Talk:Whale Wars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jane Taylor

I removed Jane Taylor from the Crew list and moved her to the former crew list because she was told by Watson that she was not welcomed back because she made teh SSCS look bad.

sign your comments with 4 thingys: "~~~~" and commenting at the bottom of the page is the norm.

Do you have a source? The whole section could use one but I would love to know the back story and verify.Cptnono (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at her Myspace for a source. I can't find it right now, but I assure you it is true. There has also been a lot of drama over Watson's new cyber girlfriend, Mia, dissing a lot of SSCS members and supporters. Even wrting nasty emails to them and telling them to kill themselves. She WAS gong ot go on the trip but decided to stay on land and play around with his Myspace account. You will notice that she is very self-centered and jealous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the source, from her official Facebook account http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=search&gid=165820243157

That is whiney drama. Thank you for not adding any of that into the article.

On a similar note, citeepisode template might be a good idea for the tables. Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

a note could be added to her listing that she was told not to come back for the next season —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it is about a living person we have to be extra cautious (the intent f Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies here). Any note needs to be verifiable per a reliable source (not facebook).Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section is full of personal opinions with no citation!

For example:

- "Watson is well known for resorting to fabrication and deceit in order to further his cause"

- "Paul Watson faked being shot by the Japanese crew or coast guard personnel" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.8.251 (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism & Rating

I think we may need to consider getting an admin to (temporarily) semi-protect this article, since there are a lot of anonymous vandalism going on.Kyprosサマ (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. There are numerous good-faith IP edits here, which should not be discouraged unless really necessary. Kusma (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Episode Summary

Any thoughts on adding a breif summary on each episode? Kyprosサマ (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No reason why not. Seems to be common practice across WP. Here is one example, The Office (US TV series) season 1, from which you could get the episode table and begin compiling the info. Theflyer (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Mihirangi Portion

To the moderators- Why has this been taken off? "Also controversial on the voyage was the decision to dedicate an entire day of Operation Migaloo to creating a music video by singer Mihirangi in the Southern Ocean for her single No War. Mihirangi was aboard the MV Steve Irwin to support its cause, as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society commonly has celebrities involved in their campaigns. In return for her support, she was given access to the cameras and the helicopter to film her video, which was entirely acquired and purchased with money from donors, all of which she then used to locate and be brought on top of an iceberg, where she filmed her video. She soon left the crew shortly after the MV Steve Irwin returned to port to fix its engine roughly halfway through its voyage for unknown reasons. Although this was not covered in the final cut of the show, she was filmed by the camera crew and edited out during production of the series."

It has been cited, and vandalized, and criticized by lots of people. That makes it controversial- and also true. To any members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society- Why don't you want people to know about this?? (SSPirate (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

It was taken off because it is original research. See WP:OR and the section on synthesis in particular. You took a source saying she was going south and a music video link (of questionable copyright), and somehow came up with the fact that she used SS resources and they spent a day shooting her video. Nowhere in the sources does it say that, so therefore it is original research, and it was removed as such. --Terrillja _talk 12:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for the sake of all the folks reading this- and following all WP rules, including synthesis and Original Research, I'm going to lay down my case very carefully(SSPirate (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

(1)We know that Mihirangi planned to go aboard, and made it aboard the ship for Operation Migaloo. This is referenced http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-071119-1.html That is her planning to get aboard. This is her blog post while aboard the ship <http://www.seashepherd.org/migaloo/blog/blog_071216_Mihirangi.html so one could imply that she actually made it aboard. Finally, these are multiple articles http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/04/22/10285_gossip-news.html http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/may/03/born-music/ http://www.echo.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=542 confirming that not only did she go down to antactica with the sea shepherd, but she also shot her video there. Furthermore http://www.echo.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=542 states that Whilst down there she was fortunate to film footage for her new clip working with producer Peter Brown. Which leads me to my second point (2)Peter Brown is/was the 1st Mate during the Operation Migaloo http://animalplanet.mlogic.mobi/me_ww/detail/27696821;jsessionid=D64F10C9E15D1C9473377F8632122C06.anmplt. If it was produced by him, that would certainly imply that he spent time with Mihirangi working on the video while on board the Steve Irwin. However, being that the Sea Shepherd is 100% funded by donations http://seashepherdgig.com/ "To this day, Sea Shepherd remains totally funded by donation and staffed by volunteers.", that implies that whatever resources used was donated by their financiers, because Mihirangi was a volunteer http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-080102-1.html "The consequences of returning to port in the middle of a campaign with a volunteer crew are that we were bound to lose a few. ... Mihirangi, Brad Axiak, and Simon King had to leave because the delay cut into the time in February when they had events or appointments scheduled", and not paying to be aboard. Because there was only one helicopter on board, and Mihirangi used it for the express purpose of videotaping her music video, its safe to say she didn't bring it on board. About the only thing I can't prove is thexact time it took to actually film the video. Although getting ready, flying up to the top of the iceberg, then further flying while filming, then flying back would be a pretty substantial amount of time. For the sake of argument, I'm going to say something like "while aboard the Steve Irwin, Mihirangi and 1st Mate Peter Brown took a detour from their campaign to film a music video for Mihirangi's song No War."(SSPirate (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

To recap- We've established that Mihirangi planned to board the Steve Irwin. She got aboard the ship. She made a music video while the Steve Irwin was supposed to be on campaigning(Notice the reference was in Feb that she left- the campaign ended in March...). She used the resources aboard the ship that were donated to facilitate the intervention of whaling. After looking at all this evidence (there are 8 references for that one topic alone) its pretty easy to infer that she received all of these resources in lieu of her support quid pro quo. Because she was aboard, and the Whale Wars crew was aboard as well, she must have been at some point filmed by the crew. Because she didn't actually make it on the show implies she was edited out. If anyone has any objections after this "proof" please post your hesitations here.(SSPirate (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

I added a fact tag to the controversy portion. I think the fact that a video was made is well documented. It needs a source to show that the decision to assist in the making of the video was controversial however, otherwise it should be included in the general section about that particular trip.Seaphoto^Talk 01:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Buytric Acid censorship

Why has the statistics of Buytric acid keep getting removed? It is confirmed to he a harmful substance, potentially deadly to sea creatures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC) because it's actually rotten butter, maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

excatally! the "stats" of it are, pretty simply, it's rotten butter, and less acidic then pie filling, lemon, beer, and sevral other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't butter, lemon, or pie filling. Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Whale Wars television series, Ok -- Criticism of Sea Shepherd, No.

"'Critic response has been generally positive'"?! This is blatantly biased, IMO. check this link http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2008/11/06/2008-11-06_whale_wars_reality_show_gets_a_seaplus.html. Not so positive. The way all of the reviews are shown in mediate context feels like an ad on animal planet. -|->TheFSaviator-|-> (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this an article about a television show? Why is there a section criticizing a Sea Shepherd's campaign? Propose removal of this irrelevant and unsourced content. RomaC (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Valid point. While there is no doubt that this is a controversial organization, the appropriate place to list such criticism would be the article on the Sea Shepherd's activities. The only thing I would leave, if it can be documented, would be the criticism over the music video, as the decision to edit it out of the show reflects on the program.Seaphoto^Talk 16:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets not remove it entirely, as it provides a good launching point to the other article. The section should be trimmed to a single paragraph. Text under "main article" notes is generally just a couple sentences summarizing the content of the other page. We don't want duplicate content. --BarkerJr (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is enough information on the criticism of Sea Shepherd on their page. This page should focus on the TV show. --RobertGary1 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Much of the criticism of the Sea Sheperd is unsourced and too irrelevant for the TV series page. And the music video portion needs to be clearer about why it's controversial. scotts (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed the content per this discussion. There remains only (yet unsourced) specific criticism of the show. About the music video, I saw no sources that were critical. Reports in the bigger media seemed favourable. RomaC (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Good edit. We need to take a look at the shooting section as well, which needs to be both shorter and better referenced as well. Most of the criticism belongs on the Sea Shepherd page, not on this article.Seaphoto^Talk 05:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The comment that criticism has come largely from parties normally critical of Sea Sheppard is blatently false. Numerous sources are easy to find, many from conservation organizations and their supporters, which are highly critical of this show and its one sided blatant endorsement of these terrorist activities.CharmsDad (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

the show is not endorsing the SS efforts, they are documenting it -- subtle difference, perhaps, but important one nonetheless. and to repeat what i've written above: they're far from terrorists. the correct term is activists, whether or not you agree with their (non-violent) tactics. Fhue (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Wrong. Sea Shepherd does exert a certain amount of editorial control over the series.
2. They absolutely fit the definition of “terrorists”; the only reason we don’t use the term is because it’s pejorative (read: POV). To quote a fellow wikipedian, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.
3. SSCS rams, boards, launches harmful chemicals at and scuttles whalers’, fishers’ and sealers’ ships. To call their actions “non-violent” is just downright ridiculous. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. What's your source on this claim? From what I've read and seen in interviews, the film crew is independent of the SSCS. Take the shooting controversy, for example. The show included Watson's allegations, but they also balanced it with skepticism. Judging from the footage alone, I don't believe he was shot.
2. and 3) The terms "terrorist" and "violent" denote, first and foremost, more than just property damage. Again you're arguing for the wider connotations, which is just as misleading as "non-violent" .. but what is the middle ground? "eco-terrorist" is too close to the former.

Unfortunately, no one is coming up with better, more neutral terms. I use "non-violent" to mean that they don't harm people, but admittedly it is lacking. And I agree they do use violent direct action tactics, but it is restrained in the sense that they dont attack the people, just the property. so "violent" is misleading, as well. Fhue (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The film crew is from Discovery/Animal Planet. Animal Planet (as part of The Discovery Channel) produces and films this program (as noted in various articles on Discovery Channels web site example: http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/web/whale-wars/about/about-whale-wars/). Attempting to disable the propulsion, guidance, control and/or communication capabilities of a ship at sea is a direct action threatening the lives of all individuals on that ship. Attempting to board a ship underway at sea without permission is, by definition, an act of piracy. That is not restraint and these individuals are terrorist by any definition. Animal Planet's one sided presentation makes it clear their corporate position is to endorse these actions no matter what feeble "disclaimer" they post to disguise it. It would be appropriate to note in the main article after the Animal Planet disclaimer that that channel produces the program and has control over content.CharmsDad (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Spending several years in Marine Search and Rescue any attempt to damage a vessle on the water threatens the lives of all people onboard. The water is an harsh mistress and the slightest failure, especially in extreme conditions, can mean death to everyone involved. Attacking the vessle is terrorism. Boarding is Piracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.213.213 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

None of these responses address the original point - the statement on the main page that criticism has come largely from parties normally critical of Sea Sheppard is an unsubstantiated opinion. There are numerous criticisms of this show based on its one sided presentation. Apparently opinion is accepted on Wikipedia if it expresses the "right" view.CharmsDad (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we somehow merge the two sections on criticism? The second section (simply entitled "Criticism") is primarily based on forum comments. Personally I dont object to including a summary of negative commentary, but it should be qualified: viewers who criticize the show are not automatically promoted to status of "critics." (I just made the semantic changes, but I'm not sure if this second section still stands up to scrutiny.) Fhue (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Forum postings are not appropriate sources. Please see my recent edit summary on the article.Cptnono (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

After some thought, I agree with you. The 1 source in the section is used slightly out of context (see below though). There is a whole section criticizing the group at the Sea Shepherd article. Unfortunately, it is easy to lump it in here since most people probably Google whale wars instead of the group. I believe the best way to let the reader know that there is substantial amounts of criticism is to work the Wikilink back in (I'm not sure if it is OK to have a subsection with just a link. Anyone else know for sure?) I also think it would be very easy to change the format on the reception subsection. The WSJ review has plenty of critique directly related to the show so maybe we should expand the section past the quotes since there were several other aspects not mentioned in the single line.

Also, we need to figure out how to put the above mentioned source from the cameraman in somewhere because it gives amazing insight to the actual production: Hinckley, David (6 November 2008), "Television Review – ‘Whale Wars’ reality show gets a sea-plus", NY Daily News http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ashley-dunn/i-wasnt-ready-to-drown-so_b_211559.html I feel like a hippie now :( Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Considerable and excessive edits by User:Cubrilovic

User:Cubrilovic has replaced so much content edited by so many with only his own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.135.168 (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That is the nature of Wikipedia - it is a dynamic encyclopedia, which everyone can edit. The question is not if someone re-writes an article, but if that edit stands up. Remember you have the ability to edit the article as well! Seaphoto^Talk 03:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Animal Planet disclaimer

I think it should be noted that, though they provide this (rather weak) disclaimer, Animal Planet created, developed and produces this show. As such, they have complete creative control over the show's content so making any claim that it does not represent their views is rather feeble.CharmsDad (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

please provide your source for claiming that AP "created [and] developed" the show. As far as i can tell, they document the SS actions and edit the film later for airing. According to wikipedia's own pages, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (1977) pre-dates Animal Planet (1996). Fhue (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the numerous articles on Discovery's web site and per your own post, Animal Planet films the events (you say "document") and edits the film for airing. That means they are controlling the content and how it is presented AND, by not presenting opposing views, are controlling the message. Articles on Discovery's web site clearly record the history of development and production for this show. The show is a separate entity from the organization it is "documenting". Do you not understand the difference?CharmsDad (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If your point is that the show has a particular POV, I think that it is fair. The hard part is to document that in a neutral way suitable for Wikipedia, avoiding OR (such as comparing percentages of time given to either side to present their message). The ideal method would be to find a verifiable major media criticism of the show and work that in.--Seaphoto^Talk 02:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor updates to the "Shooting Controversy"

Hi. New on Wiki: I noted some minor and I'm certain unintentional discrepancies in the Shooting Controversy section relative to the reported articles, so I did some clean-up. No trouble; glad to help. Cheers, GeoffP1974 ~~

Certain lines in the section are not supported by the sources. One of the sources is not inline with wikipedia's reliability guidelines (might also be copyright but not sure of those rules). Look to be the viewers interpretation of the event which is a concern when it is contentious. Removing a few lines which are not currently supported.

Follow-up (regarding retraction not if it was a bullet): The Australian Foreign Minister offered 2 media releases on March 7 2008. One states "Japan has advised the Australian Embassy in Tokyo that a crew member on board the Japanese whaling vessel fired warning shots." while the later says: "Japanese officials have now advised the Australian Embassy in Tokyo that during the incident in the Southern Ocean this afternoon, three 'warning balls' – also known as 'flashbangs' – had been fired." Reuters and BBC reported off different ones but reliable source does not support a recant. It might have been simply a poor translation but until a reliable source says either way, let the facts speak for themselves. Three articles mention that it was a retraction and all need to be cleaned up. Any thoughts on how to clean this up to not lead the reader in either direction? Linking other discussion pages here. Sources: Press release 1) http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2008/fa-s048_08.html Press release 2) http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2008/fa-s049_08.html Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSYD154936 BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7282760.stm Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Shooting Controversy"

Notice how there is absolutely NO bruising under the vest. If it was a bullet, there would have been bruising. Also, the piece of metal removed was a thin, curved, hollow piece of metal. The Japanese statement that a real shot would have staggered Watson and left bruising was 100% accurate. As a member of the USAF's Security Police, I know a gunshot stopped by a vest when I see one. Open your eyes people! Don't blindly follow what these people tell you. SpudHawg948 (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your perception does not matter at all for the article. I agree with you but until a source says one way or the other it cannot go in.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cptnono. And on the other hand, no proof has been provided that Watson was shot, so I’ve been checking WP articles that mention the controversy, to make sure it’s made clear that these are only allegations from Watson and his crew at this point. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The worst part is all of the articles related to the group. As NRen2k5 knows, the amount of work needed to get them all up to par is surprising.Cptnono (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you scroll down to the "see also" section and click on "Nisshin Marru." after going to that page, they also talk about the shooting incident and say that they did testing that showed the bullet was shot well before the incident into the vest and that the case was dropped due to the crew not wanting to cooperate anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.0.72 (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That was unsourced information added by a first-time editor. Special:Contributions/68.104.206.212 — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

I’m thinking the show’s title card is more appropriate to use in the infobox than the DVD sleeve is. Anybody else care to weigh in? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am down about ten pounds since my last weigh-in, but I have more to lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.68.134.132 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, really helpful... But yeah, the title card is more appropriate to identify the show than the DVD case. Jedibob5 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

intro change

The introduction's final words "in the name of research" give undue credence to the Japanese whaling industry; a casual reader might take away little understanding of the true conflict. The SSCS's mission is to stop the whaling, not just "deter," and thereby enforce international regulation protecting whales; the Japanese claim they are killing the whales for research but, as the show's voiceover counterclaims, this is their cover story to get around the regulations. Fhue (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They are doing it in the name of research. Bias would be to call it either "under the guise of research" or "for research"Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. They only claim "research" to use a loophole in the regulation. The show includes footage of the meat being packaged for sale, which has been verified by other anti-whaling groups, including Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/activists-charged-for-exposing). Furthermore, according to sources on the Japanese whaling page @http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_whaling#Scientific_research, "Japan began scientific research hunts to provide a basis for the resumption of sustainable whaling." And even this last point on sustainability is questionable, given that the source cited in that wikipedia page looks suspiciously like a marketing piece from the Japanese whaling industry & its research front, www.icrwhale.org -- the wikipedia source is a vanilla PDF from their website. Fhue (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your evidence doesn’t say what you want it to. Please try to maintain at least a modicum of objectivity. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 11:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm a new contributor to wikipedia, i'll take your dismissive tone with a grain of salt. So here's a quote from The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3325580.ece, referenced on the Whaling in Japan page:

"Australia and other critics dismiss the Japanese programme as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned, and claim that whale meat ends up in supermarkets and restaurants."

The direct evidence on film (in Whale Wars) points to questionable research, and thats what I'm saying. Not the other way around. Fhue (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You’re imagining the Japanese’s way of thinking based on your personal interpretation of a small amount of evidence. You’re trying to present your personal conclusion and back it up with that evidence rather than just presenting the evidence. That’s POV and original research. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

They actually do not dipute the fact that they package it for food. But this isn't the appropriate place to debate the ethics of it or try to change anyones mind. They make the claim and we are letting the facts speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I’m comfortable with the way Fhue presented it in the edit he made about an hour and a half after my comment. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear enough in summarizing the issue: I'm not arguing about whether Japanese whaling "in the name of research" is legitimate, but rather that the introduction should reflect this debate. Nowhere in the main article is there mention of this conflict. Yet it is an important part of the show & should be included. And no, the conclusions are not mine. Fhue (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

adding the extra line was fine. as long as there is balance it should be good. I think "claim"(Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#claim) needs to be removed. should be easy enough to fiddle with.Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To be accurate: it is the International Whaling Commission (IWC) which recognizes the hunting of whales by the Japanese as research. The IWC's scientific committee reviews each country's proposal, including the goals and methods, and determines if it meets their standards before issuing the permits. And there ARE commercial whaling operations by Norway and (since 2005) Iceland which are "under objection" by the IWC. Also, to be clear, whaling is restricted by international treaty agreements and so is technically not "illegal under any international law." IWC regulations also encourage the whales taken to be "fully used", which includes use of the meat for food.CharmsDad (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The program follows Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, as he and his crew aboard the MV Steve Irwin attempt to deter Japanese ships that hunt minke and fin whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in the name of scientific research.[1] Environmental groups dispute the Japanese claim of research "as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned." or

• The program follows Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, as he and his crew aboard the MV Steve Irwin attempt to deter Japanese ships that hunt minke and fin whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in the name of scientific research.[1] Environmental groups claim the research is a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned. (trying to make a point. bad!)

• The program follows Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, as he and his crew aboard the MV Steve Irwin attempt to deter Japanese ships that hunt minke and fin whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The Japanese do this in the name of research/say it is research something like that while environmental groups argue it is a "disguise for commercial whaling"

• The program follows Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, as he and his crew aboard the MV Steve Irwin attempt to deter Japanese ships that hunt minke and fin whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in the name of scientific research.[1] Environmental groups argue that the whaling is "a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned."

Sure there are a few options which will eliminate some of the potential concerns with words to avoid. Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the last one, with a small but important change:
Environmental groups argue that the research is "a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned."
Fhue (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It should also be made clear that it’s difficult if not impossible to make that distinction, since IWC rules stipulate that the carcasses from whale research not be wasted. “Dismiss” is strong wording that implies that the critics’ position is more solid than just the opinion that it is. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please check out the base proposed in the subseciton below.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

how about somthing like "called reasearch, but enviernmental groups say it is merely comercial whaling in disguise" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've done my share of shit talking on other pages but so far a few of us are doing alright on this one. Lets try not accuse editors who have been actively working on this and related page of vandalism. Assume good faith or other fun guidelines can be pointed to.Cptnono (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this to stem from NRen's mistaken affront at [revert of actual vandalism by anon.user] when cross-editing/reverting with this article. Fhue (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who's confused, and still assuming bad faith, I see. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow.. this article looks really good and NPOV right now. So Kudos to all of you holding the fort down. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Captain

been thinking about this one. He is the "Captain" for the show which this article is about. Who knows if the Doctor is really an MD. For other articles, it could be argued that he is not in command of a naval or merchant vessel and he may not be licensed (don't know if he is or not) but he is the master of the ship which leads to the term. This might be more controversial to people in the maritime industry, though. I've seen it come up randomly on the web so some people do have a concern with the title. I'm on the fence for other articles but this title is at the least acceptable in the cast table for the show.Cptnono (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)06:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It’s already made perfectly clear that he’s the leader of the organization and commander of its vessels. I don’t see how respecting his wish to be referred to as “Captain Watson” adds anything to any article. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

captain paul watson has been turned into Watson. Added quotes to titles in cast box. Alright fix?Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

These have been removed a couple times. I don't think anyone wants to edit war over it so I'll restart this conversation. RS has covered if Watson is technically a captain or not so what might look like scare quotes makes some sense. This was applied to all positions since they are a role in a casting box. We don't know if the doctor is even a doctor (I don't have any reason to believe not) but using it for all names prevents what would like POV pushing by just applying it to the captain. This is a minor change that makes a big difference factually. I could see replacing the POSITION column heading with ROLE if the quotes are a big problem.Cptnono (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Trying ROLE. Position can imply more than their role on the vessel or the television show while role can be both. Cptnono (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Information on "battles"

In reading the article, I couldn't find anything that actually described how the "battles" that are talked about consist of. Can someone please add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.176.207 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society#Operations . This made me think that the lead may need some tinkering since it doesn't give too much info:

Whale Wars is a one-hour weekly American documentary-style reality television series that premiered on November 7, 2008 on Animal Planet cable channel. The program follows Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, as he and his crew aboard the MV Steve Irwin attempt to deter Japanese ships that hunt minke and fin whales off the coast of Antarctica.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society disputes the Japanese claim that the whaling done in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is legally accepted research and is instead banned commercially based whaling. Sea Shepherd has been both criticized and praised for tactics which include throwing stink bombs at, boarding, and attempting to disable the Japanese vessels. Due to the controversial nature of the show, Animal Planet displays the disclaimer: "The following program contains commentary and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Animal Planet."

Any thoughts? I am going for it being concise (expansion in the subsections or appropriate wikilinks), neutral, and related to the show. If OK, it will need to be grammar checked, NPOV checked, and wikified. Also, if we are ever going to get this up to GA status we need to discuss the production and disclaimer in the main body of the article.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding Co-founder GreenPeace claims

Paul Watson has repeatedly stated he was a co-founder of greenpeace; Greenpeace currently refers to him as an 'early activist'. There is also a statement where they clarify that he was not a co-founder. However while I do not know either way (nor especially care); in this case I'm not convinced Greenpeace is actually a reliable source on their own founders - which I know sounds silly - but if the allegations of SSCS that they have engaged in historical revision in this matter - then they're simply not reliable. What we need is a third party source. Ideally a source with knowledge of what actually went on back in the 70s but has no personal interest in this matter. (Brianrusso (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

Would you consider any of these ([1], [2], [3]) reliable sources? You might notice these articles represent a range of dates from 1989 to 2008, and two of these even use the term "Greenpeace founder" in reference to Watson in the headlines. If Greenpeace has actively denied that Watson was a co-founder, I think the most neutral approach would be to include both references that document Watson's claim that he was and Greenpeace's denial. I'm not saying we should support either position, but that we should report and verify both sides' claims. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really consider any of those good sources, as quite likely they just took him at his word. Frankly I don't think this is the sort of thing that can be solved using google; I think someone would have to do actual research/investigation - and frankly may not be worth it since the more I read I see a lot of terms like 'founder, co-founder, founder member, founding member, early member, influential member'. It's all a pretty ambiguous thing considering that from what I've read Greenpeace's origins were pretty 'organic' anyway; not really being formalized and it not even being very objective at which point it was really founded. By all sources I've found Paul Watson was not on the first ship to go to amchitka to 'observe' nuclear testing by the US; but that wasn't really Greenpeace per se and it didn't actually become greenpeace until some years later.

Anyway, I just added a note in the article that it's disputed and referenced greenpeace's news bit about their PoV. This discussion really belongs in the [Paul Watson] article and it's already mentioned there anyway. One alternative is to remove it entirely and redo the 'featured cast' part so it doesn't mention it. That said, it is mentioned in the show relatively frequently. Perhaps leaving it as-is now with the mention of dispute is okay and let the readers decide? Like I said, I don't think there's going to be any easily found, reliable source for this online. (Brianrusso (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

I just removed it. This doesn't belong in the comment box regarding his role for the show. Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson, and maybe a line somewhere else would be OK places for it. Also, if you do want to adjust those pages, Watson says he is. Greenpeace says he is an early member but not a "founder". An early and influential member seems to work.Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me (Brianrusso (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

he was. he was one of the founders of the "don't make a wave" organiztion, which was reformed into green peace. he was also the 8th member of greenpeace. if that dosnt make him a founding member, what does?

Acknowledgment from both parties and the sources. If you can't view this objectively and follow the sources you shouldn't be editing. Your recent talk page comments here and elsewhere make that a question And sign your comments.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

South Park critique

This weeks South Park episode lampoons Whale Wars and the captain. South Park focuses on him lying, the ineffectiveness of their methods, infers the show is boring and implies the show is on the verge of cancellation. They hold no punches in their criticism of Paul Watson. Howto source this and should we include the critiques in the cultural section. Alatari (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is hilarious! The reception section needs to be expanded into prose. This might be a good reason to start and include it there. We can cite episode to pull quotes but we could easily fall into the trap of making up our own commentary. I would reccomend waiting until a reivew comes out and going from there but we could try being really really cautious . Cptnono (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the South Park critique including some sources and it was revised down to almost nothing. I'm restoring a better sourced extended version. The new source is from a reliable one; The Christian Science Monitor. Transcripts are not available from the episode but the criticisms are made at the 9:00 "Whale Wars get better...", 9:23 "new captain not a big fat liar", 11:29 "incompetent vegan ....", 11:34 has an actual picture of Paul Watson and states "Paul Watson is an unorganized, incompetent, media whore who thought lying to everyone was OK as long as it served his cause". If we want to debate whether South Parks critiques are notable I'm sure that can easily be resolved as it has been debated before. The sources I posted and which were deleted are just a few. Alatari (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's Paul's views: The See Shepherd Society's printing of Paul Watson's response to the episode. I've never watched the show and look forward to it so maybe it's getting the South Park 'bump'. Alatari (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. Both seashepherd.com and myspace are not RS.Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up. Don't touch other people's comments. You can use the template or check the edit history. Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looked like vandalism; just random comments from an IP. Anyways Seashepard.com response from Paul Watson might be self-published but is certainly a reliable source for this article. Alatari (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is unduly self serving (see WP:SELFPUB and such) and isn't required since there is reasonable independent coverage to take its place. It has also proven to not be reliable since there is an admission to not telling the truth. They have a goal and they are trying to reach it which is OK but unfortunately it doesn't work for our purposes (encyclopedic unbiased facts). Their response also isn't important. Makers of a cartoon said they sucked. The end. Cptnono (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Folow-up: It is also appropriate to link to conversations you are taking off the discussion pagein the attempt to gain approval. Over there, I also made sure to mention bullet point number four: "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". Please don't make a big deal out of this unless you really are trying to get the source you mentioned in the article. If you are, then we have to discuss SEWLFPUB more + weight iussues. Do you really want that source in?Cptnono (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have time yet to link that discussion here and posting outside discussion links here is not mandatory. Alatari (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is that he seems to take it in stride and thinks it furthers his cause and helps Whale Wars. You are saying that the organization/person being attacked response is unimportant? I am saying that a heavy handed, bruising criticism of a person or organization does allow for a defense from that person/organization. Alatari (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it sounds harsh but in a way yes. I am not making a claim to importance, though. I believe we should limit the amount of links to a site that provides inaccurate information. The reliable sources already provide neutrally base commentary and if they don't it is our job to summarize it as such. If we used their site as a rebuttal to every piece of criticism levied against them we would be spitting in the face of the principles that guide undue weight and fringe theory. It would disrupt our ability to provide a balanced article and would provide the group a platform on Wikipedia that is better left on their webpage. That being said, it is not an excuse to have open season on the group or related topics. We need ot pick our sources carefully and make sure to use discretion when summarizing them. I also think you should attempt to find other sources. One thing I have noticed with the group is that their is plenty of press coverage that is sympathetic to their cause or will balance out their own criticism with appropriate quotes. From looking at the topic for an extended period of time I have realized that we do not need to ise their site just like we don't need to use the harshest press releases from their critics. The New Yorker and National Geographic are two perfect examples of RS that have done the job without their website. We also have external links for SSCS.

And there is a difference between mandatory and good form especially when claims of forum shopping (not that I am making it) could be made. Play nice and honest and everything should work out just fine.Cptnono (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I also attempt to be neuteral (see this edit from seconds ago diff)Cptnono (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is a new aspect of sourcing to me and if I do nothing more still some lessons learned. Alatari (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

unknown japense woman crew member

she is missing from the "Cast" list. she deserves mentione, even if her name is not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

well, im gonna add her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

well, aperantally the text is screwed up because it didnt look the same as the rest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

And I removed it because no one has any clue of her true nationality; speaking Japanese does not make someone Japanese, and her role is minor.--Terrillja _talk 00:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a huge problem with it. She is presented as Japanese just like Watson is presented as a captain. Maybe she is and maybe she isn't. Her role is a little bigger than a couple of the others already mentioned. I don't see it mattering too much either way though.Cptnono (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

she is. she says she is, she looks like she is, sea shepherd claims she is, and most immportantly, the whalers dont say she isnt! if the whalers dont say somthing sea shepherd says is wrong, THERES NO WAY IN HELL IT'S WRONG. if you want rell facts about it, it'll be hard because she hides her identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reruns

Whale Wars is currently on a couple other channels right now. I have removed it from the lead since it comes across as newsey almost promotional hey look at this fancruft. There will be another flood of this sort of thing when season three comes out. So to get this stuff in we really need to hold to guidelines and styles. Please find a source that discusses it. Hopefully, the sources will go into why it is signifigant, ratings of these rebroadcasts, and other fun info. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

POV in how show started?

Currently the History section starts with this:

In 2008, Paul Watson persuaded the Discovery Channel to make a reality show ...

Not only is this verbatim lifted from the Telegraph source, but the terms "persuaded" and "reality show" introduce additional POV, imo. I think the sentence should be rewritten unless a secondary source can confirm that Watson had any influence on the show's creation. Perusing edit history, I find it was added awhile back [4] but was never challenged. PrBeacon (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it POV?Cptnono (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I’m fine with the term “reality show” as I think many people understand that they aren’t exactly reality. It would be nice to wikilink the term if it isn’t already by that point in the article.

The “persuaded” part I do have a problem with, as it implies that Watson convinced Discovery to do a show on his organization’s activities. Do we know for sure that that’s the case, and not that Discovery approached him with the idea of making a show? — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 01:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I just changed it to 2007, since filming was already happening on January 1st, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.5.91 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume he shopped/pitched/convinced them. The source said "persuaded" which can have a negative undertone in some cases but would be simple business in this use.Cptnono (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Piracy?

Can anyone explain to me how the attacking and "stink bombing" ships of another nation doesn't qualify as piracy? How do they get away with this stuff? Jedibob5 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of piracy, I guess. Interestingly enough, SSCS matches Wikipedia’s definition of piracy pretty well. But I digress. Talk pages are made to discuss improving the article, not to discuss the subject matter itself. Discovery Communications has a set of forums discussing the show here. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But is does matter in the language and presentation of this material. If SSCS matches Wikipedia's definition of piracy, then in order to maintain a NPOV and not show a preferences for a group with which one may agree, then this article should use Wikipedia's standardized language, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.191.134 (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Piracy would be boarding a ship (which they indeed did at one moment), not just harrassing them. 2. Under international law, it is allowed for private organisations to enforce the law if no government is doing so. Therefore, they are simply, legally, enforcing the law prohibiting whaling in the sanctuary. But indeed, this should be about the article, not its topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.115.29 (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The unbinding moratorium and unrecognized treaty claims really screw up most "enforcement" arguments but if unbiased reliable sources state that SSCS claims it while discussing the show that this article is about then it should be OK for inclusion. Same goes for "piracy" only it is inflammatory so it should be treated with the extra caution dictated by WP:EXTREMIST. If Jedibob5 wants to, "piracy" claims are not yet included at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Eco-terrorism, vigilante, and others are mentioned, though. This might be a good opportunity to bring in some more info on the laws involved with the organization's operations.Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Under the IWC standards Japan's whaling quota is listed under research rather than commercial. Per the IWC restrictions, research whaling is NOT prohibited in the Antartic sanctuary areas. Only whaling which is defined by the IWC as "commercial" is restricted in sanctuary areas. Therefore, any claim that the Japanese are violating whaling restrictions or treaties is a blatent lie. If Animal Planet was presenting an unbiased show this would be clearly noted. It is the SSCS which is committing criminal acts. Also, contrary to other claims made on this show, a country absolutely CAN send military ships into that area if commercial ships are threatened. That's why the SSCS will not try their stunts against ships flagged to any country which maintains a solid navy (such as Russia.)CharmsDad (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

They actually have had 2 operations against Russia. Regardless, this is not a forum for discussing SSCS or the legalities of whaling. It is a forum for discussing how to improve the Whale Wars article on Wikipeida.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet it is apparently OK to include the claim of issue of legality when it is used in support of this group's activities (as in the first post in this block.) The point is the blatently biased presentation in this show.CharmsDad (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Do you even know what you are talking about? (striking out my comment which was aggreesive itslf) Have you seen how much pro Sea Shepherd stuff got ripped out of the main article? Find some sources and work up a something for inclusion and stop using the talk page to complain about how poopey they are.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict. Personal attack removed by another editor)

You just broke civility guidelines and it was not appropriate. I'm going to lay this out as clearly as I can:

1. "The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society disputes the Japanese claim that the whaling done in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is legally accepted research and is instead banned commercially based whaling" does not assert the validity of either side.
2. "In 2008, Paul Watson persuaded the Discovery Channel to make a reality show documentary about the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's campaign against Japanese whalers off the coast of Antarctica." asserts that Watson and the channel worked together to get the show produced
3. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society#Organization#Controversial direct-action tactics is the appropriate place on Wikipedia to include information on any claims of piracy or eco-terrorism.
4. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society#Operations#Whaling#Soviet Is the correct place for information about Russian operations.
5. The article has been changed recently so please make sure you are reviewing the current article's content and not that of several months ago.
6. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is the guideline for presenting information with sources. Sources are needed.

Do you have any questions on the above or constructive ideas on how to further improve the article? Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And I will lay it out clearly: Apparently you are entitled to make personal attacks but I am not entitled to defend myself. You have violated the rules of civility yet are pointing your finger elsewhere. I've pointed out elsewhere: it is the IWC which defines the Japanese whaling activites as research (PER THE IWC WEB SITE: www.iwcoffice.org). Your statements are completely off subject to what I have stated. Do you have questions on this? I have made constructive suggestions, including:

1. Suggesting an indication on the disclaimer that Animal Planet is a producer of this program (which you now apparently admit.)

2. Noting that the IWC accepts and approves the Japanese whaling program as research. The Japanese are operating within the bounds of the International Whaling Treaty (as administered by the IWC.)

Your original comment and your last post come across as snide and condescending. You made a blatent personal attack, yet somehow it is acceptable. Apparently the rules only apply to those who aren't on the "approved side" of a discussion. Or is it just that I'm not a member of the "in crowd" for this site?CharmsDad (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It was snide and nothing more. If you had a problem with it you should have said so instead of making a personal attack. I also struck mine out to be a little less aggressive. We can discuss it on a civility noticeboard if you wish.

1. I now admit? I never disputed it. In fact, I added the information from sources that say it was developed by an independent entity but also added a source saying their was some sort of partnership. If you don't like the disclaimer: WP:SOFIXIT. If it gets reverted by someone we can discuss it further.

2. This article is not about the legality of the whale hunt and makes no assertions. Side 1 claims x and Side 2 claims y. There are several legal issues that could be discussed (unrecognized Antarctic treaty jurisdiction, an essentially nonbinding moratorium, etc) but those should be discussed at Whaling in Japan, Whaling, International Whaling Commission, or other places.

You are clearly under the impression that I disagree with you on the legalities and positions of SSCS. If you took a step back and realized that you don't need to WP:SOAPBOX this will go a little smoother.Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, your comments were clearly personal attacks. Then again, you are obviously an insider and it is quite clear those on the inside are allowed insults, rude remarks, and personal attacks without repercussion.CharmsDad (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any further comments on the actual article? If not, feel free to go to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts if you took such offense.Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Contradicting Start Dates for Season 3

As seen in their newest advertisement on the Animal Planet channel and on their official website at http://animal.discovery.com/tv/whale-wars//, the new season of Whale Wars is said to start on June 4, 2010. However, the current article and the cited sources say that the start date is June 5, 2010. Apparently the start date was recently changed to June 4, 2010 but the article has not been updated. Which start date is correct? Googy14 (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would lean towards the source being outdated. It appears that the date is the 4th from the primary source and multiple questionable sources found in a recent google news search. We could go primary source (main page for the show) for now and plan on updating it with something less promotional closer to the date. We could also just say "Early June".Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with using the date from the most recent source (The Animal Planet Chanel Advertisement and the information on their main website). The current sources are indeed outdated; the article is giving incorrect information.Googy14 (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Australia-Japan relations

Should we add the Controversial kidnapping of the 2 activists on how its affecting the Australian and Japanese relations?--Villa88 (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They were not kidnapped, They willingly boarded the ship after attacking it. They were detained and were to be turned over to Japanese police but the Austrlian government stepped in after Watson spin his tale to the media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Again. NOT KIDNAPPED. The terrorists illegally boarded a ship and were detained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

they're far from terrorists. the correct term is activists, whether or not you agree with their (non-violent) tactics. but yes i agree they were not kidnapped. Fhue (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious / Violence - an act of aggression / Aggression - deliberately unfriendly behavior / Terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon / Terror - a person who inspires fear or dread / Sure seems like they're terrorists to me. I hope they make another raid attempt on a boat. Then they can be declared pirates and shot. That'd make for an interesting show. Where can I sign up with a research vessel? Sundive (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The point isn't if they were kidnapped, is it? The point is that it affected international relations. I think it's worthy of noting, but doesn't have as much to do with the TV show as the organization itself, and should be on the Sea Shepherd page, instead. --BarkerJr (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the above. This is worthy of mention in this article because the boarding of the ship was the focus of one of the episodes. --66.60.137.134 (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This absolutely was a focus of one show, and the one sided presentation attempting to claim these individuals were kidnapped (clearly for publicity purposes.) In spite of the claim that Wikipedia is supposed to be informational and not political, the presentation on this page suggests otherwise. This show has clearly created a great deal of animosity from once loyal Animal Planet fans.CharmsDad (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

your last point is questionable, at best: "..great deal of animosity from once loyal Animal Planet fans" is over-generalizing and thus misleading. Fhue (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Any concerns as is? It looks fine to me. We can add a line and it could work fine, too. We could also add a wikilink to that subsections on the SSCS page.Cptnono (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Could your post demonstrate bias any more clearly? It is blatently clear that this show is one sided in its presentation. My point is both clear and accurate. Your statement is more a personal attack than differing opinion.CharmsDad (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? If you mean my disagreement, that hardly counts as a personal attack. -PrBeacon (formerly Fhue) (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Shannon

The article says that Shannon is now former crew. I'm not sure about Season 3, but she was on the last episode of Season 2, and she was a crewmember on the Steve Irwin when the ship docked in New York (I met her). Do we have a source that she is no longer on the show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.131.97 (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One of them (I think it was the cute one but don;t remember her name) had a whole bunch of drama a few months ago. Might have been her. Worse comes ot worse we find out during the premier of season 3 if she is still around.Cptnono (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That was Jane Taylor, not Shannon. This has allready been adressed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.199.244 (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh you are right about part of it (I still think Shannon is the cute one after looking it up.) The show is on pretty soon so we might have to wait until then to see who the current cast is. The article now has an AMerican flag for her. this says she was born in Canada. Cptnono (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Hammarstedt

Peter Hammarstedt official biography list him as being both Sweedish and British in his nationality. Can someone please explain why his accent is North American? - Mdriver1981 (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

because his native language is sweedish and he has learned english from north americans. Arkangel lucifer (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

does sea shepherd get money from the show?

does anyone know if they do? and if so shouldnt it be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is a source.Cptnono (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Disillusioning video from CBS news on their videos link

I found the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x4hjJWYsLo I am disheartened because I just worked on a whale wars article before I found this video. I was looking for citations/references etc... This definitely makes me realize why Animal Planet puts up the strong disclaimer before airing each episode, something along the lines of "We at Animal Planet do not share the views of this program" but why on earth do they allow this propaganda to be disseminating to casual people such as myself who don't wanna be fed a line of docu-drama with so much spin when I thought this was more than just "entertainment" and I thought it was a reality show, but I guess those are all fake, too. Whatever, I quit working on this show. I'll leave it to the other editors if they want to incorporate this bombshell into the article or leave it on the talk page. It sucks for the real fans of this show and the loyal viewers. I kinda don't wanna take away from their enjoyment, because that's what people watch tv for, right? If they want news, they can watch the news. If they watch animal planet, then I guess they should just enjoy the show and take things light. Either way, I submit this sourced, cited, credentialed, verified video to the WP editors who put a lot of work into the article. Thanks for making a lot of information available about each crew member. That must took a lot of work! I also found it invaluable! 67.77.167.100 (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to make but, as indicated by the comments under the video, this is not a single incident, it is video of three incidents spliced together. In the first segment, which was taken from the Nisshin Maru, (00:00-00:15) a whale is tied to the side of a Japanese whaler and the Steve Irwin strikes near the rear mast. The Steve Irwin was attempting to stop the transfer of a whale to the Nisshin Maru, and this event was shown in a previous season. In the second (00:15-00:37), which was taken from the Bob Barker, there is no whale and you can see, from 00:18 onwards, that the Bob Barker was trailing the Nisshin Maru from a lot further back than during the first incident. The Japanese ship turns port into the Bob Barker, and then starboard to slam its stern into the Bob Barker. It's only from 00:27 that the Bob Barker makes a slight turn to starboard, or maybe it was the cameraman shifting position as the Nisshin Maru's wake is still visible until the cameraman steps back. The rest of the video is a third incident, filmed from a Japanese ship. If you look at the wakes from 1:22 onwards, the Steve Irwin's wake appears straight, while the Japanese wake has a definite curve, making it appear that the Japanese ship was turning to port across the Steve Irwin's bow. Three separate incidents and two appear to have been initiated by the Japanese. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

They look like the same incident to me but from different angles. #67 might just be venting a little. Totally understand but that isn't exactly what this is for. Also, see the essay I wrote at WP:Video links. This video does not have any commentary so I would be less inclined to use it but wanted to throw that link out there.Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That they look like the same incident is probably what whoever spliced the videos was counting on, but they made some fatal mistakes, like the whale. In the first segment all three ships are obviously very close, as the water cannon from the Nisshin Maru is hitting Steve Irwin but in the second segment it's clear that the Nisshin Maru is a long way in front of the Bob Barker. You can see the water from the water cannon falling into the water in the distance. The Bob Barker contacts the Japanese ship well forward of the aft mast structure and should have splattered the whale if it was there. The first and second segments are clearly not the same incident. The second incident is a side-swipe, while in the third only the bow of the Steve Irwin contacts the Japanese ship so they're not the same either. While the water cannon is hitting the Steve Irin in the first segement, it's not in the third so they're not the same incident either. Those who saw it on the evening news wouldn't notice that there are three separate incidents, but thanks to Youtube you can see it over and over and pick out the flaws. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The second clip is footage from the Bob Barker (which was recently seen in the show), while in the first you can see the Steve Irwin name painted on the bow. The first and third clips are from 2009 and the second clip is from 2010. It is certainly creative editing, but my question is why did someone within CBS attempt to create such a thing? --Tothwolf (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't dissected the video myself but I trust you guys did your homework. I might have been fooled! Safe to say that the video is not appropriate in any articles?Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it couldn't be used as a reliable source, that's for certain. I suppose we could still make reference to it in one or more of the various controversy sections and cite the original videos showing how it was spliced together by CBS without drawing any of our own conclusions though. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of video links, I really wanted to cite episode on Bethune's comments saying that he believed the captain of the vessel that collided with the Ady Gil was trying to clip him. Seemed like a reasonable explanation to put on a couple related articles that is certainly related but I don;t recall what episode and what minutes it was. If anyone sees it during a rerun can you pop the approximate time and episode here?Cptnono (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Bethune may have made such a comment more than once but I know what you are referring to and I think I know about where he made it. I'll see if I can track down the time index where it was aired. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the full citation:

{{Cite episode|title=Sliced in Two|episodelink=List of Whale Wars episodes#ep24|series=Whale Wars|serieslink=Whale Wars|network=[[Animal Planet]]|airdate=July 16, 2010|season=3|number=6|minutes=36:53|quote=...but I think they wanted to just scrape the bow. If they took off six inches of bow we would be limping back to Hobart. He was trying to take off a foot and he took off three or four metres in the end. The guy just miscalculated.}}

He said it while in the ward room. There are even subtitles, which is understandable because Kiwis talk funny. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If you compare index 41:04 and 41:13 of "A Bloody Trail" (S03E09) with index 0:20 and 0:27 from the Youtube video you can easily tell that the second clip in the Youtube video was the February 6, 2010 collision between the Bob Barker and the Yūshin Maru No. 3, and not the February 6, 2009 collision of the Steve Irwin and the Yūshin Maru No. 2. [5] [6] [7]

"A Bloody Trail". Whale Wars. Season 3. Episode 9. August 6, 2010. Animal Planet. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

Colliding Ships Caught on Tape. CBS. February 6, 2010. Retrieved August 10, 2010. "Caught on Tape": Sea Shepherd anti-whaling ship intentionally collides multiple times with a Japanese whaling ship in the Southern Ocean, creating a long, deep gash on the side of the ship.

I think the timing of the release of the Youtube video by CBS is interesting in that it was released on the same day that the footage showing the collision between the Bob Barker and the Yūshin Maru No. 3 was released to the media. [8] I did notice a possible slight camera angle difference, which may be because Animal Planet was shooting HTDV with their A-camera and SDTV with their B-camera. The SDTV footage might have also been taken by Sea Shepherd itself. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This video (from this page) seems to be the source for the video clip used to create the second part of the Youtube video (index 0:15-0:38) which showed the February 6, 2010 collision between the Bob Barker and the Yūshin Maru No. 3.

The first clip from 0:00-0:15 showing the February 6, 2009 collision of the Steve Irwin and the Yūshin Maru No. 2 No. 3 was taken from this February 6, 2009 ICR video titled "2009.02.06 Dutch vessel rams Japanese ship for second time (Part.1)". The third clip from 0:38-1:25 also showing the collision of the Steve Irwin and the Yūshin Maru No. 2 No. 3 was taken from this February 6, 2009 ICR video titled "2009.02.06 Dutch vessel rams Japanese ship for second time (Part.2) New footage from the Yushin Maru No.3's crow nest". Both of these videos can be found here.

The aspect ratio of the videos was modified, which helps explain why the quality of the clips that were used to create the Youtube video seem so degraded compared to the Animal Planet and ICR footage. This may also explain why the camera angle seemed slightly different for the footage used for the second clip when compared with the footage aired by Animal Planet. Nice try, CBS. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In thinking about this further, perhaps ICR provided the edited video to CBS? I'd really like to see an answer from CBS as to who did the editing. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, thanks for assuming good faith. If anybody would have called me out yesterday on finding the video from CBS news on their news link, I would have been able to do so. I felt very embarrassed when CptNono cited a policy (called an essay, but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, right?) which has as its first sentence There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources.' which I knew youtube is not a reliable source, but I deleted my browsing history for embarrassing reasons, and I could not find the link to CBS news which had the same exact video! Well here it is: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6181777n and I felt a little bit of an aura of mistrust, because having the video hosted on CBSnews.com is more credible than the video being hosted on youtube by CBS's youtube account. Anyways, I just wanted to say that if anyone could read between the lines of what I was saying, I was insinuating that I originally saw the clip first on CBS news's website. For future consideration, if I lied and the video is not hosted anywhere on CBSnews, then it's just a moot point because I could have argued that CBSnews uses an embedded player and links to that video hosted on its own youtube account. If I was telling the truth, then CptNono's first post feels a little bit like codewords beneath the likely acumen of the average IP account. Newby users are WP's lifeblood and nothing feels worse when people with gigantic editing histories all seem to squeezes newcomers out of consensus in a totally organic process. I just hope this friendly coaching on being a better MetaWikiPedian helps all of you better interact with future IP users, who may feel somewhat slighted by the process which occurs on discussion pages. It's scary to any legitimately altruistic contributors and makes them paranoid if they lose consensus and can trace it back to such a subtle and innocuous comment. Sorry if this discussion about the discussion is off-topic, but I'm an artsy-fartsy artistic personality and I hope that WP:IAR applies here. I really felt generously welcomed after my blurb generated tremendous response and cogent analysis! It also motivated me to really repay the favor back to you three because I want to get to the bottom of this pandora's box which I may have opened. This is like a conspiracy theory which implicates CBS and I would not have ever believed that the video was three separate incidents spliced together. If we band together, we can provide a greater level of reliability and present deeper elements in our article which would fascinate our readers! I'm so amazed that Wikipedia cannot be controlled by greed like conventional outlets such as Fox, CNN, CBS, and NBC. There is never any financial incentive preventing editors from writing neutral articles, and maybe I should donate to Wikipedia next time rather than Animal Planet, lol. I'm too emotional to ever try becoming an editor again (see your article on Creativity and bipolar disorder) although my emotional upswing will later give me the hypomania to do the most impressive work for a future change on the article. Although there are plenty of biases, I'm glad that money cannot control Wikipedia, and my fleeting disillusionment was only ephemeral. 67.77.167.100 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Video from CBS news on their news link

I wanted to thank the community for the discussion. CptNono was right--I was venting really bad, as the title itself makes obvious. My biggest thanks belongs to Aussie Legend, because I never questioned the reliability of CBS news and guess I took what was reported to me for granted. I am a huge fan of Whale Wars and I became hooked on Animal Planet ever since when the show Meerkat Manor became popular. I do everything I can to support causes I believe in. I have even donated a few dollars via paypal to their account at donations@seashepherd.org. The reason I felt so bad was because I felt like I gave money to a duplicitous cause based on my own emotions rather than logic and reasoning. I'm a member of Peta and I have been 100% supportive of this show ever since it aired. Each time it plays the theme song by Smashing Pumpkins and I see the whale getting owned, I feel bad that I'm not doing something besides watching, ya know? Tothwolf brings up a good point: Why did someone within CBS intend to create such a thing? Furthermore, this has been the best use of a talk-page I have ever seen! I did not think my post would generate such extensive replies! I have done major analysis which I could not have done, if I didn't have you three amazing editors' help. Allow me to say that I will continue doing major analysis before I offer my recommended changes to the article. I will notify each of you on your talk pages so that you can help give me additional feedback and take some ownership and a vested interest in the ideas generation in this discussion which will materialize into changes on the article. I'll be present my findings to the discussion page. We can discuss what changes to make to the article. Then they can be implemented gradually. I'll make sure that the four of us know exactly what's going on, because my commitment to diligently finding the truth will give greater solace to anyone who has ever had doubts that the show is 100% legitimate. SeaShepherds enemies have far-reaching tentacles, and if the anti-anti-whaling forces can't beat them in the ocean, then who cares if anti-whaling loses on the stage of world theatre or the court of public opinion? Like Paul Watson said, he doesn't care what anybody thinks, and I respect that. If CBS splices 3 disparate incidents into one video, how many whales does it negatively affect? Either way, I'm going to put in 20 hours over the next 3 days helping this article overcome reliability issues. Once we know the truth, you editors can cherry-pick the sources from the talk page to defend your edits. I have gotten kinda obsessed on making our article perfectly reliable. After all, I have $50 involved; and, to me, it's personally a matter of direction action in ensuring a consumer protection. :p 67.77.167.100 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

To TL;DR myself, this section is about building the reliability of the article. I am determined, and I'm sure others are curious, why on earth that reliable sources are against the anti-whaling forces. I don't really care if the article reflects my contributions, and in fact I would prefer other and more experienced editors to update the article once my analysis is submitted to this talk page. Anytime a reliable source is blatant propaganda (e.g. the mal-edited video, the aggrandized headline: ""Caught on Tape": Sea Shepherd anti-whaling ship intentionally collides multiple times with a Japanese whaling ship in the Southern Ocean, creating a long, deep gash on the side of the ship.") then we must strive as Wikipedians to tread very carefully to ensure that our article remains neutral. That's my purpose, and once that's finished, I'm gone... 67.77.167.100 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me just say how much it sucks to say this; but, there is no good news. I do not want to report my findings of fact. If anyone has a video as convincing and unequivocal as the one shown of the Bob Barker striking the Japanese ship, then everyone would find it and see it. There is also a video on CBS news in their video links which inextricably shows that the Ady Gil accelerated seconds before impact right into the path of the Japanese ship, just as the ICR claimed and won in their lawsuit resulting from the crash. I do not want to say I give up; but, I just cannot continue battling my conscience anymore. There are more verifiable sources, more irrefutable video, and more legal findings of fact that tend to implicate the Sea Shepherds. It only makes me admire the sea shepherds more because that is the type of conviction in their beliefs that they just might have a chance to win, given their perseverance in the face of overwhelming realities that are working against them. As an encyclopedia, our readers deserve a neutral article that is well written, enjoyable, and based on verifiable sources, including the questionable and objectionable video and its corresponding news item written by The Associated Press here. I hate what I've learned about the Sea Shepherds and how there is in all likelihood a 1% chance that they will ever succeed. As article builders, let's just incorporate some of the verifiable information into the article. Let's try to introduce the video with the caveat that it is indeed 3 separate incidents spliced together. We have a reliable source, and it's our duty to the readers, and our obligation to project Wikipedia, to simply make a few changes and update the article to reflect the video and the news article. We don't owe anyone more than that simplest duty. I leave consensus to you guys... 67.77.167.100 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we could just ignore the video. There should be plenty of sources discussing the collision. Also, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations or the main article might be better if we go in depth.

In regards to a couple comment up above:

I have to stress that Wikipedia:Video links is only an essay. I am even the author. However, it is pulled from snippets of policy and guidelines and so far it has received decent feedback.

Apologies for the venting comment. I actually thought you were another IP that has helped out in the topic area and who I m on a pretty cordial basis. Didn't realize you were new.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Ady Gil video (which is a version of the video from ICR), in the video captured from the Bob Barker of the same incident, you can see the Shonan Maru 2 making a hard starboard turn just before the collision with the Ady Gil. Japanese Whalers Ram Sea Shepherd Ship Ady Gil (January 6, 2010) Another angle can be seen from the Ady in this video: Final moments captured on video by the Ady Gil prior to ramming by Shonan Maru No. 2 (January 6, 2010) Both videos are from this page.

A third angle can be seen from the ICR video 2010.01.06 Ady Gil collides with the Shonan Maru No. 2. (also 31:50-32:15 of "Sliced in Two") Audio: "We have just collided. The Ady was in front of us and we collided with her. The Ady has cut across the path of our vessel." In this video, because the camera is stationary on the Shonan Maru No. 2, the Shonan Maru itself seems to still be going straight, although the video taken from the Bob Barker clearly shows the Shonan Maru turning starboard towards the Ady. Moments before the collision with the Shonan Maru, in the ICR video you can see the wake from the Ady's engine props as it attempts to reverse. As can be seen in the video from the Bob Barker, by the time Jason Stewart (at the helm of the Ady) attempted evasive action, it was already too late to avoid the collision. (Some split-screen versions of these videos were also made available on Youtube: [9] [10])

Paul Watson made a number of similar statements, including: "The Shonan Maru turned and deliberately struck the Ady Gil, cutting it in half. The captain [of the Ady Gil] was trying to reverse to get out of its way when it happened." [11] and "The Ady Gil was virtually stationary at the time it was hit. The clutch was not engaged. The clutch was in idle. When Peter Bethune saw them steer into the boat, he rushed to reverse the engines, but the Shonan Maru was on them, and plowing through them at that point." [12]

The Animal Planet footage also shows some of the events leading up to the collision. "Sliced in Two". Whale Wars. Season 3. Episode 6. July 16, 2010. Animal Planet. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

At index 07:57-08:04 of "Sliced in Two", Peter Bethune has Jason Stewart shut down the engines in order to save what little fuel they had remaining: "Okay, this'll do us anyway. We gotta save our fuel, eh? Do you want to just...just reach in and tell him...tell him to stop now." At 08:07-08:08 The Ady's engines rev down and seem to stop [audible]. At 10:25-10:29 and 10:31-10:38, up to the moment of the collision, there seems to be no visible wake from the Ady. At 30:35-30:38 Peter Bethune states to a reporter on the phone: "They probably would've just missed us and then he turns right into us." A clip at 31:08-31:26 has Shane Kearns stating: "He's entitled to maintain his course and speed as a stand on vessel and the big boat is the Give Way boat. It looks like he actually turned into him." (See: Starboard#Right-of-way for other vessels)

Cptnono, feel free to make use of my notes and the links if you want to work on expanding some of those sections. I really don't have the time to work on any of it myself right now. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

IP edits

2nd time for this[13] This is an article on the show and not the group or the group's operations. It does not belong in this article. Over at one of the other articles, an inline citation is needed for verification. It is possible to cite televised news reports. Shoot me a message if you need details. Also, "controversy" sections are frowned upon based on the potential neutrality concerns. This should be reverted on this article if it continues.Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

intervening against illegal Japanese whalers

Should illegal be cited? If so, does anyone have a legitimate cite? IWC? Australian Law? Japanese?

It should be "what they consider illegal". The Japanese have provided reasoning that makes them compliant with the nonbinding/voluntarily-adhered-to/nonemforcable-by-any-legal-body moratorium. Cptnono (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It is illegal, seeing as much of the whaling takes place in australian antarctic territorial waters, and they declared it a "whale sanctuary" Joesolo13 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong; it takes place in international waters, some of which are part of an Australian territorial claim, which, under the Antarctic Treaty System, is not properly Australian territory. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 01:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese state it as "Research" and thus it makes it legal. The fact is that many scientists have come forward to repute the claim that Japans research program is scientific and does not meet scientific standards. If this is right then yes they are killing whales illegally. So I shall make this point by Richard Gale, an Australian antarctic marine scientist. Richard gale has provided non-lethal methods of research for understanding whale populations. He has made the point that the only thing that cannot be gained through non-lethal methods is age. But that age is not necessary to understand what the Japanese research program is aiming for. Thus its not research and due to this it is illegal. Also a scientific panel a few years ago found that out of the thousands of research papers only four of them met scientific standards. Which means that for each paper a few thousands whales died... anyone with who has passed 6th grade science class knows... that’s a huge scientific fail.

Lastly to end this, Sea Shepherd has recorded a Yushin entering established Australian coastal waters. Because the Japanese fleet is not allowed within these waters. Their actions are classed as illegal and criminal. The title they get on this page is well deserved.