Talk:Sea Shepherd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	To-do list for Sea Shepherd:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Verify: find sources for "citation needed" tags

Contents 1 Bombardier 2 Is Paul Watson a polygamist? 3 Boarding of ships? 4 Copyrighted material 5 Paul Watson and Greenpeace 6 Paul Watson a Whale Killer? 7 Pressuring the US to declare SS a terrorist organisation 8 Sea Shepherd's submarine 9 cited sources 10 NPOV 11 "Legal" Japanese whaling 11.1 Third Opinion 12 Confusing 13 Conservationist pressure 14 Sustainable whaling 15 Videos 16 Butyric Acid charges 17 Coronado

[edit] Bombardier

Bombardier is was listed on the Sea Shepherd page of sponsors. -Willmcw 21:55, May 22, 2005 (UTC) I'm glad to see that the group has dropped them as a sponsor. -Willmcw 22:02, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Paul Watson a polygamist?

I came across this line in the text:

Sea Shepherd is supported by private donations and operated by volunteers and aid staff, including two of its founder's wives.

My first thought was that the apostrophe was misplaced, and that it should be "founders' wives". But the article lists Paul Watson as the sole founder of the organization. So does he have more than one wife? Are we talking ex-wives (or current and ex-)? Are there other founders who aren't mentioned as such? -- Coneslayer 21:15, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

I believe that Watson's marriages were sequential. If you can find a better wording then go for it. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess that depends on whether they're both ex-wives or if one of them is still his wife. Do you know? -- Coneslayer 23:44, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

He's still married to the second one, I believe. This sentence encompasses both wives: He was also incarcerated in 1999 for attacking Native Americans on a whale hunt; Paul Watson’s ex-wife Lisa Distefano, and current wife, Allison Lance Watson, were also charged in that attack.[1].

Thanks, I've updated the article accordingly. -- Coneslayer 00:09, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

[edit] Boarding of ships?

As someone somewhat familiar with Sea Shepherd's operations, I'm a little confused as to when they have boarded any ship. Perhaps someone could point this out. Thanks Mostlyharmless 00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you Sea Shepherd is not harmless. Here's a recent boarding incident which the japanese call piracy. Best part is that the Japanese whalers end up having to go save their stupid asses. [2] Hiro--216.75.93.110 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The tone of this comment is unacceptable. Please remain civil. Sancho McCann 21:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted material

The statement "After the sinking of the Icelandic whaling vessels in 1986, Sea Shepherd lost..." was a direct cut and paste from http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/pr2001/ocean_warriors_confront_lucian_fishermen.htm the website of the Government of St Lucia. The material was in no way sourced or quoted, and violates wikipedia policy for this reason.

Mostlyharmless 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Problems of citation fixed.

From Greenpeace. "Previously, the Commission has withdrawn the observer credentials of the organization called Sea Shepherd Society for its illegal actions against whaling vessels." http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0630-01.htm

[edit] Paul Watson and Greenpeace

Paul Watson's Wikipedia entry states "Watson resigned from the Greenpeace Foundation (some accounts say he was expelled)", whereas this article simply says he was expelled. I've updated the introduction to remain consistent with the article. If anybody knows for sure, feel free to change it back.

[edit] Paul Watson a Whale Killer?

Paul Watson has never fully explain his role in the death of an orca in Victoria, BC, Canada. Miracle, as the orca was nicknamed, was a juvenile orca found in poor health and near death in Menzies Bay. The whale was captured and taken to the oceanarium at Sealand of the Pacific. The orca had several close calls with death but managed top survive injury and infection. A failed attempt to free the orca by two people using scuba resulted in Miracle being caught in the net pen and drowning.

[edit] Pressuring the US to declare SS a terrorist organisation

"Several nations including Japan have pressured the United States to declare Sea Shepherd a terrorist organization." - for the Dolphin drive hunting article this is an interesting statement, however I cannot find a source for this. Could anyone point me in the right direction? BabyNuke 21:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Shepherd's submarine

I remember reading literature from Sea Shepherd about their pending purchase of a submarine, which they intended to paint yellow. No joke. Anyone know what became of that? This was about 10 years ago, I think. =Axlq 00:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Could it be a story concocted to get some exposure in the press and raise some cash?

I can't help but wonder if it's from the same place as the stories about the Life Story of Paul Watson that is always about to be made starring his usual celebrity supporters?

Somehow the movie never gets made. EuroTrash 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it turns out to be true: This article says that Sea Shepherd briefly owned the submarine and then sold it. =Axlq 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So they bought it as a publicity stunt and never used it? EuroTrash 17:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Rather than presume a motivation, one could ask them about it, I suppose. If Sea Shepherd cared about the sub, you'd think they'd mention it on their web site and supply some reason why they sold it (too expensive to maintain, unsafe, whatever). If they had actually used it in an operation, that would be noteworthy. From what I can determine, however, the submarine doesn't seem notable enough to include in this article. =Axlq 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cited sources

This article is full of requests for citation- I know, because I made most of them. I see that there is a bibliography at the bottom, perhaps somebody involved in the writing of the article would care to implant the proper format for citations? Rudy Breteler 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is really "involved" in the writing of this article. The early edit history suggests that it was written by someone affiliated with Sea Shepherd, given all the praise and POV language used then. I and others have tried to clean it up since then. Now and then somebody (like you) comes along and makes further improvements. I only look at this article if it shows up on my watchlist due to someone else editing it.

Cited sources are fairly easy to find. Some of the things you tagged don't have a cite because this information is already documented on Sea Shepherd's web site, particulary the history concerning whaling. We can do searches for other sources, though. =Axlq 06:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I think this article leans towrds the Sea Sheperd POV, e.g. in 'Background' (first line): "Sea Shepherd engages in a number of direct, law enforcement actions..." and at the end of the same paragraph: "No person has been injured, let alone killed, during a Sea Shepherd action."

While that may be factually correct, I think that the wording needs to be changed slightly. Also, is Sea Shepher authorised by any government to enforce maritime law? And what about the cost of damages to other ships?

This is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article, not quasi-propaganda. I won't put an {{NPOV}} tag on this page for now, but can someone please touch up the wording? Sentinel75 22:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to fix what you think needs fixing. If you think it's NPOV now, you shoulda seen it when I found this article. It read like a propaganda brochure. =Axlq 22:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Legal" Japanese whaling

Could you please explain why you deleted the mention of "legal" Japanese whaling on the Sea Shepherd entry?

The legality of the endeavour is either factual or not. It is in no way POV. In this case, Japanese whaling operations are indeed legal as one can read at the IWC. Just because the Sea Shepherd society attempt to portray it as illegal and themselves as mandated enforcers of irrelavant legislation does not make it so.

I'm surprised that someone who mentions NPOV is an inviolable pillar of Wikipedia could be so biased in their interpretations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EuroTrash (talk • contribs) 13:48 2007-02-05.

On the radio last week, I heard a representative from Japan's whaling industry admit that Japan takes more whales than their quota under the guise of "scientific" whaling. They self-allocate their own quotas regardless of moratoriums.[3] Therefore, some Japanese whaling is legal, some is not. A blanket statement that it's all legal isn't appropriate for this article.

Furthermore, I didn't revert the edit because of that. I reverted it because of the NPOV violation in this statement: "Sea Shepherd engages in a number of direct enforcement actions to raise its profile and marketability". The organization itself says they engage in such actions because they find other environmental groups such as Greenpeace to be ineffective. All organizations strive to raise their profile and marketability. Sea Shepherd is hardly unique in this regard, and implying that this motivation is the sole reason for their actions promotes a POV that has no basis.

Reverting your edit had the side effect of restoring a statement you deleted about injuries resulting from Sea Shepherd actions. You are correct, this should probably go, because you can't prove a negative, although in all my searching I have found no reports of any injuries, just "terrorist" acts. You'd think if injuries occurred, these reports would surely mention them. =Axlq 16:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, now there are reports about people getting injured because of SSCS. According to this Jiji Press news (http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20070209-00000114-jij-int), two Japanese whalers aboard the Nisshinmaru have been lightly injured by glass bottles thrown from a SSCS ship. One got hit by a piece of glass, the other one has had some liquid substance in his eyes.

I don't think throwing bottles with butyric acid in is very "legal". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.122.122.91 (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm shocked. Surely if I referenced a source on Wikipedia as "something I heard on the radio" it would be removed in a flash. No? Indeed I have had additions to the Sea Shepherd article for less (sources provided and entire contribution removed for improper formatting).

As I understand it, you are correct in that Japan creates its own quotas but it does not automatically follow that exceeding its own quotas is therefore illegal and I would like to see a direct reference to the legislation that is supposedly contravened as a source.

http://whaling-faq.blogspot.com/ states:

"Iceland and Japan both conduct scientific hunts, which are allowed for regardless of Schedule amendments such as the zero catch limit, as stated in Article VIII of the ICRW. As well as allowing for scientific whaling permits to be granted, Article VIII also recognises that as

"continuous collection and analysis of biological data in connection with the operations of factory ships and land stations are indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments will take all practicable measures to obtain such data."

Thus, not only is scientific whaling legally permitted, it's expressly encouraged by the ICRW. It's remarkable that Japan and Iceland are accused of illegal whaling despite the fact that the convention under which whaling is carried out is so unambiguous on this point.

Traditionally the claim of illegal whaling has been made by both anti-whaling governments and anti-whaling NGOs, but in recent times governments have dropped this rhetoric from their repertoire."

On this basis I would like to reinsert my initial addition of the word legal before Japanese whaling.

Also it should go without saying that one can be terrorized without being killed or maimed and having a ship equipped with a "can opener" puncturing device and bows reinforced with concrete with the express intent of ramming other law abiding vessels should qualify.

If you can assert that "All organizations strive to raise their profile and marketability" then how can you remove the statement that Sea Shepherd indulges in the same marketing? It was not meant that SS "only" markets itself nor does it do us any good to automatically assume such organizations are purely altruistic and are not motivated in either policy priorities or public statements by the almighty dollar (not to mention the benefits to Paul Watson's brand name dollar value).

EuroTrash 00:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer your points:

• Radio broadcasts are citable. The fact that I don't remember the exact broadcast doesn't change the fact that the Japanese admit to taking more than their quota. Note that my report of the radio broacast only exists in this talk page. It does not belong in the article without a verifiable source.
• If, as you assert, "it does not follow" that Japanese whalers violating their own country's quotas are illegal (which may depend on whether the quotas are tied to regulations; i.e. laws), then it certainly doesn't follow that such violations are perfectly legal either. One cannot justify a claim of "legal" on that basis.
• Blogs are not considered valid sources according to Wikipedia:Verifiability.
• Inserting the word "legal" before Japanese whaling presents, as fact, a contentious claim under dispute. Taking advantage of a loophole about scientific whaling, which is unnecessary according this physorg article, may violate the spirit of the law if not the letter. Having a claim of "legal" in this article without explanation promotes one particular point of view. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote contentious claims. You can, instead, fit in a paragraph that explains the point of view that it's legal, as that blog does. That would be better than inserting an adjective as if it were fact.
• The statement about marketing was removed because it's irrelevant. The way you wrote it, the statement implied that all of Sea Shepherd's actions are motivated by marketing rather than the organization's stated purpose. The statement was not only factually incorrect (or at least undemonstrable) but also violated WP:NPOV.

=Axlq 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't justify using a radio broadcast as a source and then throw out my suggested blog entry and throw out the fully verifiable content within that in my opinion described the legal staus quite succintly. This is surely a bit if a double standard no?

Just because The Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace refer to illegal whaling doesn't mean it is as you write "a contentious claim under dispute". The legality of Japanese whaling is a verifiable fact. It either is legal or it is not. Can we at least agree on that? Just because I say you're a criminal doesn't mean that your honesty becomes "a contentious claim under dispute". You have either contravened the law or you haven't and I could end up in jail for slander.

Also, your use of the term "loophole" I think demonstrates your own POV here quite clearly. No? EuroTrash 00:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll try again:

• I haven't used a radio broadcast as a source in the article anywhere, I brought it up to demonstrate that Japan itself admits to violating its own rules. I would never propose to add such a statement in the article unless I could back it up with a verifiable source. If I knew the NPR program that aired it and the time, it would be citable.
• I referred you to WP:V because it specifically mentions that blog entries aren't acceptable, and I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) that you intended to use that as a source in the article. I apologize for my presumptiousness.
• Legality isn't necessarily a binary condition, sorry. When other governments don't even agree that it's legal, we can't have Wikipedia taking a stand to state outright that it is. As I said earlier, there's no problem with including a paragraph explaining the viewpoint that it's legal. But any bare assertion won't fly.
• If the IWC currently has a moratorium on whaling, but allows an unlimited number of whales to be taken for scientific purposes (which are vague and ill-defined), what else would that be but a loophole?
• My own POV is irrelevant; I'm not the one trying to insert a viewpoint into this article. If you look at the edit history of this article, it was a POV mess full of promotional dross about Sea Shepherd before I and others began cleaning it up; you can hardly accuse me of promoting a POV.
• You have a valid point about legality, but having the article state it is a bare assertion won't work.
• More to the point, what possible purpose is served by inserting the words "legal Japanese" in front of "whaling" in that sentence? Why not just say "whaling"? It's clear, unambiguous, and refers only to Sea Shepherd's activities, expressing no viewpoint about whaling. Why is there a need for any adjective to describe whaling? And that's my point: The use of any adjective constitutes POV-pushing. Inserting "legal" is equally as bad as inserting "illegal." The NPOV solution is to omit the adjective.

I'll post a note on Wikipedia:Third opinion to solicit another opinion. We clearly have a difference of opinion. =Axlq 06:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not use any word - either "legal" or "illegal" - in a combo with Japanese whaling phrase. Both legality and illegality can be claimed. It depends on what intentions one goes with - if one's intention is to prove its lawfulness, then he will find an appropriate law; and vice versa. This is an issue and the cause why even not anti-whaling media frequently calls Japanese whaling controversial. There is a number of laws which regulate 'use of living resources'. They are contradicting with each other on a frequent basis.

Here they are:

• there is an International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling, but Japanese do hunt whales.
• but there is an opportunity for Japanese to hunt whales under a scientific permit issued by IWC (despite moratorium). Since Japanese claim their whaling is scientific, they agree with the law here. But the problem is that whale meat ends up in the market. While this is allowed by an IWC regulations that a meat from research goes to market, the obvious question should be asked: is the whale meat that goes to market a by-product of true scientific research or is it a commercial whaling under cover of scientific research? This is the principal sticking point and reason of Japanese whaling being called controversial.
• there is an Antarctic Treaty (and some other treaties that go in a bundle with Antarctic Treaty) that stresses up the necessity of conserving living resources of Antarctica, where Japanese whaling fleet is hunting. But the conservation stands for rational use in Antarctic Treaty. So, it doesn't prohibit any hunting at all.
• there is an IUCN Red List which lists fin whales and humpback whales (species that are hunted by Japanese) as threatened meaning they should not be hunted under CITES, which is signed by Japan.

Instead of 'Japanese whaling' ('legal Japanese whaling' or 'illegal Japanese whaling') I suggest to use 'Japanese scientific whaling' or 'controversial Japanese scientific whaling'. In my opinion, the latter is the best as it stresses the fact that it's controversial, but controversial over the name of science. Ollyn 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

To help out with this discussion, I would like to first ask for a specific reference for the inclusion of the word "legal" in the phrase in question. Second, the non-inclusion of the word isn't saying that it is illegal, it would be only admitting that we don't have a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources) that answers the question "is it legal?" If we can't find a reliable source that answers that question, the article shouldn't make a statement that answers that question. Sancho McCann 07:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If by "reference" you mean the edit under contention, it's referenced in the third opinion plea, and here. If you mean instead an authoritative source stating that Japanese whaling is legal, all I can find are opinions and the rationale quoted from a blog above. =Axlq 07:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, I mean we should find a reference (reliable source) that states, "Major campaigns include interdiction against legal Japanese whaling in Antarctic waters" (not as a quote necessarily, but one that basically says this without us having to bring in information from multiple sources). One that said Japanese whaling is legal wouldn't be enough, because this statement says more than that, which would be original research (see Wikipedia:Original research) if the statement was reached by our aggregation of information from various sources. Sancho McCann 07:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I agree, if such a reference can be found, I'd have no problem adding it. At the moment I have a problem describing whaling with any adjective, legal or illegal, right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or evil, etc. I will wait for a response by User:Eurotrash before responding again. =Axlq 07:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, evil, or moral would be subjective. The legality of the japanese whaling program is not subjective. It either is legal or it is illegal. Which is it? No laws have been broken and no legal action has taken place. I think an entry on the legality of the Japanese program is required as the SS group is basing it's justifications for itself and its actions on just such a fact. It is not beyond comprehension that it pays SS to vilify the Japanese whalers and to portray them in a negative light for promotion and fund raising purposes. According to Watson, Greenpeace make millions from posturing aboiut "saving whales".

Animal rights groups raise millions of dollars and are constantly launching legal actions. Why no case against the Japanese if their super high profile actions are illegal?

This whole thing just stinks of defamation by the SS which Wikipedia is now amplifying uncritically.

EuroTrash 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't subjectivity, the question is one of original research and/or verifiability. Please read WP:Original research, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Reliable sources. Again, if we can't find a standalone reliable source that answers the question, "Do major campaigns or the Sea Shepherd include interdiction against legal Japanese whaling in Antarctic waters?", then the article must not pose an answer this question. It is important to remember: we don't have to answer this question; it is completely reasonable to leave it unanswered in the article. It would do all editors a benefit to put each statement that they write to this test. It will automatically avoid subjectivity and many a dispute regarding appropriateness of content. Sancho McCann 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I think we need a paragraphe that details under what permits the japanese whale and an examination of Sea Shepherd's claims that also acknowledges their mission in putting as much negative light on the issue as possible as well as their fund raising needs for good propoganda. Without either, this article runs the risk of uncritically adding credence to Sea Shepherd's claims. EuroTrash 19:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Eurotrash: Your contention that "it is either legal or it is illegal" constitutes a false dichotomy. See Ollyn's comment directly above this Third Opinion section; clearly the legality is a gray area subject to interpretation, and the regulations that could clearly define what is legal or not are ambiguous. A Wikipedia article should not take a stand one way or another, without a verifiable reliable source. Synthesizing a conclusion from sources, such as one would do in a school term paper, constitutes a violation of WP:Original research, as Sanchom describes above. =Axlq 19:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a false dichotomy here at all. There has either been broken laws or there hasn't. Even New Zealand's Chris Carter (Minister of Environment) a rabid anti-whaler himself has conceded that there is no case to bring. Should this article itself not acknowledge the possible Sea Shepherd explioitation of legal ambiguity if indeed such ambiguity exists? EuroTrash 19:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Acknowledging an ambiguity isn't the same thing as outright asserting "legal", which is what you originally wanted to do. It would be appropriate in a criticism section. =Axlq 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As an example, I have added references for the lead section. Where my source is a fact-checked third party media organization, I simply re-state what they have said. Where my source has not been checked by an independant third party, (like the sea shepherd web page itself), I've included wording such that it is apparent that what we've included in this article is a claim. As per the policy on reliable sources, if we use a source that is written by the subject of the article, we can only include non-contentious statements. One way to do that is to write that a certain statement is a claim of the subject. For something certainly non-contentious, like "The Farley Mowat is part of the Sea Shepherd fleet", we can reference Sea Shepherd's self-published material without a problem. Hope this can be a starting point to making this a great article. Sancho McCann 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing

However, Ray Gambell has been reported as having told the BBC in 2000 that "It would be much better if Japan and Norway were brought within the process", a position inconsistent with international law.

I don't really understand the above sentence. Either there isn't enough of Ray Gambell's quote or I'm just stupid. What exactly did he mean Japan and Norway should be brought within the process and why is this inconsistent with international law (and what the heck does this have to do with the Sea Sheperd organisation) Nil Einne 13:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservationist pressure

I changed the sentence [4] here because the original one didn't really agree with the reference. Firstly, it makes no mention of landlocked Eastern European countries. Indeed, the only 2 examples it gives of countries, Slovenia and Crotia are neither landlocked or Eastern Europe (at least geographically). Also, whether or not they've been pressured depends on many things like what do you mean by 'pressured' and who you speak to, therefore I think the word allegedly is necessary (just as we speak of Japan's alleged buying of Pacific votes as allegations) Nil Einne 13:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sustainable whaling

I removed the word sustainable from here [5] because it's an issue of dispute. Supporters of whaling argue it can be done sustainably. Opponents dispute this saying it can't. Therefore, it's best IMHO to just mention they're supporters of whaling (which is definitely true). They claim it's sustainable, opponents say it's not, this whole issue is presumably covered in other articles as it should be Nil Einne 13:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It might be true that it is disputable if it is possible to hunt whales sustainably (even though I don't understand how), but the countries that support whaling in the IWC only support sustainable whaling, not unsubstantial whaling. Other countries are opposed to whaling for moral, economic or other reasons even though whales could be hunted sustainably. gumol 16:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And I disagree with you, especially with your phrase "...the countries that support whaling in the IWC only support sustainable whaling..." Japan has specifically targeted a number of whale species that are globally recognized as being endangered, including the Fin whale [6]. Pre-whaling estimates put the population of the Fin at about 50,000 to 100,000 in the North Atlantic alone [ibid], but recent estimates put the total number of Fins in the world at only 2,000 to 3,000[7]. The IWC has specifically banned the taking of Fins [8], but the Japanese have said that they will kill ten of them regardless[9]. There is nothing "sustainable" about killing .5% of an endangered species population, especially considering the other risks that population faces from toxins and other factors contributing to its reduction. Clearly, the global scientific consensus is that the Fin should not be killed. Japan is unilaterally defying that consensus, and NOT "sustainably whaling". Bricology 22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for raining on your Parade but " but recent estimates put the total number of Fins in the world at only 2,000 to 3,000 " is false. See here [[10]]SammytheSeal 09:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

IWC's member countries support a principle of sustainable whaling, not the practice. If you read about history of whaling, then you'll learn that USSR, a signatory to ICRW, had hunted dozens of thousands of whales over some decades, but reported few thousands to IWC. Unfortunately, IWC has no real power over such things. Though the word sustainable is on the paper, there was no sustainable whaling until the morratorium in 80s which banned commercial whaling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ollyn (talk • contribs) 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Videos

I made direct links to the videos instead. I think they are informative and deserve some sort of link and the videos themselves have no commercial content. /Fifo 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Butyric Acid charges

The first paragraph originally read "...two Japanese crewmen reportedly splashed with the foul-smelling butyric acid during Sea Shepherd's recent (February 2007) action in the Ross Sea. The Sea Shepherds have denied this." This is incorrect; the Sea Shepherd crew has never denied that they threw six, one-liter bottles of butyric acid onto the deck of the Nisshin Maru. Their website acknowledges this [11]. However, the use of the term "acid" is loaded and has negative -- even frightening -- associations. If the Sea Shepherd crew had thrown bottles of "citric acid", it would give the impression of it being more dangerous than if it was described as "lemon juice" (which can indeed be described as citric acid). Butyric acid is a naturally-forming acid that occurs in fermenting sugars and starches, and is present in kombucha tea, among other ingested products, and is present in cheeses and in rancid butter[12]. Since representatives of the Nisshin Maru have not demonstrated any damage from the butyric acid, it may be that the acid was nothing more dangerous than food-grade butyric acid, which would be too dilute to burn the skin or cause permanent eye damage. On their website, the Sea Shepherd's founder and leader Paul Watson described it as being "a simple non-toxic butter acid, basically rancid butter. It will not cause eye injury." I have changed the passage to read "...two Japanese crewmen reportedly splashed with the foul-smelling butyric acid during Sea Shepherd's recent (February 2007) action in the Ross Sea. The Sea Shepherds have admitted throwing six one-liter bottles of butyric acid onto the deck of the Nisshin Maru, but have claimed that it was "a simple non-toxic butter acid, basically rancid butter", and incapable of causing injury. Bricology 19:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This fits my experience when I was a crew member on the Sea Shepherd II. We had a supply of butyric acid to be used as a tool to discourage certain ecologically dangerous activities. It smelled horrible and even a small amount was quite unpleasent. However, I spilled some on my hand while transferring it from on container to another and suffered no ill effect other than a strong and persistent desire to wash my hands. Adistius 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think almost all acids are harmful for you eyes at a high concentration. The material safety data sheet (MSDS) states that butyric acid can burn your skin and eyes [13] [14]. When it comes to chemical safety, quoting a non chemist (Paul Watson) and to give an impression that it's correct is misleading and dangerous. Adistus, did you have it on you eyes, or on a wound? Unless we can prove that it is actually harmless (I doubt that we can reverse MSDS), or the condition (concentration, temperature) in which it was used is harmless, we have to be very careful about this. BTW, I think lemon juice is also harmful if you squirt it into your eyes even though it is just (?) 5% citric acid. Luvfacts 11:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the MSDS facts after Paul Watson's statement and moved the MSDS link after this. Luvfacts 00:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the MSDS reference because the wording of the sentence implied that Sea Shepherd used the acid at full strength. We don't know this. The MSDS applies to full strength concentration, not necessarily what was used in the attack. The way the MSDS is referenced in the article amounts to synthesis of a conclusion, which violates WP:NOR.

Your right. We don't know the concentration. But it is Paul Watson's comment that generalizes the danger of butyric acid without mentioning the condition or concentration. I don't have any problems if he said "the way we used the substance should not cause any harm", but he didn't. And we don't know whether it was diluted to a very very low concentration. Just like the news source [15], I think we need the scientific fact (about butyric acid) or otherwise the article would look like Sea Shepherd's propaganda. Luvfacts 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me delete the part I added. "My thought" was inappropriate for wiki. Luvfacts 07:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coronado

Linking from this article to Rodney Coronado is somewhat provocative. Yes, Rodney was once a crew member. So was I. But Rodney is more (in)famous for his activities outside of Sea Shepherd. Linking him here implies some connection between his later felonious behavior and Sea Shepherd, which simply isn't NPOV. Adistius 19:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have to profoundly disagree here. Mr Coronado is (in)famous for two things: one being the sinking of whaling vessels in Iceland and the other for lecturing animal rights fundamentalists on how to conduct a firebombing. Paul Watson has used his association with Coronado and the sinking of the icelandic vessels prominently in his literature, books and even keeps the score of vessels by way of painted flags on his vessels. Coronado's actions and rhetoric at the time fit the same rhetoric as Wartson at the time. There is a very solid connection and Coronado was a little more than "just a crew member" unless adistius is trying to tell us he's sank a few ships in his time with the sea sheps. I think the paragraph on Coronado should be reinstated. EuroTrash 13:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)