claim is bullshit of course but there are no sources which state that. Hence we cannot refute it in the article. -- Nevard 03:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
So I just watched the final episode of whale wars and I have to say the alleged shooting should stay just that, alleged. Here is why. First, the vest he was wearing was a level 2 or 3 vest. Sure it would stop most common handgun rounds, but absent was the massive bruise that comes with being shot while wearing a vest. Next, the claim of three trauma plates does not hold. He was clearly seen flexing the vest. Three steel plates together will not flex, additionally where he shows being shot is outside the area a trauma plate normally protects. If he were shot with a true rifle round, like a .223 or 7.63mm this article would have a section on his death as true rifle round would have gone right though him and that $400 vest he was wearing. Low end Kevlar vests will not stop rifle rounds. Check out the specs of vests on galls.com. The whole incident is suspect and should be clearly noted as alleged. Last, being a avid shooter I can tell you, I have never seen a bullet mushroom like the one he showed. The one shown looked much more like small concave bowl and not a clear mushroom shape as it should have if it were stopped by the vest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.69.73 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Watson is a consummate media figure who is not known for his veracity. "Alleged" is as much as can be claimed in the absence of forensic verification. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- My take on the "shooting": Possible but not real plausible. I've spent a bit of time on this topic cleaning character assassination attacks on Watson (and I don't like the guy - I think he's a fascist), but I think the shooting is just a bit "convenient" and a tad on the hokey side. The guy on the bridge says he's looking to see if they pick up a gun, and then Watson is "shot." Smells like one of their stink bombs. Now, on the other side of the coin, the idea that a man is "thrown backwards" when shot is Hollywood, not reality. A small caliber bullet does not have enough mass to send a big man reeling just from the impact. Many, many people have been shot and not even known it until later. (If you have ever seen anyone shot and killed, they don't go flying like in a John Wayne movie. They simply drop dead.) Also in Watson's favor on this claim: They didn't know the Japanese would resort to violence, yet the "fake" scenario has Watson creating (while tailed by camera men and in mere minutes while in pursuit of the Japanese) false evidence and an elaborate plot to fake a shooting. But like I said, my OPINION is that the whole thing stinks. I don't know how he did it, but somehow, I think he "manufactured" the shooting. If I am proven wrong, I will apologize to him. But that's what I think. He is a media junkie and would, I have no doubt, lie, cheat, steal, and manufacture a fake shooting if it helped stop whaling. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I had edited in some info but someone removed it for not having sources cited. To be honest I'm sure that this "shooting" is complete BS. What would a good source for body armor info be? It needs to be something that clearly shows his soft armor wouldn't have stopped a rifle bullet. their claim of "trauma plates duct taped together" isn't supported by anything to boot. there's nothing on the video that shows any evidence of that. i think that in order to inform the reader properly, something needs to be added stating something like: "It should be noted that the armor Watson was wearing was not rated to stop full-power rifle rounds as would likely be used in any assassination attempt, and there is no video evidence of trauma plates, nor a plate carrier." your average joe who reads that section is going to see "oh, his body armor must have saved his life", it's misleading as is. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- If the claims of attempted assassination are not credible, perhaps they should be eliminated from the article? It appears they are at least disputed. That suggests they might reasonably be deleted. The section really adds nothing to the article anyway? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that both sides have different versions of what happened, and that trying to get an NPOV version is hard, since there was not an impartial 3rd party there. However, the event certainly is very notable, and the article would be lacking without it. --Terrillja talk 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the part should stay, both parties treated it as a big event. I also think that we're missing pertinent info there; as I said above your average reader wouldn't realize that the armor he was wearing would not have stopped a rifle round. perhaps even include a link to wikipedias own article on body armor? 76.25.115.99 (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- As I have said above, the exact armor worn is not known, the caliber bullet is not known, and unless the Australian federal police release the armor, stating its ballistic capabilities is purely speculation. --Terrillja talk 15:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't mean to patronize you, but you don't seem to understand body armor. There is no, repeat no soft body armor that is capable of stopping a rifle round. 'hard' body armor uses ceramic plates, which ARE capable of stopping rifle rounds. Military personnel use "hard" armor. Essentially, hard armor is a regular soft vest that has pouches you place "trauma plates" in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interceptor_with_side_SAPI.jpg is military body armor. two plates are inserted (front and back) and aren't flexible. There is no soft body armor that can stop a rifle round. In the video Watson himself is clearly shown flexing the vest, and there is no evidence of any ceramic plates nor the carrier required for them to be used. furthermore it is extremely unlikely that a rifle round would pass through a rifle plate, through an underlying Kevlar vest, but would be stopped by a badge only millimeters thick. as stated above, the video clearly shows no plate inserts, no plate carrier, and Watson is clearly shown flexing the vest. there is NO soft body armor that can stop a rifle round. there needs to be some kind of information about the body armor thing. about the caliber used, there's no way in hell that shot was made with a pistol (assuming that it was made at all). in the also-extremely-unlikely event that he was shot with a submachine gun, the armor he was wearing would not stop a round from one. "SMGs" use rounds that are loaded much "hotter" than rounds designed for pistols. For a more thorough writeup go look up +P, and +P+ loaded rounds. Based upon the appearance of the vest (just a bare kevlar vest, i.e. a cheap one) I'm almost certain that his vest was rated for rounds out of a pistol, not the higher velocity ones from a subgun. the only real possibility is that a rifle was used. His vest wouldn't have stopped a rifle round. The subgun rounds thing is too complicated to put in the article, but my earlier suggestion stands. I would be happy with something saying "it should be noted that watsons vest was not rated to stop a round from a rifle, as would likely have been used in any assassination attempt". Unless his own crew shot him (hey, I wouldn't blame them) a rifle was used. And also it should be noticed that there were no gunshots on the Japanese tape nor any on the sea shepherd's. It would be a loud distinct blast, and it would sound different than the flashbangs being used. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is a plausible argument. Do you suppose there is anything in manufacturer's specs saying what kind of round would be stopped by a flexible kevlar vest? Would seem to be a credible source. How many manufacturers can there be? Any online specs? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Body armor is categorized into a "Class" system, from Class I (soft armor, very low power rounds, in the range of a .22lr) to Class IV (hard armor, rated to stop up to an armor-piercing .30-06 round) there's a pretty thorough writeup here. http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml from the info there it looks like the class system is a standard set by the National institute of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/ however their site seems to be down so I can't look at the info. Whenever it comes back up I'll see what is on there and if it will be enough to include a satisfactory amount of sourced/cited info for the topic. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- The nij website came back up, they have a .pdf about Body Armor and the standards are indeed set by them- http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/223054.pdf the ratings are in Section 2. Note that it says "Type III (Rifles) Type III hard armor or plate inserts". I'll work on putting this in the article properly. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's amazing how adamant and repetitious you can be, Mr. 76.25.115.99 in Littleton, Colorado, without getting it</i.>. You keep banging on about how "soft body armor can't stop a rifle round", and thus Watson must be perpetrating a hoax. There are at least 3 things wrong with your claim (beyond the fact that you're implicating the ship's physician in the "hoax"). First, Watson clearly states that he wore soft body armor AND a metal plate, which stopped the bullet; not a Kevlar vest alone. Second, you have no idea what the gun or round were. A .22 LR round fired from a rifle would easily be stopped by a Kevlar vest, much less a metal plate as well. A larger caliber but low velocity hollow-tip round, such as a Remington .223 or 5.56 NATO round (which is probably what the Japanese Coast Guardsmen on board were packing) would be very unlikely to pierce a Kevlar vest from much distance. Third, if the bullet approached the vest obliquely, more of its energy would've been shedded. If it passed through another layer of some material (i.e., a sheet of window acrylic or stretched canvas, or if it glanced off of a steel wall, that too would sap a lot of energy. So you've taken a set of assumptions and used it to prove...well, nothing, really. And if you expect to have any credibility here, sign in. IP addresses don't lend much weight to your claims.Bricology (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is a plausible argument. Do you suppose there is anything in manufacturer's specs saying what kind of round would be stopped by a flexible kevlar vest? Would seem to be a credible source. How many manufacturers can there be? Any online specs? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't mean to patronize you, but you don't seem to understand body armor. There is no, repeat no soft body armor that is capable of stopping a rifle round. 'hard' body armor uses ceramic plates, which ARE capable of stopping rifle rounds. Military personnel use "hard" armor. Essentially, hard armor is a regular soft vest that has pouches you place "trauma plates" in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interceptor_with_side_SAPI.jpg is military body armor. two plates are inserted (front and back) and aren't flexible. There is no soft body armor that can stop a rifle round. In the video Watson himself is clearly shown flexing the vest, and there is no evidence of any ceramic plates nor the carrier required for them to be used. furthermore it is extremely unlikely that a rifle round would pass through a rifle plate, through an underlying Kevlar vest, but would be stopped by a badge only millimeters thick. as stated above, the video clearly shows no plate inserts, no plate carrier, and Watson is clearly shown flexing the vest. there is NO soft body armor that can stop a rifle round. there needs to be some kind of information about the body armor thing. about the caliber used, there's no way in hell that shot was made with a pistol (assuming that it was made at all). in the also-extremely-unlikely event that he was shot with a submachine gun, the armor he was wearing would not stop a round from one. "SMGs" use rounds that are loaded much "hotter" than rounds designed for pistols. For a more thorough writeup go look up +P, and +P+ loaded rounds. Based upon the appearance of the vest (just a bare kevlar vest, i.e. a cheap one) I'm almost certain that his vest was rated for rounds out of a pistol, not the higher velocity ones from a subgun. the only real possibility is that a rifle was used. His vest wouldn't have stopped a rifle round. The subgun rounds thing is too complicated to put in the article, but my earlier suggestion stands. I would be happy with something saying "it should be noted that watsons vest was not rated to stop a round from a rifle, as would likely have been used in any assassination attempt". Unless his own crew shot him (hey, I wouldn't blame them) a rifle was used. And also it should be noticed that there were no gunshots on the Japanese tape nor any on the sea shepherd's. It would be a loud distinct blast, and it would sound different than the flashbangs being used. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- As I have said above, the exact armor worn is not known, the caliber bullet is not known, and unless the Australian federal police release the armor, stating its ballistic capabilities is purely speculation. --Terrillja talk 15:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the part should stay, both parties treated it as a big event. I also think that we're missing pertinent info there; as I said above your average reader wouldn't realize that the armor he was wearing would not have stopped a rifle round. perhaps even include a link to wikipedias own article on body armor? 76.25.115.99 (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry my good man. But firstly, The Japanese would not be "packing" hollow points. The rest of your post is just utter nonsense. Watson faked it, the proof is in the video. Your hero is a liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh man look at how wrong you are. Let's address your arguments in order. Rifle plates are designed to be used with a carrier, not "duct-taped together" as the Sea Shepherds claimed. They're also designed with human wearers in mind, they're designed to be placed against something compressible, i.e. a human. As I said above, they're placed in a "pocket" in a vest designed to hold them. The only body armor shown on the video is a vest made out of what appears to be bare kevlar. More accurately, his vest is a $200 piece of shit. Next: The bullet Watson allegedly found in his vest, is, in my opinion, way too big to be a .22lr. The idea of a Japanese CG member using a .22 is laughable anyway and you admitted that in your post. Your claim that a 5.56 NATO hollowpoint may have been stopped by his vest is as totally wrong too. Low-velocity hollowpoint rounds being used is even less plausible. Hollowpoint rounds are by and large designed to kill living things. Nobody loads a hollowpoint that is intended to be used on a living thing to a low velocity. 99.9% of the time they are loaded hot, with very few exceptions. Even IF they used a low-velocity 5.56 hp, his vest STILL wouldn't stop it. A "low velocity" 5.56 is still going at a goddamned high velocity, and Watson's vest was a Level II at best and even that is a stretch. Level II is rated to stop a 9mm at 1,175 FPS. A low-velocity 5.56 is going to be in the 2500 FPS range and that means Watson is toast in our little hypothetical.
- Lastly, Watson was out on the deck of his ship, facing the Japanese ship. He stated that he felt something hit him in the chest from the front. The video shows them digging the "bullet" out of the vest and you can plainly see that it didn't skim across his vest or enter at an extreme angle. The boats weren't far away from each other at all, certainly not enough for a .223 or 5.56 round to lose any significant amount of energy. Also, I don't really bother to login to wikipedia because it's a hassle, but because you're whining about it I've done it for you. Anyway, you basically read my argument, did a google on "paul watson assassination attempt" and found this:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x137921 where a complete moron tries to support Watson's hoax. Admittedly his post is pretty convincing, but he gives himself away as an idiot when he starts in with the "dumb-dumb" (also known as a softpoint) stuff. I can list off all the things he's wrong about but this post is long enough already. If you're going to come in here calling me names and putting forth terrible arguments, at least come up with the arguments yourself :) R.westermeyer (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that both sides have different versions of what happened, and that trying to get an NPOV version is hard, since there was not an impartial 3rd party there. However, the event certainly is very notable, and the article would be lacking without it. --Terrillja talk 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The video the SSCS and the photos they take put them in their own grave. When they dig it out, you can clearly see that it is a large object. This is shown both in the video, and when he shows it with his cereal box badge. Then in another picture, he shows a small piece of compressed lead...that is lacking a jacket, and rifling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why is he the only one on the boat wearig a vest? Either this incident is total BS or he cares nothing for the crew he puts in the small boats. Choose your position. Either the incident is fake or his compasion for his crew is fake.
- This is not a forum for general discussion of personal opinions. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. I agree that it is BS but for the purpose of this project we need to go off verifiable sources. Please include it if you find such an argument from a reliable source. Please also check out the related pages if you are interested in adding information about the subject that is neuteral and per any available sources.Cptnono (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- You say that as if it can’t be both. Anyway, there isn’t really a place on Wikipedia for this sort of discussion. Articles are for verifiable facts, and talkpages are for discussions on how to improve articles (not for discussing the actual subjects). — NRen2k5(TALK), 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Greenpeace
Watson was not expelled from Greenpeace, he was removed from the Board of Directors and subsequently resigned.
See interview with Watson here...
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2008/12/25/sticking-it-to-the-man-21st-century-styl
--Sonofkenny (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- According to the New York Times, in his book "Earthforce!" Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, "as Ronald Reagan did."
- See: Militants sink two of Iceland's Whaling Vessels. New York Times, November 10, 1986.
- According to Greenpeace, Watson was expelled from the leadership of Greenpeace in 1977 by a vote of 11 to one (only Watson himself voted against it).
- See: Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace: some facts. [10]
Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Wife
Resolved Via WP:MEDCAB
|
---|
A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.
I've removed the information about his wife from the lead, as it's not appropriate there. I was going to re-add it to the personal life section, but on checking the source, that's all it says — there's no context, no other information about whether she was charged or convicted. Given it's a living person, and the source is several years old, we need more information about what happened subsequently before we can add it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought we were done with this nonsense. As this has come back again, I removed the text, because it places undue weight on her actions, and the article isn't even about her. Mentioning the fact that she is also an activist is enough, if you want to write a bio about her, then create another article. Try to keep it on point. Keep in mind who this article is about.--Terrillja talk 04:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Wife has her own article now. All info on her can be added there now. This should take care of any issues with staying on point. --Terrillja talk 05:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Mervyn Emrys: Please stop the unjustified sarcasm. The reason why I call Paul by his first name in this discussion is to differentiate which Watson we are speaking of (since there are two: Paul and Allison). It has nothing to do with being on a "first name basis" and you know it, so just stop. And how is that statement far-fetched? Did he have anything to do with Allison's actions in the incident in question? Was he directly involved in that incident? I never said that what Allison does has "nothing to do with Paul". I said that the incident that you keep incorporating into the article has nothing to do with Paul. Please do not attempt to twist my words. The comparison of Bill and Hillary Clinton to Paul and Allison Watson is not an entirely good one. I don't believe I need to go into the details as to why. But, for example, look at the Angelina Jolie article. She and Brad Pitt (her domestic partner) are both extremely involved in humanitarian and charity work, just like Paul and Allison are both very involved in the environmental and animal rights movements. However, the Jolie article does not go into what humanitarian and charity events Pitt does by himself because it is an article about Jolie. Not Pitt. If Paul and Allison partook in this incident together, there would be no problem integrating the information into the article. But we have no source saying that Paul was directly involved in this specific incident. Therefore, it does not warrant being in the article in detail. – Ms. Sarita Confer 06:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
2RR, going on threeThe following text with reliable sources has been repeatedly deleted from this article in the past 24 hours by Terrilla and Ms. Sarita. It concerns the spouse of Paul Watson, like him an animal rights activist, like him with a history of civil disobedience. As his spouse, her actions are clearly relevant to his controversial biography, especially because they concern an area of activism they both share (animal rights, as stated in the article). His current spouse's problems with the law are at least as relevant to his biography as is the fact he has a child by his first wife, and actually more, as her activism is so closely related to his own political activism (whereas the existence of his child is not). This is only a small mention of his wife in a much longer article about Watson, so it does not violate WP:UNDUE. This editor has shortened the text considerably in an attempt to accomodate concerns of these two editors, but they unreasonably insist on deleting this relevant information, and appear unwilling to compromise. They seem unwilling to let the facts speak for themselves.
These editors have attempted to create a POV Fork out of this information, and have invited this editor to go edit something else, contrary to WP:Civility]] and other WP policies. It is time for this to stop, lest it turn into a full scale edit war. The information is relevant, sourced to reliable sources, and deserves inclusion in this article. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
ProtectedI have protected this page for now while I examine the behaviour of editors here to see if any further action is required. Edits can be made by adding {{editprotected}} here, after a consensus on the change has been reached. Kevin (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC) I see that the article is quite a mess. I intend to remove everything that is tagged with {{citation needed}}, unless it is especially neutral. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Done - Adding citations to reliable sources seems uncontroversial enough to me. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Reference:<ref name="guardian.uk">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2002/jun/03/fish.food|title=Champion of seas faces attempted murder case|last=Campbell|first=Duncan|date=June 3, 2002|publisher=Guardian News and Media Limited|accessdate=2009-02-12}}</ref>
Reference:<ref name="SFchronicle">{{cite web|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/28/MN84468.DTL|title=Rough seas for ocean activist|last=Wolkoff|first=Lauren|date=May 28, 2002|publisher=San Francisco Chronicle|accessdate=2009-02-12}}</ref>
Reference: <ref name="independent.uk">{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/the-saviours-of-the-whale-758746.html|title=The saviours of the whale|last=Taylor|first=Jerome|date=20 November 2007|publisher=The Independent|accessdate=2009-02-12}}</ref>
Reference:<ref name="SBindependent">{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.com/news/2009/jan/29/sbiff-09-saving-seas/|title=SBIFF '09: Saving the Seas Documentary Follows Paul Watson on Marine Crusades|last=Large|first=Joey|date=January 29, 2009|publisher=The Santa Barbara Independent|accessdate=2009-02-12}}</ref> --Terrillja talk 05:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC) I'll look through these tonight, hopefully they will reduce the number of uncited bits. Alternately, I could unprotect, so long as there is an agreement from all here to stop edit warring, on the lead paragraph particularly. Kevin (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The second sentence in paragraph 2 (which may need to be revised so that the reference can properly support it) of the "Other environmental activities" section ("Watson has claimed to have invented the tactic of tree spiking and denies that the practice has ever caused any fatalities or injuries."): <ref name=CFP>{{cite web|last=DeWeese|first=Tom|title=The Sierra Club's Immigration Wars|work=[[Canada Free Press]]|date=2004-02-04|url=http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/inter030804d.htm|accessdate=2008-02-12}}</ref> Mediation RequestI have looked over the request for mediation as well as the talk page for this article. I think that I have a good understanding of the nature of the dispute and would like to see it resolved, especially for an article that seems very close to being ready for Good Article status. At this time, my first questions are for User:Mervyn Emrys. Specifically, I would like two things answered: First, why do you feel that mention of the subject's second wife is important to the article, or how it affects the reader's overall impression of the subject? Second, what would you consider to be an acceptable outcome to this mediation? If it would help you to illustrate this, I would like you to make the desired edits to the article and place the finished product as you wish to see it in User:Trusilver/MediationSandbox. To the other parties in the dispute, bear with me for a short time. Seeing that User:Mervyn Emrys is the only one that has not yet stated his position in the dispute, I would like to get his perspective before starting any discussion. Thank you. Trusilver 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I've read over everyone's statements. Give me a couple days to familiarize myself with the subject in question. I have never heard of Paul Watson until this time yesterday, and it is going to take me quite a bit of reading to get up to speed. Thank you all for your patience. Trusilver 04:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you all on this. My presence has been down a little bit lately as I have been recovering from the flu. the one thing that I notice looking into this is that neither argument is exactly meritless. The part that I want to focus on is the suitability for inclusion when it comes to information relating to, but not necessarily including the subject of the article. I recently looked at and reverted an edit on Dr. Laura's article which was critical of the MySpace page content of the subject's son. The reason I removed this from the article is simple: The subject of an article is just that: the subject of the article. Any information added to the article must demonstrate a clear correlation to the subject. For example: If Mrs. Notable Person's husband gets caught dealing heroin out of the truck of his Ford Torino, that merits no place in Mrs. Notable Person's article. (This is Wikipedia, not TMZ.com. We aren't gossip whores) However, If Mrs. Notable Person's husband deals heroin out of the trunk of his Ford Torino, and then Mrs. Notable Person goes on the Today Show to defend her drug-dealing husband, then the clear correlation has been established and her actions have made it notable. Therefore, in order for the actions of Paul Watson's wife to be included in this article, they must be directly relevant to Paul Watson himself. I would like thoughts on this from all sides, who feels that this correlation does or does not exist and how is it demonstrated in a verifiable way? Trusilver 02:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Alternative proposalPerhaps Ms. Sarita and Terrillja will prefer the "flavor" of and agree to include the following text and references in the Paul Watson article:
In addition, Ms. Sarita and Terrillja should agree to stop reverting my edits to the Paul Watson article without actual discussion and negotiation, which I understand to mean the discussion and negotiation must occur BEFORE changes are made to my edits. Negotiation means exchange of proposals and counter proposals, not just an edit summary with a revert before any discussion takes place. They should stop reverting things that do not fit with their own personal preferences, and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Mervyn, just out of curiosity (this has nothing to do with the mediation and I'm not taking a position either way, just curious and passing time until Terrillja gets back), but as Ms. Sarita asked above, what about this particular arrest is so important to the article? Understand that I have been unfamiliar with this subject until taking on this mediation, but from my rather unfamiliar point of view, the article looks extremely NPOV. Trusilver 03:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply by TerrilljaFirst of all, sorry to take so long to reply to everyone, I got busy the start of last week and then got very sick. Still not feeling great, but I don't want to hold this up any more. My reply to Ms Sarita's proposal (which seems to be a reworded version of Mervyn's, so I'll just address that one): I have looked over all of the sources, and agree with Ms. Sarita that the second two sources do not have any thing to say they are actually written or authorized by Paul Watson, just because something happened (press release here) doesn't mean the leader of a group approved it. Press secretaries are given some guidance, but only the second ref in your proposal states that the press release is written by Paul Watson himself. So as I see it, Sea Shepherd has supported her actions, however Paul Watson has not said that he does in the provided refs, just that he was trying to raise money for her release. So I see a connection between SSCS and Allison, but unless I'm missing something, I don't see anywhere that Paul Watson said/wrote the quotes attributed to him. I'll try to check in on this when I can, but I may be spotty for a little bit until I am feeling better. If there is anything else that anyone wanted me to reply to, sorry if I missed it, just copy it here again or tell me where in this long page your question is located. --Terrillja talk 19:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Another counter proposalIt appears we may be finally moving towards some agreement here. In the interest of being accommodating to Ms. Sarita and Terrillja, working with sentences provided by Ms. Sarita above, and making only minor changes, I propose the following language be inserted into the article:
The text above merely adds one reference to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and changes attribution in the last sentence from "Paul" to "Sea Shepherd." Alternatives: 1. If somebody doesn't wish to change attribution, we can drop the entire last sentence. Dropping the last sentence will eliminate the last two sources listed as numbers 4 and 5 completely. I believe those are the two questioned by these two editors. 2. If somebody doesn't like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer where it is placed above, alternatively it might be placed at the end of the same sentence (after “and on other occasions.”). It is a reliable source and relevant to this matter. I hope you will all agree this is a reasonable resolution of this dispute. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, lets not go in circles on this. We have reached another impasse and I think it's time to take a step back and look at our options. Terrillja, glad to see that you are back and I hope that you are feeling better. At this stage, I am curious as to exactly what mention of Allison Watson you feel is relevant to the article (if any at all)? Looking over the sources and the different states that the article has existed in, I can see that both arguments are valid. Ms. Sarita and Mervyn had reached a rough agreement on the article, that leaves your input to get a rough consensus. So what would it take for you to be in agreement here? Trusilver 03:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So, what's going on with this mediation? I have yet to see a response by Mervyn to my last posting here. I'm assuming that Terrillja is still feeling under the weather. The text (that no one agreed to have put into the article yet) is still in the article, even though I have expressed my thoughts on the last sentence in the passage. So...? Are we just waiting on Terrillja? – Ms. Sarita Confer 20:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
How about: His second wife, Allison Lance Watson is also a prominent animal rights activist and veteran crew member of the Sea Shepherd, and has been arrested during Sea Shepherd campaigns. Since there haven't been any sources which show that Paul Watson told her to do whatever, that covers her basic info, which provides background for the bio, shows she is an activist, and doesn't get off track. You get your bit about how she was arrested, and it doesn't go into a paragraph about how Paul Watson is the president of SSCS and grasp at straws for connections and how SSCS runs. --Terrillja talk 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Fine, everyone has spent enough time on this already where we could have all been contributing rather than arguing. And I know what compromise means. I'm not a 5 year old, don't treat me like one.--Terrillja talk 18:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Unsourced material
This biography of a living person contains many unsourced statements which have been tagged accordingly. Third party reliable sources must be provided for this information or it will be removed.
WP:Biographies of living people requires:
- “Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).“
- “Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.”
Let's get this article up to snuff people, or it may be deleted. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- In response to the last sentence, I don't think this article has any chance of being deleted. However, I will start working on it, piece-by-piece. – Ms. Sarita Confer 04:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps not the entire article, but unsourced material can be deleted, and there is a LOT of unsourced material here that might be appropriate for deletion. Better to work on WP:RS. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to take a glance at [20]. It is published by the subject of this article, and covers a lot of the info you tagged. I will also be adding other sources, but this one should ease a lot of your worries about unsourced information. --Terrillja talk 04:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Self-published information is not WP:RS. Needs to be published by somebody else. This is not a blog.
- Moreover, Paul Watson says Paul Watson is NOT a reliable source: "According to the New York Times, in his book Earthforce! Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, 'as Ronald Reagan did.'"(Militants sink two of Iceland's Whaling Vessels. New York Times, November 10, 1986.) Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well WP:BLP says that selfpub is ok, as long as the entire article isn't based on selfpub sources. As for the things I sourced to his bio, they are pretty vanilla things, such as his DOB and his early life, not really controversial. Anything more questionable or more recent I will get an outside ref on. As far as making things up, I can't really see him making up his working for expo 67, since it really isn't worth making up your early work history, however it provides a bit of info on his early life. --Terrillja talk 05:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to take a glance at [20]. It is published by the subject of this article, and covers a lot of the info you tagged. I will also be adding other sources, but this one should ease a lot of your worries about unsourced information. --Terrillja talk 04:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps not the entire article, but unsourced material can be deleted, and there is a LOT of unsourced material here that might be appropriate for deletion. Better to work on WP:RS. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- The relevant policy is WP:SPS (BLP just copies it). Self-published sources can be used for facts about an author, subject to some limits. The most relevant ones in this case are the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article; it is not unduly self-serving; and it does not involve claims about third parties. Will Beback talk 05:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see if I understand you correctly: if the author of self-published information advocates fabricating information, you still think that person is a reliable source? What sense does that make?
- "According to the New York Times, in his book Earthforce! Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, 'as Ronald Reagan did.'" ("Militants sink two of Iceland's Whaling Vessels." New York Times, November 10, 1986.) Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's an unusual circumstance. In part, there's a liar's dilemna - perhaps he was lying when he advocated lying? His assertions probably need to be attributed, as in "According to Watson, he has ..." Will Beback talk 02:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- So, which time was he lying? But more to the point, why would a confessed liar be considered a reliable source about anything? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Advocating lying isn't the same as confessing to lying. Is there any time when he is known to have lied or been unreliable source for his own actions? If so then that would tend to impeach his reliability. Will Beback talk 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you miss (or choose to ignore) the point: If a person advocates lying, how can that person in future ever be considered a reliable source? Cannot be, logically, because one would never know when he was lying and when telling the truth, therefore rendering ALL that persons statements unreliable. Or are you just quibbling? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Advocating lying isn't the same as confessing to lying. Is there any time when he is known to have lied or been unreliable source for his own actions? If so then that would tend to impeach his reliability. Will Beback talk 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- So, which time was he lying? But more to the point, why would a confessed liar be considered a reliable source about anything? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Honestly, for one, by using the NY times quote, you have no idea of the context. I don't have the book, perhaps you could find it and provide the context of the quote. Either way, the things that have been attributed to his official bio in this article are things which are not unduly self serving, and honestly not controversial. Other things, like taking his account of the shooting, sure, take his reliability into question, but for what I referenced to him is pretty plain stuff. Would he lie about his DOB to somehow make himself look better? I think you are making the issue over facts which really are not worth the hassle. I have purposely stayed away from referencing things to his bio that are contested, such as his founding of Greenpeace (Referenced to Time magazine). If there is a specific example of Watson lying, then we can go from there, but I agree with Will, how can you know if someone is lying when they say they lied. If someone is unreliable, then how can you rely on them saying they are unreliable?
As it stands now, I will stay away from referencing him on more controversial facts or actions, but I see no reason to not reference him for the basic facts of his early life, which are not unduly self serving, and have no reason to be made up, and of which he would be the only source.--Terrillja talk 15:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- yes, a classic liar's paradox of logical contradictions, with a twist. Fhue (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources
WP:RS says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources...if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." For some personal information, Watson may be the only source available. But trivia (WP:UNDUE) and self-serving statements from Watson or Sea Shephard's homepage really has no place here. This is an encyclopedia article, not hero worship. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- What information are you talking about? If it's which college he went to then we can probably use it. If it's something "unduly self-serving" or concerning 3rd-parties then we probably can't. Either way, let's deal with specific assertions and sources. Will Beback talk 01:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
CBC interview
Looking for input on how exactly to cite this. The interview is readily available on the internet in a subtitled form, however there is not a separate transcript published. So would I want to cite the video with subtitles directly or how would one cite this exactly? Also, what is the deal with copyrights on old radio broadcasts, can they be linked to (or cited)?--Terrillja talk 05:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Terrorism
This article talks about him being an ativist, why doesn't it mention the fact that he is a terrorist that is engaged in illegal activities? To me this article is pretty much biased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.97.12.171 (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Calling Watson a terrorist would be subject to controversy. The fact is that Watson is an activist. There is no denying this. Terrorism is a form of activism, but activism is not necessarily terrorism. Watson, himself, does not agree with others' claims that he is a terrorist. To call him a terrorist in the article as if it were fact would violate Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy. – Ms. Sarita Confer 15:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- IF you don't mind my asking, what part of Biographies of Living Persons is it a violation of? It's a rather lengthy policy, some more specificity would be nice. I mean, just because Watson doesn't consider himself a terrorist doesn't mean he isn't. Does Osama bin Laden agree with the US, UK, and pretty much every other country in the world considering him a terrorist? Members of Al Qaeda, the Irish Republican Army (the branches still active, anyways), FARC, Hezbollah, HAMAS, the Basque ETA, etc don't consider themselves terrorists. Does that mean they can't be referred to as such? I think this seems like political correctness, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. SpudHawg948 (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP:TERRORIST explains everything we need to know. Term is typically avoided but can be used if sourced. "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears." Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- IF you don't mind my asking, what part of Biographies of Living Persons is it a violation of? It's a rather lengthy policy, some more specificity would be nice. I mean, just because Watson doesn't consider himself a terrorist doesn't mean he isn't. Does Osama bin Laden agree with the US, UK, and pretty much every other country in the world considering him a terrorist? Members of Al Qaeda, the Irish Republican Army (the branches still active, anyways), FARC, Hezbollah, HAMAS, the Basque ETA, etc don't consider themselves terrorists. Does that mean they can't be referred to as such? I think this seems like political correctness, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. SpudHawg948 (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Watson's self-esteem is not at issue. (From what i've read about him, he doesnt even seem to mind being called a terrorist, or at least is so used to it that he can deflect it quite well.) It's a loaded term which has, over time, taken on meaning beyond "someone who causes terror." And just because you don't agree with his form of activism, or don't want to bother reading the wikipedia policy, doesn't mean he is what you say he is. His opponents call him a terrorist because it is inflammatory shorthand, and makes for good sound bites. Fhue (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Anyway, as Cptnono pointed out, WP:TERRORIST makes this perfectly clear: “Terrorist” is a pejorative label and is to be avoided. There’s actually a debate / edit war going on right now in one of the September 11 related articles as to whether al Qaeda / the attackers should be called terrorists. — NRen2k5(TALK), 22:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Shooting Retraction (term used in press release not if it happened)
Please see the discussion here Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for those links. Here's the problem we have on this page, I think the way we are using the phrase "fired warning shots" is misleading in the article. It's apparant from the quotes, video and numerous reports that the whalers fired warning ball devices we usually call "flash bangs". The phrase "fired warning shots" in our lexicon means I shot a gun at you to warn you. I think it's unanimously agreed that the Japaneese did not shoot any gun as a warning as no one recalls a gun being displayed or used. Paul Watson claims to have been attacked by an unseen sniper, this has nothing to do with "warning balls". I think to underline the point the second news release in the above link clarifies the nature of the devices fired. Can we clean up this so that it does not look like we are twisting the words of the Japanese to say that a gun was fired? Thanks. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Greenpeace again
The claim that Mr. Watson was a “co-founder” of Greenpeace is a contentious one, judging by the three references saying Greenpeace disputs that claim. Do we have any reliable sources definitively confirming the “co-founder” claim? If not, I think the articles should say that he was an “early member” instead. — NRen2k5(TALK), 18:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I saw a good source on it earlier. Think it might be on the Sea Shepherd page somewhere (I'll have to poke around). Basically, it looks like he was one of the first members and had a leadership role. Cofounded is used but in all reality it looks like he was one of the first handful or dozen or something like that. Since there is debate (both Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace primary sources) we should probably pull from one of the more reliable books or newspapers mentioned and use an extra line of detail. Clarify the "cofounded" line and just be done with it I say.Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Follow up: I can't figure out a way to reword this in the lead without making it sound silly. It reads "He is (ie Wikipedia's editors have found that Watson is) a co-founder but Greenpeace disputes it. I am removing until it is worked in the lead or it can stay in the sections below.
- I also removed the Time source. It isn't that I disagree with it but because it disregards any criticism and sounds overly complimentary without opposing views. Also, if we ever want to get this up to Good Article status, this is against the guidelines since it is not covered in article.
- Removed (for convenience of working with and reincluding as needed):
- ...and the co-founder of Greenpeace, although Greenpeace disputes this assertion.[1][2][3] He was named by Time Magazine as one of its "Environmental Heroes of the 20th Century" in 2000.[4]
Cptnono (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Terrorist, again
I've removed this material [21] which was added by a newly registered account TheRealist101. My edit was undone by KenWalker who I believe was well meaning but did not look at the citations closely, and I've removed the material again. [22]
The first section that was added "... and suspected Eco-Terrorist" is not backed up by the citation given. [23] This article states: "Watson’s detractors are no less adamant. Officials in Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Costa Rica have denounced him; some have even called him a terrorist." but the article does not describe or refer to him as a "suspected Eco-Terrorist". The term terrorist by its very nature is also a loaded word and WP:TERRORIST makes it quite clear that the way in which it was used here (and especially in the article lede) is inappropriate. The controversy section already covers this and deals with this much better.
The second section that was added "The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society led by Paul Watson of the Whale Wars television show are considered eco-terrorists by the FBI for their acts of violence." fails verification with the citation given. [24] The congressional testimony states: "Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." This does not mention Watson at all nor does it describe him as an eco-terrorist.
Both of these additions by TheRealist101 appear to fall afoul of WP:BLP and are WP:SYN / original research. The reference used for the second citation would be usable in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society article, and it appears to already be used appropriately in the criticism section of that article.
--Tothwolf (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clearly expressed basis for deleting the content. Although it does seem to me that the language deleted could have been adjusted so that it came within the sources cited (and would have been tougher to justify deletion if it had started out that way) on balance it is best deleted because of the way in which the sources are phrased. I guess if the FBI wants to actually accuse someone directly of something, they know how to do it. Thanks for assuming good faith in my edits as they were intended as such even though they have turned out to be inappropriate for the reasons you have given. --KenWalker | Talk 20:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why are there no references to the FBI article or the CSIS article? You guys are able to quote Paul Watson in his own article saying he's not a terrorist. Please tell me you don't find terrorism experts in the American and Canadian governments less reputable. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sea Shepherd Conservation Society#CriticismCptnono (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why are there no references to the FBI article or the CSIS article? You guys are able to quote Paul Watson in his own article saying he's not a terrorist. Please tell me you don't find terrorism experts in the American and Canadian governments less reputable. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
4th Canadian sailor dude
So the article still reads "a fourth one is still missing" in parentheses after the thing about the three Canadian seal hunters. It's been more than a year now since the incident. Is he still missing, or does the article need to be updated? If so, is this man now considered deceased? Has he been found? Reading that bit makes me curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent points! I look forward to seeing the results of your research.- sinneed (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Added Australian Visa Denial - Controversy section
I added a section detailing Watson's comments on being denied a renewal for his Australian Visa. Would other editors kindly review that section and see if it's well written for a bio and edit accordingly? Thanks! :) --0nonanon0 (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
South Park 'Whale Whores" episode
I agree that the Wikipedia:BLP rule should probably exclude insertion of the South Park critique into this article so I suggest moving that paragraph to the cultural reference or critique area of the Whale Wars show article. Alatari (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
He doesn't seem too upset about his lampooning by Matt and Trey. He has the episode advertised on his MySpace page. Alatari (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- That is great, but it has nothing to do with WP. I don't mind if someone refers to me by several insulting names (general response is digital), but should I ever have a WP article, those names can't appear in it, whether I care or not.- Sinneed 15:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the South Park episode merits a major mention since it expresses opposition to Paul Watson not on the basis of his anti-whaling stance but because of the perceived dishonesty, sensationalism and hysteria of his media product. I would say that this is an important point and should not be censored within this article just because Mr. Watson has espouses a cause undeniably popular to most people in the West, include the editors of this article. 94.7.72.193 (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Since South Park is not a wp:RS, the mention would need to be from some other source. If, for example, the Washington Post did an article about the episode, we could include content from that article, so long as the content and the source met wp:BLP and the kajillion other WP rules.- Sinneed 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, a simple plot summary of the South Park episode can use the episode itself as a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:PLOTSUM#Citations. As long as a plot summary of the South Park episode does not get into WP:SYN territory and stays contained to its own clearly defined section then I don't see it falling afoul of WP:BLP. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- In its own article, sure. Here? No. Because it would seem to tie it to this
articleindividual.- Sinneed 16:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)- The episode itself explicitly names Paul Watson so I don't see how that would be an issue. It isn't uncommon at all to mention a parody of an individual in a BLP article and South Park parodies are no exception. Personally, I don't much care if the episode is mentioned here or not but I'm just trying to point out that the various policies and guidelines do not say that the South Park episode cannot be mentioned and summarised here. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't much care (though I oppose) if the episode is mentioned here or not but I'm just trying to point out that the policies and guidelines say that the South Park episode cannot be mentioned or summarised here without a supporting wp:RS. As I read things, it will fail wp:BLP, South Park is a reliable source only for itself under wp:SELFPUB, not for Paul Watson. I think I understand your position, but I can't support it. If the many Many MANY wp:reliable sources that talk about South Park mention the connection, then we can use the content of those to talk about the episode here... as above.- Sinneed 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Based on the rapid-fire reverting (not counting the vandalism), it certainly looks like you cared if the episode was mentioned here. Rephrasing what I said above with an opposite polarity to try to reinforce your opinion that the policies and guidelines somehow say something that they don't in order to convince others that the episode cannot be mentioned here is also not a very wise thing to do. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Based on the rapid-fire reverting" - possible misreading of the log. On the disagreement
.: If your words were wise, the reflection was wise. If not, then not. Again, if we know the Myspace page is his, then we are golden, and can mention the episode to the extent the source does, under wp:SELFPUB.- Sinneed 22:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Based on the rapid-fire reverting" - possible misreading of the log. On the disagreement
- Based on the rapid-fire reverting (not counting the vandalism), it certainly looks like you cared if the episode was mentioned here. Rephrasing what I said above with an opposite polarity to try to reinforce your opinion that the policies and guidelines somehow say something that they don't in order to convince others that the episode cannot be mentioned here is also not a very wise thing to do. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't much care (though I oppose) if the episode is mentioned here or not but I'm just trying to point out that the policies and guidelines say that the South Park episode cannot be mentioned or summarised here without a supporting wp:RS. As I read things, it will fail wp:BLP, South Park is a reliable source only for itself under wp:SELFPUB, not for Paul Watson. I think I understand your position, but I can't support it. If the many Many MANY wp:reliable sources that talk about South Park mention the connection, then we can use the content of those to talk about the episode here... as above.- Sinneed 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- The episode itself explicitly names Paul Watson so I don't see how that would be an issue. It isn't uncommon at all to mention a parody of an individual in a BLP article and South Park parodies are no exception. Personally, I don't much care if the episode is mentioned here or not but I'm just trying to point out that the various policies and guidelines do not say that the South Park episode cannot be mentioned and summarised here. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- In its own article, sure. Here? No. Because it would seem to tie it to this
- Actually, a simple plot summary of the South Park episode can use the episode itself as a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:PLOTSUM#Citations. As long as a plot summary of the South Park episode does not get into WP:SYN territory and stays contained to its own clearly defined section then I don't see it falling afoul of WP:BLP. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- If WP in a formal way "knows" that his myspace page is his, we can cite *IT'S* content under wp:SELFPUB... but only what he says about the episode. It would not cover other content of the episode itself. Not even the bits in the previews. it would not, for example, cover the content from anon. We are not censoring.- Sinneed 15:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- ^ "Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace: some facts". Greenpeace. Retrieved 2009-03-30.
- ^ Vidal, John (January 2, 2006). "Greenpeace fights sea battle with rival anti-whaling ship". Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
- ^ "Paul Watson bio". Tribute.ca. Tribute Entertainment Media Group. Retrieved 2009-02-04.
- ^ Golden, Frederic (2000-04-26). "A Century Of Heroes". Time Magazine. Time Inc. Retrieved 2009-01-29.