Talk:Paul Watson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 [1]. 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)

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)

(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

Resolved

 – Was able to get the tape and verify the text. --Terrillja _talk 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Who said his self-esteem was at issue? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

adding not forum tag just in case it devolves into that.Cptnono (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

simple word play on spud's point "Watson doesn't consider himself a terrorist" (admittedly, a bit of a stretch; but so is using the term 'terrorist' to describe an extreme activist.) Fhue (talk) 19:07, 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)

he isnt a terrorist in the sense that hes never killed anyone, destorys only illegal vesseles, and according to the U.n. charter for nature, non-governmental grouos can enforce conservation laws. and his never been taken to court, so he really isnt a terrorist in any sense, except for biased people who just sit around typing stuff, sometimes making money from do such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2010 (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)

I think common sense rules in this one.Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 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. He was named by Time Magazine as one of its "Environmental Heroes of the 20th Century" in 2000.

Cptnono (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

he's the 8th member of greenpeace, his officaial membership number is, and always was 007. (they started counting with 000 for bob hunter) 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thread continued below, Paul is a co-founder of greenpeace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrBeacon (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrorist, again

I've removed this material [2] 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. [3]

The first section that was added "... and suspected Eco-Terrorist" is not backed up by the citation given. [4] 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. [5] 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)

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 article individual.- 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)

I don't much care for your insinuation. Do we need to take your comments to a noticeboard? --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.- Sinneed 01:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rewriting as the response does not seem to match what I wrote.

"Based on the rapid-fire reverting" - possible misreading of the log? I restored the bit about South Park as I read the removal as being part of the vandalherd. That was the only reversion. Then another editor removed part of it... and I removed the rest.

In the disagreement: If your words were wise (correct or incorrect), the reflection was wise (and correct or incorrect). If they were not wise, then the reflection was not wise.

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 01:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Consider yourself uw-npa'd over the insinuation you made above with your If your words were wise comment. Yes, you have a way with words and phrasing things, but don't assume others won't have a level of comprehension high enough to not be able to actually grasp what you were implying. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't be sure it's his myspace page. Actually it's very likely it is not. I've done little work on BLP pages so I'll back onto just the episode page. Alatari (talk) 08:01, 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.- Sinneed 15:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but what exactly is the issue with mentioning south park satire related to Watson? The episode explicitly mentioned him. Why would we need any other source? We have articles that cover creative works that don't use third party sources to explain the plot and related summaries. The episode is the source and easily verifiable. But if you instist, here's a reliable source commenting on it [6] Mattnad (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

wp:BLP - I can't even imagine how giving South Park's views about an individual would conceivably be a good thing. "mention" - How? There has been no proposed edit that I am aware of. I can't imagine a mention that would belong in the article that could go in the article without a wp:RS. Does anyone have a proposed edit... bearing in mind wp:BLP applies everywhere? The only proposal I saw was to restore the "critique".- Sinneed 01:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot completely the "major mention"...dishonesty...hysteria. Maybe there is a way it can be done. I just can't imagine it.- Sinneed 02:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we can say something along the lines of "Watson was the subject of satire in the 2009 Southpark episode, Whale Whores" without violating any BLP guidelines and we could have the Christian Science Monitor article as a reliable source. BLP allows for contentious material that's properly sourced. Remember, a BLP is not supposed to be a puff piece. Mattnad (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

... thus, my repeated ... "if we can find a wp:RS"... over and over. And now there is at least one... and I see other wp:BLP using Myspace, Twitter, Facebook under wp:SELFPUB.- Sinneed 15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And the Southpark episode itself is a reliable source and easily verifiable (after all it's online for free viewing) - we could have cited it. WP:RS does not prohibit that use. The episode is a primary source and here's what WP:RS says, "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." With appropriate caution, we could have easily provided similar factual descriptions as are used in the plot summary of the Whale Whores article. While we have several options outside of the episode, I was not happy to see what appears to be an (overly) narrow application of WP:RS to exclude unflattering content in a BLP.Mattnad (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and we have {{cite video}} for citing such sources. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture

I added a pop culture section with a proposed blurb about the SP episode, along the lines of what Mattnad suggested above.- Sinneed 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are adding a citation needed tag when the CSM source is titled "South Park puts spotlight on Paul Watson and his “Whale Wars”", one of the sections of the story is titled "Whale Wars", + the cite episode template has been added. We don't need a quote since it is an optional parameter. It is obvious to anyone looking at the sources that Whale Wars was part of the satire. We also have the ability to summarize sources so a direct quote being used in the article is not required. I don't want to edit war over something so trivial so can you explain what your concern is? Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Text was added stating that the episode satirized (or other words) "Whale Wars". While this is clear by inspection we need either:

• A wp:RS that *SAYS* it. Since I don't see it in the source, I ask for a quote to back up the statement. Unless the episode itself says "we are making fun of Whale Wars" or similar, it isn't a source. The episode is a source for itself... what it says... what it does...
• Or to let the reader see the name and draw own conclusion -- wp:SYNTH applies if we do the inference for them...

The CN flag has been repeatedly removed. Please either leave it in, so that someone can provide the source or take out the wp:OR if there isn't one, or satisfy it by providing a quote, if it is right there and I am just not seeing it. Please. - Sinneed 02:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Oops. Take a look at my above reasoning and let me know if you still see a problem.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: It is also sated clearly in the title of the EW article. You can also do a ctrl+f search the CSM story for "Whale Wars" and get some good commentary. Did you look at the sources?Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

::::(edit conflict) - Great then it will be trivial for you to quote it.- Sinneed 03:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Headlines very generally don't help us, even in the very most reliable sources (EW=not) they are often very very very misleading. Please, we don't need a quote in the article... an Edit summary ... a quote= (best)... or here on the talk page. If anyone will just put it ANYWHERE, if I can match to the article *I'll* add teh dratted thing. And to repeat... this entire round of silliness over adding a South Park episode to a wp:BLP is ludicrous - Parkinson's Law of Triviality example of excellence.- Sinneed 03:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And *pssst* I *ADDED* the source. So yes. No claim of perfection. Just a request for a quote.- Sinneed 03:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(retract and outdent) - Actually - take whatever action you feel appropriate. I withdraw all opinion and all interest. Good day.- Sinneed 03:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool.Cptnono (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul's mySpace response

I still can't verify if it's his actual MySpace account (didn't look too hard) but if it's an imposter it's certainly pretty good imitation. Anyway he responds in an extensive way and is happy that he and his show have reached the level of Scientology, Tom Cruise and other famous entities to get lampooned on South Park. I'm proud of his sense of humor and dedication to his cause. Alatari (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Myspace is not RS.

It's self-published information. He likes that the episode has broadened his causes awareness. An editor above made it clear that Paul's self published works are RS for his WP page. Alatari (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The See Shepherd Society's printing of Paul Watson's response to the episode. That's a reliable source. Alatari (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Although many would call Watson a controversial figure, it is not appropriate to use adjectives like "controversial" in the opening description of who he is, because that is an opinion about someone, rather than being a verifiable fact. Opening descriptions in encyclopedias are supposed to be all fact, and then issues of 'controversy' are introduced later in the article.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Source for second name Franklin?

Is there any source for his second name Franklin? I don't find any. Thank you for your help. --KurtR (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a good and reliable source for it: Official Document of a Canadian Court --KurtRa

Anti-seal hunting activities Section

The first sentence in this section needs to be split into at least 2 sentences. As it is now, it both introduces the topic (there was an incident), and comments on it (Watson thinks so and so). Also the title should probably be Anti seal-hunting activities (or changed completely), as the topic is NOT about hunting activities that are anti-seal. ---Aner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.215.130 (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of FOX news citations

Please don't remove news sources just because you disagree with their perspective. They are the news, we are editors, let's quote them neutrally, not pretend they don't exist. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Specifically: " 22:20, 24 January 2010 Terrillja (talk | contribs) (32,960 bytes) (→On the label "Terrorist": read the fox ref, they refer to sinking a Japanese ship = clearly no clue what they are talking about, therefore unreliable"... My comment to that is that half of the people view the SSCS as responsible for having intetionally revved engines to place them in the path of the Maru2. (as per Maru video) and Half the people blame the Maru for steering into the Ady (as per Barker video) Regarding us as editors, it's not for us to take sides to say which notable commentator we agree with. As neutral editors, we present all sides to the intelligent reader and they decide, right? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but you don't sick your head in the sand and act like the sky is pink because someone says so when they are clearly wrong. If they can't get their facts straight about whose ship was sunk, then they likely don't get what they are talking about. The ref does nothing to support your point, it just makes the commentator look like a fool who can't get his facts straight. If I added a bit about SSCS sinking a japanese ship and cited that you would be all over it, but if it supports whatever you're trying to say it's fine. Once again you are making no sense with your edits.--Terrillja _talk 22:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Calm down everyone. I support our resident anonymous' addition of the Fox citation because he is not using it for anything else except to reference the opinion of a Fox News commentator. - I consider that acceptable, and in this context, notable. No matter how much rubbish Glenn Beck spouts a sentence later. Ingolfson (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well according to 68.xxx there are loads of sources which support what they are trying to say. So I think it's more than reasonable to request that they choose one which does not contain obvious factual errors as there apparently is a myriad of people saying the same thing. If there really are as many sources as they insist, then their time would be better served picking another one instad of arguing over one which is questionable at best.--Terrillja _talk 16:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There ae not loads of sources that support what Paul Watson is arguing though. Paul engaged this specific one (probably because it was the weakest). --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are arguing that we need a source which says the Ady Gil tried to cut in front of the Japanese ship or one which says what Watson said in response to that? There are plenty of both, see Ady Gil. There is nothing in the ref to support "the end justifying the means" comment anyways, so what are you trying to say? And where did this magical "half" figure come from? Make up your mind about what you are arguing for, keep it relevant to what you are trying to reference and please don't come up with figures as you see fit (ex. half (of which people? according to whom?)). And as for revving, revving != to moving. A boat is like a car, they have a clutch and a gearbox. You can rev and rev at neutral and your boat won't move an inch, I think you are looking for a different term there.--Terrillja _talk 23:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clear to the casual observer that in one video, the SSCS vessel accelerates it's vessel into the whalers (as shown by the wake). In another video it appears that the large whaling vessel turns and approaches the SSCS vessel (as shown by the large ship turning). A quick survey of forums will demonstrate ample ammount of opinion supporting both views. Our good friends Mr.Beck and Mr.Watson however have provided notable people citing one another's views, which is what is needed for the purpose of encyclopeddic documentation. Edit: I think this article is doing a good job of documenting the blame game without participating in it. --199.178.222.251 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Shounan Maru turning toward the Ady Gil says nothing about intent. The Bob Barker was harassing it at the time and the Ady Gil is a much smaller boat. So the manoeuvre was just as likely to avoid the Bob Barker as it was to strike the Ady Gil. Likewise, Bethune’s throwing his vessel forward into the Shounan Maru’s hull could have been a simple mistake. But the important thing here is that stating the intent of either party leading up to the collision – at least at present – is an inappropriate injection of POV. The facts are that the Ady Gil accelerated into the impact at the last moment, and the Shounan Maru was turning starboard at the time of the impact. The intents of the operators of the vessels are something we don’t really know. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, very well said. --199.178.222.252 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"That Watson and his organization are too violent/incompetent to avoid such incidents is a foregone conclusion." Does anyone else agree that this is a little too much like libel? Certainly seems to me to be POV - at the very least it contributes nothing to the discussion. I suggest it be removed. The comment also seems to be attempting to assert POV as "the facts" while veering awfully close to debate over what happened rather than what the sources cited have to say about what happened. Having said that, I do agree that speculating about intent is purely POV. Aikidesigns (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

...And none of what any of you has said has anything to do with the text that is being "cited". The reference says nothing about the end justifying the means. Ignore the whodoneit argument, the reference is not supporting the argument that the sentence is making.--Terrillja _talk 02:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain what your contention is at the moment. I thought the discussion was using notable opinion (like Beck and Watson) and agreeing as NPOV editors to note that opinion despite our own. I think there is a consensus that Beck's and Watson's views are notable and should thus remain included in this article as such (opinions). --199.178.222.252 (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have two issues with how it is currently. 1) the reference is unreliable IMO because it contains incorrect statements, anything else they say is thus questionable as they have shown that they are not aware of all the facts. 2) the text that this is being used to cite in no way corresponds to any of the content in the reference, however misguided it is. The comment about the end justifying the means is never mentioned at all and is original research.--Terrillja _talk 05:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see your second point, that you disagree with the editors summary of what Beck said. No prob, I reworded the summary to absolutely undeniably supported by the text. Your 1st point though I think you are missing what Watson is quoting. He is specifically quoting that FOX citation we are using. It is notable commentary (even if it is wrong). What is factual is that Glen Beck said it and that Watson quoted it. All of that is well documented, reliable and encyclopedic because these very notable people are discussing the core issue of what constitues terrorism and whether terrorism is inherrantly bad. Very pertinent stuff to our culture. --199.178.222.252 (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

you have to use reliabl sorces. fox is a wing of the republican party, so thats not reliabel. you know glenn beck? he said that sea shepherd sunk a japense whaler the same week the ady gil got sunk. if thats not biased, what is? --69.115.204.217 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Beck wasn't referenced for a fact, he was referenced for his opinion. What could possibly be a more reliable source for that than Beck himself? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

well, thats true. as long as they dont use them as fact refs there good. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bioblurb - NN as far as I can see

This appears to be linkspam/promotion. It seems to give wp:UNDUE weight to a non-notable production. I removed it immediately once only. If restored, it needs substantive coverage in a published, generally wp:reliable source. Without RS, I expect to delete it after a short time for the adding editor to support it or explain in WP terms why more sourcing is not needed.- Sinneed 15:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A movie that's been shown at notable film festivals can be presumed to be noteworthy enough to include in a subject's article, I think. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to reread, since I missed that... *blush*. I swear when I looked at the IMDB page it only had a naked listing.- Sinneed 16:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Google Is Your Friend :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you found a better source. No, really, Google == not my friend. Google hates me. I'll fix the IMDB link, weak as it is, as it fails.- Sinneed 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed IMDB link.- Sinneed 16:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

On the notability... (not disagreeing in this case) based just on the listing as I read it... it looked like just another promo shot. There are a kajillion, we can't have them all, the article would be *huge*... we would need "list of promo movies about Paul Watson". - Sinneed 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Notability and reliable sourcing are two separate policies for two separate purposes, and being shown at a notable film festival doesn’t necessarily make a movie meet either of them. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability does not directly limit article content. See [[WP:NNC]. Weight and proper sourcing still matter but notability isn't a factor.Cptnono (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree about what? The movie isn't being used as a source... the source is being used to show that the movie existed and was notable. I can't agree with Cpt on notability not being a factor. If it were not, if fear we would drown in content about any widely known figure. To me, wp:trivia or fan-cruft are hard to keep out (or hate-cruft if that is even a weak neologism), and notability is the measure I see useful in that. - Sinneed 22:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

“Mutineer” statement

User:Ingolfson fact-tagged the statement about Watson acting like a “mutineer” in Greenpeace. I researched it just now, and both Greenpeace and Watson agree with Robert Hunter’s account, although they disagree on the title of the book he gave it in. Greenpeace says it was in The Greenpeace Chronicles and Watson says it was in Warriors of the Rainbow. As far as I can tell from Amazon, there exists a Warriors of the Rainbow and a The Greenpeace Chronicle, and they may likely be two different publishings of the same book – the dates and lengths are 1979/1980 and 454/448 respectively. I’ve given Watson the benefit of the doubt on the book title. I think I’ll also source the statement to the Greenpeace website in another minute. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

paul is a co-founder of greenpeace.

now, i know greenpeace disputes it, but he was in the "don't make a wave commite" which was more or less the precurses to greenpeace. then, he was the 8th member of greenpeace, with his official number being 007 (they started from 000 for bob hunter) therefore, i dont see how he cant be considered a founding member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the sources and one on of the parties dispute it. It isn't up to us to decide. Please see the archived discussion. Someone recently removed "influential" which I think was an accurate way to present the information while preventing this dispute. Cptnono (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the influential. It was compromise wording, and seems adequately supported by the sources. His influence was such that he was ousted from the board, and his ouster remains an issue years later.- Sinneed 22:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the OP is correct, Watson was in a Sierra Club group which evolved into Greenpeace. The fact that Greenpeace disputes his co-founder claim is indeed relevant but other sources support him, so I think the info should be returned to the introduction, something like it appeared before: "...co-founder of Greenpeace, although Greenpeace disputes this assertion.^[2][3][4]"
      In this talkpage section above "Greenpeace_again" (from July-Aug.2009) there is some confusion, perhaps about which citations were for which part of the controversy: "The claim that Mr. Watson was a 'co-founder' of Greenpeace is a contentious one, judging by the three references saying Greenpeace disputes that claim." Those three references were:

• Greenpeace "He was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder." [7]
• The Guardian "...Paul Watson, who co-founded Greenpeace in the 1970s..." [8]
• Tribute.ca "Watson was one of the co-founders of the Greenpeace Foundation." [9]

Additional sources that support Watson's claim (which I found with a simple Google search for "Paul Watson co-founder Greenpeace" on 4th and 5th pages of search results): Newsweek [10], The Telegraph (UK) [11], another Guardian story (more recent) [12], and The Sierra Club [13]. PrBeacon (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He is an influential and early member is not disputed. Him being a founder is. Even the sources that say founder bring this up often. Saying "He is a founder BUT" unintentionally introduces bias towards his claim by giving it prominence validity of an reportedly incorrect label. it could also do the opposite buy introducing the rebuttal. "Watson says he is..." might be a good second line to include but I assume editors will then start adding in the same info (NO NO NO NO lines) that was in before. Go into detail in the body and summarize it in the lead. I could also find just as many sources saying he is not. We shouldn't restart this unless you want two paragraphs of rebuttals in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it's worth revisiting, but I see your point about bias for/against his claim, although you may be overthinking it. The sources that say co-founder only mention the official Greenpeace position as counterclaim. Perhaps a compromise is to avoid the words founder and co-founder with something like what I initially said above, "a Sierra Club group which evolved into Greenpeace" citing this Guardian story from last month.

      If you can find any third-party source(s) that dispute his claim, thus supporting Greenpeace's rebuttal, then I'd be more inclined to leave it just in the body. I wonder if anyone has talked to other co-founders, some of whom have since resigned, others have died. On a side note, can anyone think of a parallel example where an organization and one of its supposed founders has split up? PrBeacon (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Off of just one quick search and a little memory, some sources disregard the found claim altogether and just say "early member".[14] Furthermore, newspapers don't have to be as neutral as we do. One of the British sources (Telegraph if I recall correctly) and NatGeo sources used are awesome for info but aren't exactly at our intended level. "Label but dispute" is simply not acceptable here.

I'm not understanding the Sierra Club thing. The Guardian source says it is a claim (which does not provide validity) with "Watson claims to have co-founded both Greenpeace and Greenpeace International in the early 1970s" Am I looking at a different source?Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Look further down, about four paragraphs more. (using your browser's Find on "evolve" should jump right there). But I didn't see that line you mention about "Watson claims" which is odd since it's the same writer in other Guardian articles. Hmmm. PrBeacon (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I ctrfd "sierra" and "club" and got nothing. Maybe you didn't understand my previous note. We use sources that do not follow our neutrality standards. We have to word them differently. For example "claim" as the writer used it is to be avoided here. The NatGeo and Telegraph pieces are used multiple times in the Ops article but it doesn't mean we have the same complimentary tone tone. Regardless, it all equals the same thing: We have different standards. You write up your proposal with a source at the end (so there is no confussion) of the line and we can go from there.Cptnono (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understood your point about the sources, I just didn't have anything to add to that thread. I also thought you meant that you didn't find the wording I mentioned. Anyway, I don't know if we can untangle this mess, or if we even should, and it appears there is enough doubt in 3rd party sources. I'm fine with how it's presented at the moment, mentioning Watson's counterclaim of revisionism. (This is exactly the sort of infighting I refer to over in the anti-whaling discussion.) On a related note, in the body text for Activism > Early Years there's a disconnect-- it seems to skip a couple of beats before the next SSCS subsection. Watson's revelatory 'incident' is mentioned but not described what it was, and the two lines about the Greenpeace split seem out of place since the rest of those details (ousted from board, then left GP) were moved to the Controvery section. I'm not quite sure how to reconcile those two areas, now. PrBeacon (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article says this: "In 1969 Paul Watson protested against Russian nuclear testing with the Don't Make a Wave committee, which later evolved into Greenpeace. He then tried to disrupt nuclear tests in the Pacific", but this is very wrong information. The Don't Make a Wave Committee was founded earliest at 1970 and protested US nuclear testing at Alaska, and the Committees first "Greenpeace" protest journey took place in 1971. 89.27.56.101 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this article should add something to this discussion: [15] Pikolas (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not RS.Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The longer answer is that that source would have to be used under wp:SELFPUB... Sea shepherd can talk about itself, and we can use it, within limits. But when it talks about others, we can't use it: it is not a reliable source for information about others.- Sinneed 06:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And Watson admits and almost brags about not telling the truth so even more caution is required than is usual.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be worded something along the lines of "...often cited as being a co-founder of Greenpeace (refs (plural?)) although Greenpeace disputes this (ref)..."? Aikidesigns (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

8th member of greenpeace

while wheather or not pau's a founding meber of greenpeace is dispute, it's pure fact that he is the 8th member, with his offical membership number being 007. this should be stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, exactly. "Early member" seems sufficient. and if you also mean there's a james bond connection, i dont see it. PrBeacon (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

no, i didnt mean that. though it's a funny coincidence. i just think its worth mentioning that hes the 8th member, because that pretty much proves hes a founding member. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how being the 8th member in any way proves that he was a founding member. Plenty of groups have been founded by less than 8 people. Practically every rock band in existence, for example. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

oh i think I know what you mean: If we include the detail that he was eighth, let the reader decide how significant it is, or at least one might look into it further. i dont know, thats tricky. i'd have to see a 3rd party source. i forget what greenpeace says about member numbers, but i wouldnt be surprised if they dont provide it or say something else. PrBeacon (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

exactly what i intended. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

and this isnt about a rockband, it a international group that started with about 20-30 members, and before that was another organization, which paul also co-founded.69.115.204.217 (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And this is an encyclopedia. Find a reliable source asserting that Paul Watson was an actual co-founder and we can say so on Wikipedia. But not until then. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 05:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It was in there until someone decided to remove it. source Text: "One of the founders of Greenpeace, Mr Watson has since fallen out with the group which he describes as "the world's biggest feel-good organisation"." or source 2 Text: The animal rights protector Captain Paul Watson, who co-founded Greenpeace in the 1970s and later set up the more radical Sea Shepherd Conservation Society,--Terrillja _talk 15:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Those can be countered with other RS that say he i not or say there is a dispute. Just say it is disputed and leave it at that.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that there are sources, which apparently HG did not realize.--Terrillja _talk 00:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Source 2 says that he helped to set up the Greenpeace Foundation in 1972. At his own biography [16] Watson is referring the year 1972 as the founding of Greenpeace, as the official entity known as "Greenpeace" was born. However, the organization existed before that as the Don't Make a Wave Committee which was founded in 1970. The Committee was the one who organized the first protest with the "Greenpeace I" ship to Amchitka in 1971, then changed its official name to Greenpeace Foundation in 1972. Greenpeace itself views the first protest as the organizations beginning. As Greenpeace does not seem to have a clear founding date, but it rather evolved through different phases, it's hard to say who were the founders. Were the founders of The Don't Make a Wave Committee the founders, or the ones who were with the first protest, or the ones who set up the Committee as Greenpeace Foundation in 1972? 193.185.2.162 (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Those two sources are only recent news articles that, to me, seem to just have taken the claim at face value. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 13:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The press is allowed to do that. If they choose not to, they weasel word "x calls himself" "x claims to be", etc. If they take responsibility for it, as they do in those sources, that is their lookout, and WP editors may choose to include the content in the editors' words. If anyone feels the organs of the press failed, they may wish to take it up with the publisher. If the publisher retracts or updates its statements, WP will "care", but not until then.- Sinneed 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(section now merged with previous section, I think it's appropriate to combine these 2 current threads).
I agree but I still think the claim/counterclaim is important enough to go in the lead, so I'm changing my earlier concession. And not just because it's easy controversy or that Greenpeace is a major player. This dispute seems to fold into the bigger & current conflict between GP and SSCS, especially as it relates to Watson's outspoken role in the environmental community, and that at least one other founder (Bob Hunter) backed up his claim -- I'll try to find that source now. Yet the five RS that I listed above [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] (including Newsweek) call him a co-founder, Cptnono said there were other sources that disputed it (besides Greenpeace) but only listed one which called Watson an early member. All due respect, I also think NRen's assessment of sources was incorrect -- as I also state above although perhaps not directly enough -- last summer [22] when this was brought up before. PrBeacon (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The assessment that some writers may have been bamboozled is correct. Regardless, ther is nothing wrong with the info in the lead there is something wrong with "He WAS the cofounder but Greanpeace says no." It needs to be something along the lines of "here is a dispute. Watsons says x and Greepeace says y" Extra details should be in the body after that.Cptnono (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we do have to take in account the unclear founding time of Greenpeace when referring to founders. Some sources from PrBeacon [23], [24] and [25] says Watson was a founder, but in 1972. Greenpeace is usually referred having been born in 1971 from the first protest: Guardian [26], Newsweek [27], Los Angeles Times [28], BBC [29], Canadian Broadcasting Company [30]. The Don't Make A Wave Committee was founded latest in 1970 as they held the Amchitka concert to raise funds for the protest in 1970[31], [32]. There is some difference in the statements as to who founded the committee, as Greenpeace[33], an interview with some of the founders[34] and a book about Greenpeace (The Greenpeace Story) all have some variation on the founders, but none of them includes Paul Watson. The Sierra Club Magazine is ambiguous on the founding, as it says Watson joined a group (i.e. The Don't Make A Wave Committee) protesting the tests, not that he was one of the founders of that group[35]. The Don't Make A Wave Committee was renamed Greenpeace Foundation in 1972, so it was basically the same organization as The DMAWC [36].

This is quite difficult to convey shortly in the article without messing up the reader. The personal impression I have of all this is that Watson was not a co-founder of the Committee (i.e. Greenpeace) in 1970, but he was an important player when the Committee changed its name to Greenpeace in 1972 and nowdays he refers the renaming in 1972 as founding of Greenpeace so that he can call himself a co-founder. He probably has the membership card of Greenpeace number 007 because prior to the renaming the organization had a different name and hence couldn't have "Greenpeace member" cards. He does state in his biography that he is "a co-founder of Greenpeace in 1972"[37]. What I would actually suggest is renaming the article The Don't Make a Wave Committee to History of Greenpeace so that the issue can be explained in detail and the reader can make his or her own interpretations of these cited sources. Then adding "see also: History of Greenpeace" to this article.Shubi (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As always, though, we have to take anything from Watson himself with a grain of salt, considering his fondness for dishonesty (calling himself a Captain being an example that comes immediately to mind). — Lord Emperor TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 19:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@Shubi: The three sources you mention, the ones which exclude Watson from list of founders, are all from Greenpeace. Since they are one party in the dispute, we must look to secondary sources -- sources which may or may not get the date right only because the founding was apparently informal at first with no clear date. Even primary Greenpeace sources are unclear on the exact date. I also disagree with how you present the DMAWC and Watson's role there. That group evolved into Greenpeace it wasn't merely renamed. PrBeacon (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources on the year 1972 may also mention that as the founding year because all those sources are primarily about Watson, who himself states he was a founder in 1972 in his biography and the articles may have used Watson as a source for that information. We might never know, so we might as well say something like that "media reports concerning Watson and Sea Shepherd often refer Watson as a founder in 1972, while media reports about Greenpeace often state Greenpeace being founded in 1971."

While the interview which does not refer Watson as a founder is hosted on the Greenpeace site, the interviewed themselves aren't all affiliated with Greenpeace anymore. Jim Bohlen, who names the founders in the interview, hasn't been with Greenpeace after Amchitka. So the source isn't Greenpeace but Jim Bohlen himself. Others don't seem to disagree with him, and as far as I know, Dorothy Stowe and Dorothy Metcalfe haven't been with Greenpeace for decades either. Newspaper from 1990 mentions only three founders of DMAWC and does not include Paul Watson [38]. The same with The Canadian Encyclopedia [39]. Barbara Stowe, the daughter of Irwin and Dorothy Stowe also states that Watson "wasn’t there right in the beginning". And you may disagree on my view of what happened, and I'm not trying to get my view of the situation through to the article - that would be original research. I agree that there is no clear founding date for Greenpeace as it exists today. Greenpeace Foundation in the early 70's was somewhat different in it's methods and focus. There are several secondary sources referring Greenpeace having evolved into it's current form instead of being founded. That is why I'd discourage referring anyone as a founder unless the ambiguous founding time and founders is also mentioned. Articles shouldn't just state that "GP was founded in 19xx by ZZ, YY and DD". However several sources state that the organization DMAWC was renamed Greenpeace Foundation, so the founding date of Greenpeace Foundation as an legal entity is the founding date of the DMAWC. I'd like to see an article detailing on what do all the different relevant parties and different secondary sources say about the founding time, founders and renaming. Then the reader can make up his or her own mind about the issue and what sources are reliable. That's the way I tried to write about the founding in the article about Greenpeace.Shubi (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) ok, who combined these 2 sections, there supposed to be seperate! while there dispute over wheter or not he was a founding member, which hes was a mem of the dont make a wave committee, its undisputed fact that hes the 8th member of greenpeace! the first is diputed, so people will argue over it, but the later is fact. either uncombine the sections,or add this fact to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What edit do you propose to make? - Sinneed 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, yea that was me combining, not sure what the big deal is. IP#69.115, you started both and then tied together .. "its worth mentioning that hes the 8th member, because that pretty much proves hes a founding member." .. Anyway, the issue of member number seems somewhat trivial, thats why i asked for third-party source earlier. PrBeacon (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

him being the 8th member allows people to decided for them seleves wherether he counts as a founding member. with these 2 sections combined, the argument over wheteror not hes a founding member spills over to this part69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose to do away with "Controversy"

Place these all chronologically. Include the dispute about whether or not he was a founding member or early and influential member in the chunk for early Greenpeace work. I do think the lead should remain with the undisputed facts that he was an early and influential member of Greenpeace, rather than that he was a founder.- Sinneed 15:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts? I don't want to chew through this and have someone then revert, it's annoying. :) - Sinneed 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. I know WP generally frowns on these separate sections, especially for BLPs. Personally I have no objection to having a 'Controversy' section as long as it's properly sourced and balanced. And as you say it's frustrating to go to the trouble of reworking it into the rest of the article when inevitably someone will come along and ask "Where's the criticism section?" without bothering to notice the integration. Also if we call him controversial in the first lead sentence, then some readers will want to jump right to that. PrBeacon (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

controversial and outspoken

This was removed from the lead again today, this time by an established editor.

While in very general, characterizations such as "controversial and outspoken" are not best, especially in a wp:BLP, these 2 bits of his public persona (whether they are the actual man's "self" or simply part of his "public face") are directly responsible for his wp:notability, and well supported by the sources throughout the body. The 1st sentence of the wp:lead should explain why the subject is notable. The lead itself should rest on the body.

I have restored the 2 words again. Any concerns?- Sinneed 13:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. He is both and sources in the body of this back it up (WP:LEAD). Let me know if hey are not and some can be grabbed from related articles. However (LOL), "claim" might be in violation of WP:AVOID in your other edit. I understand why you used it but we shouldn't discount what he says (well I often do) necessarily. Consider it but I don;t know of a better fix.Cptnono (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but wp:avoid would apply to our words, rather than those of the "speaker". I think it is clear that neither Greepeace nor Watson are neutral, and I think the text shows that. "claims"..."characterizes" seems a good way to sum up the 2 "sniping" at one another, without offering a judgement as to which is right or wrong.- Sinneed 13:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be better than two lines countering each other but AVOID is one of my pet peeves so thought it should be brought up just in case.Cptnono (talk)

As a thought, eliding the "as he sometimes claims" with "..." might be appropriate if those specific words cause a concern, though I do think the claims/characterizes works well.- Sinneed 13:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would keep that quote you added over that structure since it might make it a bigger issue. We'll know if it comes across biased if other people bring this up. I might be over thinking it.Cptnono (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the two terms staying in the first sentence, but they are repeated in paragraph 2 (as is 'direct action,' twice). Imo, the lead as a whole would read better if p2 was rewritten with that in mind. PrBeacon (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, I would support that. :) - Sinneed 02:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Killed again in a cleanup. Restored again per above and other discussions.- Sinneed 14:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggest: re-write lead

Actually I think he's more notable [now] because of their show on Animal Planet (and its promotional efforts like appearances on Larry King Live). The first sentence seems a bit overstuffed with qualifiers.. so we could do some rearranging to find middle ground, avoid repetition and improve overall readability:

Paul Franklin Watson (born December 2, 1950) is a Canadian animal rights and environmental activist,[1] and president and founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS). Watson and his crew are the subject of a controversial reality show, Whale Wars, based on the group's direct action against Japanese whaling.

In 1969 Watson joined a Sierra Club protest against nuclear testing, a group which evolved into Greenpeace where he became an influential and outspoken member. He argued for a strategy of intervention that conflicted with Greenpeace's interpretation of nonviolence. He was voted from the board in 1977 and subsequently left the organization to form the SSCS.

He also promotes veganism, voluntary population control, and rejecting an anthropocentric worldview for a biocentric one.[2]

That way you have 'controversial' in the first sentence. 'Outspoken' is already in the second paragraph with Greenpeace. Though I started out just rearranging a bit, I've also incorporated a few other changes discussed elsewhere on this talkpage. Thoughts? PrBeacon (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Since no objections have been made in the past month-plus, I'm inclined to go ahead and make the change. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

...and he and his are the subject of a reality show because he is controverial and outspoken. I see no need to remove these key points from the 1st sentence, heavily covered in multiple sources through the body. I am not sure we need hammer "controversial" in more than once in the lead, that seems pointless, so I agree about having it only once.- Sinneed 20:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"...and a biocentric, rather than anthropocentric, worldview.

I neither support not oppose that bit, just suggesting wording.- Sinneed 21:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well. I apologize for not understanding. I did not realize that was the current state. I really thought we had killed the hammering-in of "outspoken" before. Changed the wording on the population control and the world view. I realize it was presumptuous of me to make part of your proposed change, and I apologize for that as well. :( - Sinneed 22:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, I'm fine with gradual changes. What about the middle paragraph? The existing phrasing to start it, "The Toronto native..." is fine but I think the second sentence is overly clumsy. And I still think we need to replace "ousted" (this was discussed before as slightly POV) in the third sentence, I'm open to other suggestions. I'd also like to see a clearer connection to the start of Greenpeace (evolving from SC group, as we also discussed) since we're conceding the point about his being a founder (at least in the lead, since GP denies it), but I'm not sure how to rework those two bits together smoothly. I'll keep trying and suggest something later. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In pop culture trivia magnet

The Faroese band Týr recorded a song in their album Eric the Red titled "Rainbow Warrior", after the Greenpeace boat, which also attacks Paul Watson and covertly mentions him in the chorus (May your ship sink, Rainbow Warrior floats / No more, there are no lights on / That obtrusive creep all, What's on). Melodic Hard Rock Today Interviews Týr

Do we need this? It seems harmless trivia but these sections tend to bloat beyond reason, and I see no notability on the song (unlike the annoying cartoon, whose lampoonings are often newsworthy events).- Sinneed 20:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

i really dont see how thats a reffernce to paul, the rainbow warrior was sunk by french agents, and paul wasnt even on board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Attitudes about his activism- needs changes

the quote about its alright being a terrorsit as long as you win" is out of context. he was stating it in a historical sense, like how the american revolotionaries were considered terrorits by the british. not in the kill whoeer you want as long as it suits your goals sense alot of biased people put it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Arrest warrant from Tokyo

Looks like Japan may be stepping up the fight against Watson and SSCS, but is this worth including? The Washington Post [40] carried the Kyodo news story but there aren't many specifics, and it seems like a familiar tactic by the Japanese. One or two editors (Seashepherdlies & IP-190.6.225.73) posted the following:

In April 2010, the Japanese Coast Guard obtained an arrest warrant for Watson on suspicion of ordering sabotage activities against Japan's whaling fleet. It said Japan will seek his arrest through the International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol). "Japan Coast Guard wants Sea Shepherd leader"

..first to the lead, then to Arrests section -- the second attempt included a link to the WashPost story, but it got scratched. I could have simply added the 2nd ref in the correct spot, but (because of WP:recentism guidelines) I'm not sure if the item should stay until any further action is taken. PrBeacon (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with moving it from the lead. It does deserve a mention in the main body. Watson has a history of charges like this so it fits in the section just fine. I would only consider it recentism if we went into excessive detail on this particular one.Cptnono (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

it's worth mentioning, but dosnt change anything thing about what going on, they were trying to arrest(or worse) him for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs better sourcing. Surely such a wp:WELLKNOWN person will have more coverage of this warrant if real. I expect to drop it under wp:BLP if there is none quite soon.- Sinneed 05:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I provided a new source. [41] Oda Mari (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I did restore the wp:dead link, as an interested editor might find the new home of it at the site. Easily reverted if anyone disagrees strongly.- Sinneed 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of News pages of NHK are only temporarily available. It's meaningless to have it. See [42] [43], and [44]. So I am reverting your restore. Oda Mari (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. All the best.- Sinneed 18:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He was featured and critisized in an episode of "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!"

Could be added to the "media"-section, along with south park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.184.36 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Which episode?Cptnono (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Coming along nicely

I think you all deserve a nice cup of tea and a sit down for your efforts. Keep up the good worx... Aikidesigns (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 June - POV - anon add

I have removed the POV tag, as it seems to be a driveby. If anyone thinks it actually belongs, it is easily reverted. I do think that it needs some discussion here... I am dubious of the need for the tag.- Sinneed 14:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition to interpol

New news articles are hot again citing Paul Watson being called an eco-terrorist. Whether he is or not, it should be cl;early noted that many consider him to be. Let's keep the article in line with the facts of what the relevant expert opinions are and not inject our own please. :) 68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

eco terrorism category clarification

Paul Watson has been called an Eco-Terrorist by governmental reports and figures. It's all noted in the article. I'm including Paul Watson in the Eco-Terrorism discussion, not because I think he is an eco-terrorist, but because so many notable experts do. He is part of the discussion as is noted in this article, it should be linked to the wiki category. Have a nice day. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Side note, Watson even engages the discussion at several points, He discussed how rediculous it is to be called a terrorist, he also talks about the benefits of being called one and uses the term to his advantage. Point is not that he is or isn't. The point is that he is a large part of the discusion on eco-terrorism. Watson recognises it in this article even. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Watson further adds to the conversation on eco-terrorism in "Terrorists or Freedom Fighters" which is also noted in this article. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism, not eco terrorism, and he doesn't refer to himself as such. Discussing it was not make someone a terrorist. See WP:OR.--Terrillja _talk 17:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm not calling him a terrorist either, I'm saying he's part of the discussion on eco terrorism. Paul Watson concedes to that himself when he discusses it. The point is though, he is a notable part of that discussion. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Side note for clarification, I am NOT advocating that this article go into an "Eco-terrorist" category. We are not calling Watson an eco-terrorist. We are putting this article in the category of articles that deal with the topic of eco-terrorism, which this and SSCS do. I hope that helps. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)