Talk:MV Shōnan Maru 2

Research?

I know NPOV is a difficult thing in such matters but isn't it safe to say that "Southern Ocean and Antarctic Ocean whale research programme" is quite a euphemism for what is probably most objectively described as a hunting program? --Mudd1 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"whale research program" is the term used by International Whaling Commission. Oda Mari (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yushin maru class ?

The superstructure of the Yushin Maru (1,2,3) type vessels is different and so is the bow. Are there any sources to the statement? --130.208.165.5 (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't refind my original source so I removed it until I get it again. GainLine ♠ _♥ 20:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Class names are usually based on the first ship of the class but I notice that the Yushin Maru 2 was launched 30 years after the Shonan Maru 2, so the link was probably invalid anyway. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Harpoon vessel?

I know it's the same general make as the other harpoon ships in the Japanese whaling fleet, but hasn't the Shōnan Maru 2 been demonstrated to have a water cannon where the harpoon would be? If so, wouldn't that preclude its being a harpoon vessel? Or is the water cannon a temporary setup? SpudHawg948 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The ship seems to have foregone this role altogether; she now sports a new all-white paint scheme with the words "Government of Japan" on the side of her superstructure where the "Research" used to be when she had the blue/white paint scheme of the Yushin Maru ships. Orca1 9904 (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"Paramilitary" needs a citation or a quick removal

If the newly added first paragraph of the "Altercations" section were about a living person, it would be erased immediately for being critical but unsourced info. As it is, it needs a source ASAP or it must be removed. Even after adding a source, I believe the last sentence will need to be revised, as it sounds right now like it's fact that the vessel was too aggressive, which led to the opinion on paramilitary activities, when, I'd be willing to bet, both parts are opinion (and thus should be put into the mouth of the SSCS). And even then, I want to see the source, because it's not clear that this information is really encyclopedic. If Joe Schmoe says "Wow they're aggressive, they must be paramilitary forces," that opinion isn't notable unless the person speaking has some knowledge of such behaviors. So...the source? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Class Prefix

Shouldn't the ship be listed as FV(Fishing vessel) rather than MV? KyprosNighthawk (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Bethune's letter

I just removed this: "A letter to the captain of the Shōnan Maru 2 from Mr. Bethune stated that maritime experts concur that the Ady Gil was in the right of way and that the Shōnan Maru 2 did not give way an therefor was at fault for the collision." (added by User:Kyprosnighthawk). The letter itself is the equivalent of a self-published source--it has no reliability, either in a Wikipedia sense or a real world sense (note, for example, that the letter doesn't state who this "maritime experts" are). The news article itself is reliable; however, it looks to me like both the Japanese Navy's and the SSCS's positions are already well-represented in the prior paragraphs, so adding this doesn't seem necessary. However, if someone else has a way to rephrase the discussions of that news report and include it in a way that clearly shows this is just Bethune's position, feel free to give it a shot. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason I quoted the letter saying it stated that maritime experts agreed to the fault (Probably one of which is that one that was interviewed on some news clip), was because I don't think the youtube clip showing said expert counts. I made an effect not to specifically state is WAS the fault, but rather point out there was some form of published proof (ie: letter)

Obviously, if I thought that the video clip of said maritime analyst counted outright, I would have ignored stating that it was in the letter. As for the ICR vs Oz's Maritime Authority, I think both didn't make a direct ruling, but it seems to me that the expert in the news clip is may be indipendent. So I dunno.

Unfortunately the clip from both the Shounan and the Ady gil isn't reliable (phyics and all, mounted camers are going to look stationary no matter what on moving vessels if there are no landmarks so..) The clip from the Barker is probably the least iffy since it's a third-person view. KyprosNighthawk (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the news video attached to that article, but it doesn't quote any "maritime experts." You are correct that a random youtube clip won't suffice. Even if we got a news clip off of an actual news station's website, all it would attest to is that one expert agrees with the SSCS position. News shows have "experts" on all the time, and I don't think we can regularly use them as definitive sources (other than for their own opinion). As it is, we still can't add the Bethune letter, because it's nothing more than his opinion (and we already have his opinion cited in the article). If you do come across the news clip, let us know, then we can figure out if there's a way to source it legitimately (maybe it's archived somewhere on one of the news stations). However, it may be that the story is from too long ago and the video now only exists on uploading sites. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Vessel Speed

There have been numerous changes to the vessels top speed, all unsourced. The current top speed has been sourced correctly. If anybody wishes to change it, please provide a reliable source when doing so. GainLine ♠ _♥ 08:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Maritime New Zealand just released a report on the collision between the Ady Gil and Shonan Maru II that puts the latter's trial speed at 18.8 knots. The report also list the vessel as having a substantially more powerful engine, 5424hp (4045 kilowatts), than the 1100 hp listed in the article. Actually, now that I look at it, I think the stats in this article may be for the wrong vessel... I'm going to update them to reflect the ones listed in the MNZ report.

A pdf of the report is available here: http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/AdyGil/Investigation-report-Ady-Gil-Shonan-Maru-Hi-rez.pdf 74.67.173.54 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article should be cleaned up to ensure NPOV. As it stands now it is written from a pro-whaling perspective without any of the criticism of the whaling program being mentioned. 82.170.244.87 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Since this is an article about a ship, it shouldn't have any criticism of the whaling program--there are several dozen other articles where such information belongs. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There is debate about the purpose of the ship, the article describes it as purely a research vessel for whale counting purposes with no defensive role whatsoever, Sea Shepherd and their supporters describes it as a security ship. The ship is shown several times in the TV show Whale Wars as undertaking direct actions against the vessels of Sea Shepherd, which is not what one would expect from a research ship which one would expect to stay out of the way and only take action when confronted directly. 82.170.244.87 (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your impression of what a research ship should or shouldn't do when confronted by an attacker is interesting, but it's original research; so to are your interpretations of what it did on Whale Wars. If you have reliable sources (note that SSCS itself won't be RS in this case) that state that Shonen Maru 2 appears to be more than a research ship, please provide them and we can determine if they can go into the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Because of the remoteness of the events there are only two original sources: SSCS and ICR, who completely disagree with each other. If one is deemed unreliable the article is effectively pushing the POV of the other source (if their information could be seen as "unbiased"). Hence NPOV. Besides all data comes from an ICR report which was published verbatim by the IWC (which is not a scientific journal but a policy making body) without peer review by other scientists. It is not listed on the ICR website as being published in a journal. Besides is the number of whales counted relevant to this article (which you said yourself is about a ship)? I think this article should stick to independently verifiable facts. 82.170.244.87 (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MV Shōnan Maru 2. 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/20101128093609/http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/AdyGil/Investigation-report-Ady-Gil-Shonan-Maru-Hi-rez.pdf to http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/AdyGil/Investigation-report-Ady-Gil-Shonan-Maru-Hi-rez.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114015158/http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-100105-4.html to http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-100105-4.html

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) 05:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)