Talk:Anti-whaling

Early phase

No real information other than a list of links to organisations. Not useful as a separate article. Polargeo (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

your addition adds to the idea that this is a content fork and is not a useful separate article. Polargeo (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, &not only because the suggested merge article, "Whaling controversy" talks more about the debate than the actions involved. And that page reads like a massive justifcation for whaling, split off from the Whaling in Japan page. Also, there is a non-violence page so thats what i modeled this article after. I plan on flushing out more details soon and asking other editors for contributions. PrBeacon (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Your first sentence "Anti-whaling refers to actions taken by those who seek to end whaling, whether locally to them, in another part of the world, in regards to some specific conflict, or in general." is currently an unreferenced WP:DICDEF. You may be able to reference it but it is still a dicdef and moreover your own idea of what this term means (e.g. WP:OR).
• Your second sentence was added later and is unreferenced but is certainly content forked from several more appropriate articles and so does not give any support for this separate article.
• Your third sentence claims three organisations are "anti-whaling" and gives external links to each of them with no sources for the claims that you have made. You cannot say Greenpeace is anti-whaling without a source and justification for the statement. You may think it is obvious but is Greenpeace really anti-whaling? What about subsistence whaling?

these are reasons why this sort of article which appears to me to be a WP:POVFORK is not of benefit to wikipedia. This is a topic covered much much better in existing articles and so a rather weak unreferenced new article like this, with a few external links which do not back up the claims in the article, should be merged/redirected or just deleted. Polargeo (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. As I said, more details are to be added & clarified... including specifics to be worked in as appropriate:

• greenpeace campaign "we believe that commercial whaling in all forms must be stopped."
• sourced definition, history of protests & legal action, modern conflicts and balance issues e.g. subsistence whaling & cultural context.

You've mentioned the forks a few times now, here & at the controversy page, so I'd like to ask: what about the distinction I make above between debate & action?

Also, there are many articles already on Whaling, History of Whaling, Whaling in .. (several countries featured individually), etc., so couldn't it be argued that that POV is well represented in a wider context?   Respectfully, PrBeacon (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is good to see you acting on the criticism and improving the article. Your Greenpeace reference shows commercial whaling which is good. I suppose as there has just been a new split to whaling controversy the best way of developing wikipedia in my view is to expand the new article and only split off into yet another article when it is justified. I will have a closer look through what you have done today. Polargeo (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

History

Looking at this topic from a historical perspective there is more than enough to warrant its own page. (Though I'm not entirely sure the title works). Other pages tend to focus on the ideas/ideals behind the controversy as opposed to the action, protest, legal progress, etc. A good guide to the early civilian action against whaling is the book "The Whale War" by David Day (which also contains a couple of great timelines). Another is "Harpoon: Into the Heart of Whaling" by Andrew Darby. Time magazine and the New York Times also have a great deal of archived news online which could be helpful in finding supporting citations (for example: [1]). Cetamata (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No real argument with you there. that is why I suggested a merge not a deletion. A lot has been added since my merge suggestion but I am still not sure warrents a separate article at present. Polargeo (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this article currently appears to be a fairly tenuous attempt to prevent a merge by throwing in lots of WP:OR which is referenced back to wikipedia. This is a clear demonstration of how not to build a new article and why I don't think it should be done like this. Don't get me wrong I agree at some point this may well be a great article but a merge is the best solution for wikipedia quality issues at present. Polargeo (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah. I think what will happen if you merge this with controversy or another article is the subject matter will get splintered. Instead of recounting the actions of different groups (some of which are poorly documented on Wikipedia), events, legal battles, boycotts, protest campaigns, etc in a single anthology it will boil down to more linking than contribution.

The title should be changed to "Anti-Whaling Movement" in my opinion but otherwise this article has the potential to provide something new to wikipedia which has been framed in the same way in books like The Whale War. Touch lightly on the reasoning and refer to the whaling controversy page. Then log the beginning of the anti-whaling movement and cover how it's changed from Save the Whales to the sinking of the Sierra to whale wars and internet based petitions. I think if it's covered well the article has the potential to be brilliant. Cetamata (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is currently little here that isn't covered in other places. What about Marine conservation activism#Whaling a section about anti whaling which is already better than this article. This has absolutely nothing to do with what this article might become, I am not suggesting deletion just that creating a poor article is content forking and that is the wrong way round to do it. When the current sections in other articles become too big then we do a split. Anyway this is not the place to talk about the merge, it is at Talk:Whaling controversy Polargeo (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. In fact there is already a model for treating a multifaceted subject that covers a long timeline. Look at Civil Rights for example. There is a Civil Rights and Political Rights page. Multiple Civil Rights movement pages. And additional pages for Civil Rights Leaders and even some major legal decisions relating to it. The anti-whaling movement is similarly international, both legal and protest actions, politically charged and a host of notable individuals are linked to the subject. The Anti-whaling movement may not be documented or prioritized as important as the Civil Rights movement but that's no reason to suggest the content has to be consolidated. Especially when there is wealth of information defining the "controversy" which is more about moral and legal interpretations of animal rights vs industry. And separately, there is a long history of this movement's actions, events and contributors. I say build this article up. Cetamata (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point about Marine conservation activism#Whaling. It looks like it's already attempted to do what an Anti-Whaling Movement page would do. However, that section is lacking overall in its coverage of the entire Anti-Whaling Movement. Cetamata (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lot's of good suggestions here, much appreciated. And much of it surprisingly from someone (C) who I thought was at least anti-conservation or possibly anti-activist. Now I regret how that escalated. Unfortunately the underbelly of extreme activism divides the conservation movement as a whole, not to mention the funding issues, and especially within the anti-whaling crowd. So I see my role here on WP to walk that fine line, so to speak, as challenging as it may be. For example, many conservationists are also anti-SSCS to varying degrees because of the harsh negative light it brings. Just think of the Limbaugh-O'Reilly-Beck contingencies. And I'd like to to see Wikipedia, and in particular this article, reflect that subculture. However, I understand WP concerns about too much attention to controversies and POV skewing. Yet I think these larger issues will always be contested but never B&W much like the pro-choice ('pro-abortion') and pro-life (anti-abortion) with their multiple camps.

      Obviously there are trade-offs with subjugating the concept of "anti-whaling" to other, bigger concepts like "anti-whaling movement" or "marine conservation activism" and especially "Whaling controversy." And to me it's more than semantic. These terms take on loaded connotations and therefore become issues of contention here. Some even get scrubbed or whitewashed, often without notice.

      A side issue is if the term "anti-whaling" is even appropriate anymore. It can be easily misconstrued or misused -- I refer back to the abortion debate to illustrate that. And it seems that the mainstream press is extracareful in using it, too.

      So lots to work through and around. As for the WP:OR concerns, admittedly I've started with a few shortcuts here, grabbing from other articles to synthesize sort of an outline. I never meant for this to be an overnight project. I'm unsure of the timeline, on either side (mine or WP's) and even uncertain if I can sustain the effort. I've slowly started to ask around for help, ideally I'd just like to focus on writing and editing, not coding. I've been a semi-regular editor here for nearly a year but this newpage creation stuff is too much like writing programming code (solo), which i hated in school. heh. But thanks again for the feedback. Respectfully, PrBeacon (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, think this article is one of your better contributions and has definite potential. I think it deserves some more attention before we decide whether to merge it with Whaling Controvery or let it stand on its own.

I can lend a small hand with the coding. I'm not a programmer and I'm not overly familiar with wiki markup, but I've had an easy enough time with it so far and hope to learn a few new things here. Heck, I just put the {{update after}} tag to use for the first time just now. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong here I am not trying to destroy content creation. If this article stays I will make sure it follows WP:NPOV and WP:V and make sure it is not a WP:COATRACK. I just feel strongly that it is easier to keep up the quality of wikipedia without lots of separate overlapping articles when they are not necessary. Polargeo (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you withdrew your merge proposal. Ignoring the possible coatrack concerns, it is duplicated info that redirects and TLC at other articles could have addressed. Consensus is consensus though so I won't stand in its way. Maybe this will be an instance of me being completely wrong (I hate when that happens dammit :) ) Cptnono (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes my experience on wikipedia tells me when to give up fighting and work constructively and with three editors against a merge and all with good points and the article improving beyond the coatrack it started out as I thought it was clearly time to join the improvement camp. That said I think I will keep an eye on this for a while. Polargeo (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actual Anti-whaling History

Whether or not anyone realizes it, there is a great deal of information available about significant events in the history of anti-whaling activism. I've started adding this to the article with the first direct action ever against whaling and the first success of lobbying and public awareness campaigns.

Here is a partial timeline:

1960s-1970s: Popular culture adopts whales and anti-whaling organizations form
1972: UN vote for moratorium 52-0, US national laws to protect whales in this and following years
1975: First anti-whaling direct action - (Robert Hunter & Paul Watson) Greenpeace action North Pacific - Russia
1975: Pirate whaling scandal first made public by Nick Carter - implicates Japan, Norway, South Africa
1976: Greenpeace action North Pacific - Russia
1977: Willie the Whale prank at Canberra IWC meeting
1977: Whale and Dolphin Coalition & Project Jonah - Australia
1977: Greenpeace action North Pacific - Russia
1978: Australia outlaws whaling
1978: Increased pirate whaling all over the world linked to Japan and investigated in this and following years
1978: Greenpeace action North Atlantic - Iceland
1979: Factory ship ban - IWC pelagic whaling ban for every species except minke
1979: Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary
1979: US Packwood Magnuson law gives US President power to deny fishing rights within 200 mile EEZ for ICRW violations
1979: Paul Watson rams pirate whaler Sierra - Later scuttles ship "Sea Shepherd"
1979: More pirate whaling exposed - Japan passes law banning import of meat from non-IWC members under pressure from USA
1980: Rainbow Warrior captured by Spanish Navy but later escapes
1980: Pirate whalers Sierra, Ibsa I, Ibsa II sunk
1980: Pirate whalers Susan and Theresa seized in South Africa - Sea Bird, Sea Flower, Chu Feng, Chi Hsin seized in Taiwan
1981: IWC Sperm whale ban
1981: Sea Shepherd action - Russia
1981: Korean whale meat smuggling operation closed
1982: Greenpeace action - Peru
1982: IWC Moratorium vote succeeds
1983: Greenpeace action - Russia
1984: Conservationists win lawsuit against US government for not enforcing sanctions in Packwood Magnuson - US appeals decision
1984: Russia sanctioned by USA
1984: Japan makes deal with USA to stop commercial whaling by 1988
1985: Conservationists win 2nd lawsuit against US government for not enforcing sanctions in Packwood Magnuson - US appeals decision
1985: Moratorium takes effect in 85-86 season & scientific whaling and whaling under objection begins
1985: EIA action - Faroe Islands
1986: Sea Shepherd action - Iceland whalers Hvalur VI and VII sunk, shore station vandalized
1987: EIA action - Faroe Islands
1987: Greenpeace action - Germany - Icelandic whale meat cargo seized
1987: USSR and Korea stop whaling
1987: Taiwan - illegal whale meat seized
1988: Greenpeace organizes boycotts against Icelandic fish
1988: Greenpeace action - Finland - Icelandic whale meat cargo seized
1988: Japan declares end to commercial whaling but continues scientific whaling
1988: USA sanctions Japan under Packwood Magnuson
1988: Norway ends commercial whaling
1989: Greenpeace action - Antarctic - confronts Japan
1989: Iceland declares end to whaling because of boycotts
1989: Taiwan - more illegal whale meat seized
1990: IWC votes to include small cetaceans in conservation mandate
1991: EIA reports massive bycatch and incidental kill of small cetaceans in driftnets by IUU fishing
1992: UN bans driftnets
1992: Iceland leaves IWC

This should be enough to get everybody started. Should no other editors contribute, I will continue to update the history of anti-whaling. Cetamata (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to have some time soon to review and contribute. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've started reworking some of the new material, mostly just copy-editing and cleanup. Much more to do, still. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Original research

I have very serious concers regarding WP:COATRACK and WP:OR for the section Anti-whaling#Methods and tactics. This section has largely, if not entirely been lifted from other wikipedia articles on activism in general and the words changed to just say anti-whaling. There is nothing whaling specific and we don't need an article on activism in general, we already have those and a simple "see also" or wikilink within the text takes care of all of it without going off topic in the current article. I appreciate it was written quickly when PrBeacon was trying to stop a merger by fleshing out this article and I think that the best thing for this section would be a delete and start over. Polargeo (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. This section was originally meant to include specific examples and prominent criticism of various methods and tactics, as alluded to in the lead as well as comments above. I kind of hoped other, more earnestly critical editors would help provide that balance. Alas i will work on that next, yet I beg to differ about simply using links to other pages which are lacking in structure or adequate coverage, imo. This may be a separate debate about links vs. content, I'll have to do some wiki-research .. On a side note, I'd like to expand the subsistence section & perhaps integrate it more into the other sections, since aboriginal whaling is the strongest case in favor of continued but still restricted whaling. For instance, somehow mention the contentious film "Survivor of the North." And I'm still trying to find 3rd-party sources for the lead definition but the term is notoriously elusive. PrBeacon (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your thoughts I just think the section has been approached the wrong way around. We need to start off with anti-whaling sources and build them out to a section on methods. Not start off with a section on methods of protest and then find anti-whaling sources that fit into it. Or we need to find a balanced source (or sources) on anti-whaling methods in general and build a section around this. I don't fully understand your renaming of the section either. 'Countertactics' suggests tactics against anti-whaling and I don't think this is what you mean. Polargeo (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea you may be right afterall, I tried other versions of the title, too. As for the section in whole, would it be more legit if I add references from the two sources cited in lead, Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd? Their sites talk about protest and outreach activities. Or I else I can remove the section's anti-whaling phrases. If neither of those compromises works, perhaps the section is indeed better suited for the activism page (which really needs a summary of actions rather than just links to other pages). If anyone else wants to rework it for later inclusion here, I'm leaving a copy in my userspace at User:PrBeacon/Anti-whaling. I haven't had as much time lately to work on this. Also waiting for others to weigh in.. PrBeacon (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

eco terrorists

some smartass reverted my edit aa vandalism. so here is a exempt from ECO TERRORISM article

n a 2002 testimony to the US Congress, an FBI official mentioned the actions of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in the context of eco-terrorism.[21] The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society intervenes against whaling, seal hunting, and fishing operations with direct action tactics. In 1986, the group caused nearly 1.8 million dollars worth of damage to equipment used by whalers in Iceland.[9] In 1992, they attacked two Japanese ships that were drift-net fishing for squid by cutting their nets and throwing bombs on board the boats.[15]

71.99.92.124 (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

doubtful that it belongs in the lead/introduction, certainly not in the way you tried adding it twice with obvious grammar/spelling errors. Try working it into the body text first. If it gains enough weight there, then later a case could be made for adding it to the lead. 98.92.184.197 (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anti-whaling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090929062257/http://environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/pubs/iwc-factsheet-history.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/pubs/iwc-factsheet-history.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091012032101/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/free-the-tokyo-two-300608 to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/free-the-tokyo-two-300608

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-whaling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100301222955/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/whaling to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/whaling
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100312025947/http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/marine_mammals.html to http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/marine_mammals.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030220001911/http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/gov_oceans/Protective.PDF to http://oceancommission.gov/documents/gov_oceans/Protective.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-whaling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513160838/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/whaling/whaling_myths/ to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/whaling/whaling_myths

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)