Talk:Paul Watson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cute terrorism

"In response, Watson said that calling him a 'terrorist' might be cute, but it had no foundation in reality, as he had never injured anyone, or been convicted of a crime.[55]"

This line has a couple problems. MoS wise we need to quote it or paraphrase it if we use it at all. WP:SPS (1. the material is not unduly self-serving) is also be a problem. Most troubling is that it is not true (which is why it is unduly self serving). See the line "In 1997, Watson and his then fiancée Lisa Distefano were convicted in absentia by a court in Lofoten, Norway on charges of attempting to sink the small scale Norwegian fishing and whaling vessel Nybrænna on 26 December 1992, and sentenced to serve 120 days in jail[42][43] but Dutch authorities refused to hand him over to Norwegian authorities although he did spend 80 days in detention in the Netherlands before being released.[42]" I would expect that we could find sources saying he was the ause of injuries as well but have not looked yet.

I assume a proper secondary source can eb found and the line can be worded better.Cptnono (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And yes, he was convicted according to multiple sources. Here's a couple:[1][2] Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Not really, it's his response to the accusation, so a quote is quite appropriate, and it isn't too self serving, rather it is in response to the specifics of accusation. If the refs said he was convicted, that would be different, but the current refs for the Norwegian thing don't say so. I have also reworded the Norwegian court bit in line with the refs as well, they don't say that he was charged, only sentenced. I'd assume that you have to be charged, but I don't know anything about the Norwegian court system or the specific circumstances here.--Terrillja _talk 22:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd question the reliability of those two since they have different amounts of time served (60 or 80 days) and one expands the quote to "never convicted of a felony". That is a big distinction as well. Keep in mind that news orgs regularly copy wikipedia as the gospel, and the version of this article at the time is eerily similar...--Terrillja _talk 22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On closer inspection, the article at the time had a 60 day figure listed and we now have 80 days with a source. Wonder where the news gets their info these days?--Terrillja _talk 22:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

False statements are self serving. How about we find a source that isn't in violation of SPS and make it clear that he is not being truthfull. In one source I just added he said he has not been convicted of a FELONY. And they were not copying Wikipedia in the 80s and 90s.Cptnono (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but his interview doesn't say that, so I'd look for another source that supports either version, or change the text to say that he claims such, as the sources apparently contradict each other. As for the '80s and the '90s, those sources aren't from then, the first is from 2008, which is when I had linked the article version. I'll see what it says in 2007 (when the second source was printed), but the discrepancy between them is interesting.--Terrillja _talk 23:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the Quebec seal hunt added. Sorry for not being clear. And there should be a source from 1997 on the Norway thing. I recall seing them ut have to track them down. For that disputed line, I have no problem saying what he claims (although the word "said" might be better) as long as it comes from a secondary source (I think the New Yorker said something similar but again have to double check) and that it is clear what reality is.Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems that this has been brought up again. Unless google translation is screwing up, the Norwegian article doesn't say convicted, only sentenced. I'd assume that you need to be convicted to be sentenced, but alas, I am not a norwegian law scholar.--Terrillja _talk 07:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already provided sources that do say convicted. Also, it is still not true according to independent sources so that needs to be clarified.Cptnono (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And I have removed it. WP:SPS )unduely self serving) and WP:BLP (both positive and negative is covered there). We have secondary sources that show that he was convicted. They have been provided here. No they were not on the line since they were not directly related. Unneccassary line anyways. He has responded to the label in other sources as well (sometimes slightly diferently like "never convicted of a felony") so use those.Cptnono (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Terrillja, if you "don't know anything about the Norwegian court system", then don't make assumptions. I don't know of any western court where you can be sentenced without a charge being brought against you or getting a conviction. By the exact same logic you could say "I don't know what specific kind of court they are talking about, so we shouldn't include it," or "What does a conviction really mean in Norway? I sure don't know." Go with the common definition of the words unless shown to be wrong otherwise. You apparently like this guy. Fine. I don't care. But that doesn't mean claims of his should be given more weight than the actual facts. This guy continually claims things that aren't true and uses half-truths/outright lies to back up wild claims. Giving a statement of his such weight without context to show it is a false claim is disingenuous.

Cptnono has provided two sources that are perfectly acceptable. Cptnono, I believe removing this point does us a disservice by not showing that this person often makes claims that aren't true or are distorted in order to give the impression that something else happened. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added it with the specific sources Terrillja asked for and rephrased to make it a direct quote. He didn't say he'd never been convicted of a felony, but that he'd never been convicted of a crime. Those are HIS words from HIS website, not a paraphrase. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

But he has been convicted as already shown. So it is a false statement he made in a self published source. That is unduly self serving and against our standards. If you want to add his response you will have to pull it from a secondary source. There are secondary sources available where he tells the complete truth (never convicted of a felony) So that will work. We cannot use something in violation of WP:SPS. It might have been fine if editors were allowed to add the quantifier at the end saying that it was not true but if people are going to dig their heals in then we simply need to have it out until something better is provided.Cptnono (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

How is saying something demonstrably false in any way "self-serving"? It makes you look like an idiot, not promotional. It is fine if you put in that he later stated he'd "never been convicted of felonies", but that would be adding, not deleting. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, Crimes and Misdemeanours, isn't that a Dostoevsky novel? ;) Crossing a railway intersection while the signals are flashing is an offense which may land you a jail sentence if you don't pay the fine. Intentionally ramming someone else's vehicle into the path of an oncoming train is a criminal offense which pretty much always winds you up in a prison cell. The key word here is "crime" and/or "felony" - not whether someone was sentenced in a court. "Sentenced" and "criminal" are not the same thing. Was the sentence a felony or a misdemeanour sentence? Franamax (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Title could be reworded to something more neutral. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the wordsmithing as it tends to be pushing a point of view: that the subject is making an untrue statement. If the intent is to show the subject making untrue statements, then the article should reference a reliable source stating such. It is not the editors place to form a conclusion and place it in the article. 12Minutes to 10pm 01:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference is his own website. Kinda hard to be more reliable than that...and it meets all the criteria of WP:SELFPUB. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not for the distinction 12Min makes. We have to resist the temptation to editorialize, however much you like or dislike the guy. And I would remind folks that BLPs have much higher standards than general articles. I believe the SSCS article discusses Watson's use of media and public relations.. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is my point exactly. We AREN'T drawing a conclusion. We are presenting two FACTS: He makes claim A; claim A is false. There is NO disputing this in any form or fashion. I'm not editorializing and calling him a liar. I'm not saying this makes him a bad person. I'm not making any editorial comments at all. You don't remove information that is bad about someone in the interests of making an article neutral (even a BLP) when the subject does something that brings discredit upon himself. A couple of examples that discuss this:

• [3]
• [4]

— BQZip01 — ^talk 16:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, you are taking one statement and trying to use synthesis to disprove it. If you state that he says x and separately say he was charged with y (in a neutral manner, not as a rebuttal or attempt to question the validity of statement x) the reader can draw their own conclusion. And both of those "sources" are so completely biased, I would call them pretty much useless. --Terrillja _talk 16:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(first part) And I'd be fine with that. Feel free to rephrase. (2nd part) Those sources were indeed biased, but I was simply pointing out that others were making the claims, not just me. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Either we have an editor that doesn't get it, or one that cannot hear what we are saying. for the latter, RBI. For the former, here is another try:

Given that an answer is painfully obvious... lets say that you have a picture and in it "the sky is blue". We can all agree here as editors that this is a fact. As part of an article however, with this picture included, the reader can draw his own conclusion, or we could quote a reliable source that states that "the photo contains a sky that is blue", but as editors we are not to draw that conclusion ourselves, that is original research. BQZip01 this is not a point for you to to clarify for us, this is policy. A more suitable venue, should you feel the need to persist, might be for you to have policy changed so that editors can enter their own conclusions into articles here at Wikipedia. Until then, please let this rest, as continued persistence could be seen as being disruptive. 213.107.66.50 (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Mr IP, a simple discussion (which as you have seen in the above line has ended amicably) is inherently NOT disruptive; it is a discussion. Don't accuse me of wrongdoing when I've done nothing of the sort. My edits were even labeled as "revert if you feel necessary".
2. Common sense would dictate that we can make simple and noncontroversial comments about photos. Taking a picture of and posing an example of a blue sky and saying "this is a blue sky" is what we do all the time.
3. The information I posted CAN be contained (as shown above), we just need to work on phrasing.— BQZip01 — ^talk 01:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no SYNTH if we simply remove the problematic line. There should be secondary sources clearly saying his rebuttal to being called a terrorist. The source spreads a falsehood which is exactly what unduely serving is.Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this? Secondary source that has a quote that is not a completely false statement. Their have been claims of injuries but an attributed quote would be fine with me.

Cptnono (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, you are misreading policy (see WP:SELFPUB for more clarification): "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as...the material is not unduly self-serving" "Self-serving" is a case where Person X claims things that cannot be otherwise proven (i.e. "I can fly like superman!"). In this case, it is not self-serving as it is a statement of fact: "Paul Watson claims he hasn't been convicted of any crimes." It doesn't matter what the claim is because the statement itself is demonstrably true: PW indeed does claim this. It would be different to state "Paul Watson hasn't been convicted of any crimes" as a fact and cite the same source. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely disagree with your interpretation. So we can use the secondary source I provided which makes a similar statement or we can take it to the RS noticeboard. There is no reason to use a questionable source over a reputable source.Cptnono (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Cptnono. It's your way or the highway? Let's see what others say first.

Do you agree the statement "Paul Watson claims he has never been convicted" is accurate and acceptable with the given source? It is 100% demonstrably true. If not, why not? A statement of fact (by definition) cannot be unduly self-serving. Using the second source removes that claim and replaces it with another claim (also demonstrably proven to be false). Mr Watson is playing word games: Canada doesn’t use the word ‘felony’, they have ’summary conviction offence’ which are lesser crimes and in the US would be a misdemeanor and ‘indictable offence’ which would be called a felony in the US. So technically he hasn’t been convicted of a felony, but that is like saying someone wasn’t convicted of drunk driving because the actual crime is called ‘driving under the influence’.

How about an interview with a third party where he makes the same claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzKZCgn8bPA — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, I think you are failing to make the distinction between what a person claims and stating what a person claims as fact. The first is completely verifiable while the second is not. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

whoa whoa whoa. You may all be mixing up "convicted"/"sentenced" with "convicted of a crime". Crime as in criminal law, and the criminal law of which country. If the wording is to contain "despite the fact he was convicted" then it absolutely must say convicted of what and where and why it was deemed a criminal offence. And if it is the Norwegian "sentence" than the fact that Holland would not act under presumably a codified extradition treaty would have to be explained. Cptnono's source is OK for Watson's statemenmt he hasn't been convicted of a crime and that quote seems legitimate for this article in its context after the mention of terrorism - it presents one side, which may well be demonstrably true. If there is also reliable sourcing stating or showing that he has indeed been convicted of a crime, then it should be shown as yet "another" view, with appropriate qualification. His actual words should be in quote marks. The "despite" wording is ungood, as it invites the reader to form a conclusion. Franamax (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken and I concur. — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to add balance if we simply use the secondary source. Adding lines to force a balance would be just as SYNTHy since we would be leading the reader. Simply use the secondary source that says almost the exact same thing.Cptnono (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, giving people a editorially neutral portrayal of the situation is not synthesis, but accuracy. The manner is in how we do it. I believe that the points made later in the page are more clear. However, he has been convicted of a felony in Canada too, so we run into similar problems. Lastly, there is a VAST difference between self-serving comments and factual portrayal (as discussed below). — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

LF some clarity

Although I've read through the thread twice, I'm still not exactly sure of the finer points and distinctions. Here are some of the sources (I can amend this if someone feels any of them need more context):

1. [Watson] "Calling me a terrorist may be cute but it has no foundation in reality. I've never injured anyone, been convicted of a crime, nor am I under investigation for any crime" - SeaShepherd.org, Apr 2008
2. "Watson is adamant that he is no terrorist. 'We have never injured a single person, never been convicted of a felony, or been sued. Sea Shepherd does not condone, nor do we practise, violence,' he says." - Guardian.co.uk, Jan 2010
3. "..in 1997, Watson was convicted in absentia in Norway on charges of sinking a whaling ship, serving 80 days in a Dutch prison." - News.Scotsman.com, Jan 2008
4. "He.. says he has never been convicted of a felony. He was convicted in absentia by Norway and sentenced to 120 days in prison on a charge related to the 1992 sinking of a whaling ship. He spent 60 days in Dutch custody, but officials refused to extradite him to serve out his sentence." - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mar 2007
5. (in Norwegian) "..dømt til 120 dagers fengsel for sin medvirkning i senkingsforsøket. I vår ble Paul Watson pågrepet i Nederland og begjært utlevert til Norge for å sone dommen. Verdens mest berømte hvalforkjemper ble ikke utlevert, men sonet i praksis dommen ved å sitte 80 dager i nederlandsk varetekt mens utleveringsbegjæringen ble behandlet." - Dagbladet.no, Dec 1997 google translate --> "..sentenced to 120 days in prison for his involvement in the reduction experiment. This spring Paul Watson was arrested in the Netherlands and filed extradited to Norway to serve the sentence. The world's most famous whale champion was not disclosed, but in practice the sentence served by sitting 80 days in Dutch custody while extradition request was processed."

As far as I can tell, BQZ wants (a) the quote from Watson about not being convicted, followed by (b) a rebuttal source which contradicts him because it mentions the Norway conviction. [added:] Others are saying above (and in edit summaries) that this is synthesis and potentially non-NPOV -- we need a source saying he is lying about the conviction, as BQZ says, or else we can only present the two different accounts and let the reader decide. Is this accurate? -PrBeacon (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC) revised 06:03, 8 October

(Thread inject for clarity) To be clear, your summary is essentially correct. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian should be the rebuttal for to the label of "terrorist" and think it should replace the one from SSCS. Listing convictions to contradict the SSCS quote would not be preferred and is probably against a few guidelines. The Guardian is unquestionably RS and Watson was more truthful in that quote. And regarding convictions, these: [5][6][7][8] along with the ones you provided discussing criminal charges belong in the related section (currently titled Controversy#Charges and prosecutions) and not to balance the line. "Controversy" might need a section title change but that is a whole other discussion. Cptnono (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Note 2 of those 4 sources are already listed & quoted in the summary above. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't get any more accurate that using his own words from his own site (this is permitted via WP:SELFPUB) and stating "Paul Watson claims..." is 100% true without assigning ANY truth/falsehood to said claim. It is just as accurate to say I claimed that I flew to the moon on an airplane made of cheese without assigning any truth to said claim. Removing what he said just because he was wrong isn't appropriate and distorts the accuracy of the portrayal of this man. This is from the site that he owns and he can change it/clarify it any time he wishes, but chooses not to for almost 3 years now. You could certainly say that "years later/in further claims, Paul Watson didn't address the claim, but only stated he was never convicted of felonies," or something similar.

As for providing rebuttal to said claim, the source from the Pittsburg Post-Gazette seems to provide this linkage. We could simply cite that.

Separating that claim from any contradictory evidence (6+ paragraphs apart), lends weight to the accuracy of that claim. It could certainly be moved elsewhere and the comments about never being convicted of a felony placed in the original spot. I see no reason not to do so if that addresses Cptnono's concerns. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the points I made in my comments in this related discussion probably apply here as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We could use the Pittsburg Post-Gazette. However, since the statement is wrong it would need to be clarified. Doing so would cause too many SYNTH and layout concerns. People call him a terrorist. The line is his rebuttal. Adding all of the facts saying why it is wrong would be out of place. An easy fix is to use another RS that is less of a false claim such as teh Guardian. Both are direct quotes from him so I don't see the problem. This isn't nearly as complicated as you are making it BQZip01. But if you want to use the Post-Gazette and then the Guardian to clarify it than it is better than using the SSCS source. Seems silly to use two lines when one would do but at least this way the reader will likely understand that the first quote was not a true statement (even though it wouldn't be necessarily if we just used the Guardian).Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The guy is a liar and actively promotes lying if it serves his agenda (as explicitly stated in Earthforce).

"Since the statement is wrong..." Which statement? If it is Paul's, then yes, we know. If it is the Gazette's then where? This is a RS too. — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming less about content and more about temperament. I see very strong feelings here (on the text and edit summaries) that is not consistent with creating a neutral article. Those with strong feelings about what MUST be included in the article might want to take a step back and let other editors with less of an agenda come to an agreement on NPOV improvements to the article. 173.233.72.34 (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@BQZip01: The comment posted above: "The guy is a liar and actively promotes lying..." is clearly not an editing strategy that is helpful in improving a BLP article. Inserting a quoted statement, however well referenced, is not acceptable for the purpose of attacking the subjects character. BLP violations are taken quite seriously. I urge caution on this matter. 68.28.104.227 (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You are indeed correct that it is not an editing strategy. It is his claim. He lies "if it promotes [his] agenda" (his words, not mine). I never added the original claim. I added only the clarifying remarks. Respectfully, multiple IP comments in a matter of a few hours on topics not previously edited seem rather suspicious.

So let's stick to the topic at hand. People claim he is a terrorist. He claims isn't and claims he has never even been convicted of a crime. The facts state otherwise. Putting in another quote in this context is appropriate (i.e. never been convicted of a "serious crime" or whatever) if this claim is addressed elsewhere, such as a "controversy" section). Leaving this claim alone on its own merits gives the impression that he indeed has no convictions.

"It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides." — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Break for Civility

BQZip01, I could attempt to associate this edit here with you, but it would be an unfounded personal attack, and an obvious violation of WP:civil. As such, I would never consider it. Your comments concerning myself and/or other editors with remarks such as "rather suspicious" linking to WP:meat, does nothing to further discussion on improving the article. Please consider limiting comment, at this page, to the concerns of article content. Dynamic IP currently editing as: 68.28.104.251 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I said it was suspicious, not conclusive. However, I've had a user following me around and acting under both named/IP accounts (confirmed). That is one reason my talk page is protected (and each time the person feigns innocence). My talk page HAS a link to a page for IPs/unconfirmed users to comment to, but, thus far, only one person has actually used it.

You are absolutely correct that it doesn't help the discussion (which is what this is). Accusing me of an unnamed violation of civility is out of line. Running to WP:BLPN and taking something I said WAY out of context when we have a civil, ongoing discussion is also not helpful. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You referred to a living person as an idiot and a liar in separate comments. Comments like that are inappropriate regardless of context. --Terrillja _talk 21:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I referred to EVERYONE, not just him, with regards to idiocy. As for the "liar" comments, that is solely based upon Paul Watson's own words where he both endorses and admits to the act of lying (reference to "Earthforce"). — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

...here's a little evidence that my comments about meatpuppetry are not completely without merit: [9][10] — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you and your IP friend from Virginia Beach, have a common vocabulary list when refering to others. FWIW 108.121.207.55 (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Terrillja/all, I hope you can clearly see the pattern developing here... — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So, here we are

Ok, so the consensus seems to be to remove this quote and replace it with another within this section. I also see support to place this quote in the controversy section with appropriate disclaimers. Would this satisfy everyone's concerns? — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

in absentia

My first edit! I came to this page while reading about the Ady Gil collision. I saw the term 'in absentia' and did not know what it means so I referred to Wikipedia. Then I thought that other people not knowing the term should have a link to explain. So I added a link. Mondegreen de plume (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. "If I were reading this article, would the link be useful to me?" is always a good way to look at it. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) has more information if you are interested.Cptnono (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Is he a fugitive

Should he be in Category:Fugitives wanted by Norway? __meco (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Only if there is a reliable source that that would allow his inclusion, per BLP 12Minutes to 10pm 00:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there is an Interpol Red Notice for him specifically as aFugitive then he is. http://www.interpol.int/Wanted-Persons/%28wanted_id%29/2012-306798 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.246.230 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't justify his inclusion in a non-existent category. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

He's wanted by Norway also in addition to Costa Rica and Japan? Does Germany want his return for skipping bail? Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remember BLP

This article seemd pretty slanted against Watson -- quotes taken out of context, for starters. Watson is undeniably a controversial figure, but that doesn't mean we're allowed to portray him in a false light. To that end, I've made some changes. Please do not revert. IronDuke 01:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Arrest

• Costa Rica incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFv4PopXScc
• INTERPOL statement: http://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-media/News-media-releases/2012/N20120514

On 2 March, 2012 INTERPOL issued a written statement to all 190 member countries making it clear that it would NOT publish a Red Notice seeking the arrest of Paul Franklin Watson because its Office of Legal Affairs was NOT satisfied that the request was in compliance with INTERPOL’s Constitution and Rules. --77.4.65.192 (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

I notice there has been some recent revert warring with the article. I don't think describing Watson as a fugitive is a violation of BLP, because the sources support it. I don't have an opinion on the rest of the material that has been recently reverted. Cla68 (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I incorrectly thought the edit I reverted had the disputed line saying he was wanted by Norway still. I don't mind saying that he is a fugitive, though. The edit did have WP:WORDS issues that are unacceptable and I think the lead is better now but feel free to stick fugitive in there. Cptnono (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have also reverted jogger. He did an unexplained removal which was reverted by someone else then gave a disproportionate amount of space to SSCS's rebuttal. SSCS has RS saying that they manipulate the media so there is no reason that they should be given the opportunity here. Find a secondary source and paraphrase.Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Jogger has had the opportunity to rescind legal threats, take the advice given, use the talk page, and so on and so on. I'm going to continue to revert until he chimes in. Cptnono (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not a party to this dispute, but I will say the following:

Declaring that you will continue to engage in disruptive activity (repeated reversion) during a content dispute, when there is no vandalism involved, will result in you being blocked and this page protected.

Primary sources are perfectly fine to use when presenting claims or quotations from that primary source. The only problem I see is the disproportionate amount of space given, as Cptnono observed. Would it not be a reasonable compromise to resolve your dispute by simply saying in one or two sentences how Watson responded, and reference the source, so if readers want to see more they can look it up? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there's no need to quote excessively. What he originally wrote is in two of the three sources so it doesn't need to be reproduced here. Per your suggestion I've consolidated the whole section.[11] --AussieLegend (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. We have plenty of sources discussing it. However, not all of the sources gave it the spin SSCS did. I've continuously been against over using SSCS as a primary source for controversial content since it leads to disputes like this. And it might sound tin foil hat-like, but I don't trust their mini-marketing machine since they have told reporters and written in books that they do not necessarily intent to be honest. Paraphrase from secondary RS and I am happy.

And I will keep on reverting as long as it does not surpass 3/rr, Amatulic. I have attempted to engage and the new account has made zero tries while engaging in BLP violation (positive is also a violation). Learn the policies and guidelines before lecturing, son. Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have any problem with Jogger's edit, but I support Aussie's shortened version. Cla68 (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Early activism & Greenpeace

I added back the view from other early Greenpeace members, as it was properly sourced. Also removed weasel word "he was indeed a founding member" and refererring to New Yorker, as the sources didn't have New Yorker in them. For more discussion about Watson's role in early Greenpeace, see the archived discussion: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Paul_Watson/Archive_3#8th_member_of_greenpeaceShubi (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

SSCS is not RS typically. One RS does not discount numerous other RS. I do not mind saying that he claims it but do not give it undue weight and do not use a primary source that is credited by RS as being dishonest and known here as propaganda.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

So you dont think Watson & SSCS is a reliable source, so you reverted back to the edit where Watson & SSCS is still as a RS, additionally with the weasel word "indeed", but at the same time you removed other addes sources (early members of Greenpeace)? Please read the edits first before you revert them, and please explain why the additional sources aren't reliable, but Watson still is? This is the second time additional sources on the same question have been removed without any explanation why those sources are not valid.Shubi (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Greenpeace seems to have a habit of rewriting history; Watson isn't the first person who claims Greenpeace has written them out of its history. Greenpeace lists 7 people as founders of the "Don't Make A Wave Committee",[12] and mentions Patrick Moore, who says here in a 2010 article that "until recently" he (Moore) was explicitly listed as a founding member and that "there has always been an element of historical revisionism in the Greenpeace organization." This article lists Watson's Greenpeace membership number as 008. From this it's a reasonable assumption (althought admittedly WP:SYNTH) that Watson was a very, very early member of Greenpeace. When you have a situation where there are multiple primary sources contradicting each other, you need a reliable secondary source, and Greenpeace isn't one. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Greenpeace is a reliable source for it's own viewpoints. In the same way the other early GP members like Watson, Moore, Bohlen, Hunter, Stowes etc. are reliable sources for their own viewpoints. When there is a dispute between relevant parties, all the differing views should be presented, as is done in the Greenpeace article on the history section. There the views of Moore and Watson are also represented, along with viewpoints of Bohlen, Dorothy Stowe, Dorothy Metcalfe, Hunter and the past and current views of Greenpeace and an academic secondary source. Why cannot the same sources used here, as the edit did not state that that one party is wrong and other party is right but merely presented the different viewpoints? Now the view of Watson is presented with weasel wording "he was indeed a founding member", giving Watsons viewpoint more credence, and at the same time the omitting the views of other early Greenpeace members. Why is this better than the removed edit?

And this discussion about several different viewpoints and Watsons early membership number has been done already, and I linked to the archived discussion about the subject. Please read it and then comment.Shubi (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are no counter arguments why other early GP members aren't a notable source for early days of Greenpeace, why the link to history & founding of greenpeace is not appropriate and why Watsons view is affirmed with the weasel word "he was indeed a founding member", I will restore the removed edit.Shubi (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Watson has tried very hard to paint a picture of him being a founder and the argument has gone back and forth in reliable sources. He is an early and influential member according to RS and previous consensus drawn from lengthy discussion. Overriding that is giving to much weight to an argument that only serves to prop up Watson as some sort of quasi-martyr. We do not need to use SSCS or GP as sources since both are terribly biased. We have enough SRS to write a neutral line that does not pick a side in the stupid fight.Cptnono (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Currently the article has this:

Greenpeace states that Watson "...was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder." According to the New Yorker (and Paul Watson himself), he was indeed a founding member.

The edit you are opposing was like this:

According to Watson he is one of the founders of Greenpeace.Greenpeace states that Watson "...was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder." An interview of early Greenpeace members Dorothy Stowe, Dorothy Metcalfe, Jim Bohlen and Robert Hunter does not identify Paul Watson as a founder of Greenpeace. Barbara Stowe, daughter of Dorothy Stowe, has stated that Watson "wasn't there right in the beginning". Watson has criticized Greenpeace of rewriting it's history to deny Watson's founding role.

So let's go through what you saw as the problems of that edit: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubi (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Watson has tried very hard to paint a picture of him being a founder and the argument has gone back and forth in reliable sources."

1. The removed edit did not take a stance on the issue but rather offered more views and sources. Instead the current edit does use the weasel wording "indeed a founding member". You failed to anwser why is that weasel wording acceptable?

"We do not need to use SSCS or GP as sources since both are terribly biased."

2. By Wikipedia policy WP:SELFPUB Paul Watson can be used as a source for his own life. And as a notable environmentalist, and an early and influental member of Greenpeace, he can be used as a source to comment the early days of Greenpeace. And the current edit already does use him as a source.

3. By Wikipedia standards, Greenpeace is a reliable source to have it's views incorporated in articles.

4. Wheter or not Watson and Greenpeace are biased is irrelevant. Both are reliable sources for their own viewpoints and the current edit does already include their views.

5. The added parts used Jim Bohlen, Dorothy Stowe, Dorothy Metcalfe, Barbara Stowe and Bob hunter as sources, not a statement from Greenpeace. You failed to anwser why the views of other early members can be ignored but Watsons view can be included?

"Overriding that is giving to much weight to an argument that only serves to prop up Watson as some sort of quasi-martyr."

6. The edit you are oppising did not override the consensus that he was an early and influental member. Instead it added the views of other early influental members.

"We have enough SRS to write a neutral line that does not pick a side in the stupid fight."

7. Removing the sourced views of other early members and affirming Watson's view with weasel wording is not neutral.

And finally: you failed to anwser why the link to the history & founding of Greenpeace is not appropriate.Shubi (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources

Sorry to revert so quick but this is a BLP. If editors are going to question something as mundane as kids' names then it should simply be removed until a proper secondary source is found. Sometimes we should periodically scrub the article of primary sources if it gets out of hand. For example, we do not need to glorify/romanticize Watson's claim of "riding the rails". Also, is Tumblr even a source? It might be but I am not familiar with the product.

Primary sources can be used on Wikipedia. However, there is a right place and time while we also have to keep an eye on presenting claims as facts. We cannot present information that would seem innocent in any other context with Watson (speed of boats, where he is, his early activism, etc) since it ends up being disputed. The guy has said that he uses the media to his advantage so it has to be very vanilla for it to be usable. We run the risk of assisting in his message instead of conveying encyclopedic and truthful information if we do otherwise. Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice try but some of the content you removed is sourced to the New Yorker and KOMO Staff & News Services, which are not primary sources. A minor edit war over names doesn't justify wholesale removal of other content. A single word was changed in the section that you removed and that word is sourced to the New Yorker. The IP changed it to Roberts,[13] and this was quite correctly reverted by Murgh.[14] Mythic Writerlord's reversion back to the IP's version isn't supported by the source, which says "His second wife, Lisa DiStefano, was a Playboy model."[15] None of what was changed was sourced to SSCS so there is simply no justification in removing content claiming a problem with primary sources. Content that complies with WP:PSTS is acceptable in all articles. Certainly, content that doesn't comply with WP:PSTS can be removed, but removing the entire section as you did is inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You said in your edit summary that reasoning wasn't provided. It has been provided. You simply do not agree just as I have not been convinced by your reasoning. I don;t have the time right now to find secondary sources but it is probably all there.Cptnono (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reliable, secondary source that contradicts the primary source you can't rely on your own beliefs and suspicions (read WP:OR) that the source is wrong. Reliance on OR as justification for removal of cited content is not maintaining a a neutral point of view. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a disagreement on how to implement policy. BLP is clear that both positive and negative info is under its scope. Watson has admitted to not being a reliable source and SSCS is savvy in communications. I was OK with the info being in until I looked at it closer after it was being tinkered with. Fans and people related to the group often come to Wikipedia and adjust numbers that seems benign. Unfortunately, it gets out of had when we start using tumblr as a source. I think the best course of action is to look at key words from the primary source in secondary sources. If nyou wanmt to use the primary source still while seeing if secondary sources are available, please feel free to revcert my recent edit but attribute everything from the primary sources to SSCS.Cptnono (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Using "Watson has admitted to not being a reliable source and SSCS is savvy in communications" as justification for saying that the source in the article is not reliable constitutes original research. You need reliable, secondary sources that contradict the primary source before you can justifiably remove it.

" Fans and people related to the group often come to Wikipedia and adjust numbers that seems benign" - If they do that, without sourcing the changes then we need to revert it, not remove all of the content. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in a little late here, but what exactly is the root of the conflict here? From what I've been seeing, is there enough question over the basic facts that the names of the family members are kept out? It looks like there are two problems: one is basic things being questioned and one is more specifics. I'd push to keep the basic stuff in and discuss the specific problems, be it numbers or superfluous tidbits, here on the Talk page. Dreambeaver(talk) 21:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

On 28 November 2012, an IP changed the surname of Watson's second wife from "DiStefano" to "Roberts",[16] despite this being contradicted by a secondary source used in the article that says "His second wife, Lisa DiStefano, was a Playboy model."[17] I missed that but it was detected by another editor who reverted it almost a month later.[18] That was reverted a few hours later by another editor,[19] possibly because more than just the IP changes had been removed. Cptnono saw that as justification to remove the entire section.[20] Cptnono argues that we shouldn't be using primary sources, but cites no policy that excludes primary sources, and hasn't explained how his argument justifies removing content cited to secondary sources. He has now insisted on adding "According to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society," to two paragrpahs,[21] I assume as a result of his post above where he says "If nyou wanmt to use the primary source still while seeing if secondary sources are available, please feel free to revcert my recent edit but attribute everything from the primary sources to SSCS." Since the citations clearly identify the content as being sourced from SSCS, the content was already attributed to SSCS so I don't see the need for the additional text. It seems WP:POINTy at best. I don't see any question over the accuracy of the name details; it all comes down to the IP's unsourced change in November that should have been reverted as a secondary source contradicts it. The only opposition to all of the content in the section is from Cptnono, whose main argument seems to be "SSCS lies". --AussieLegend (✉) 03:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aussie Legend. When you read my reasoning fully I will gladly answer. Until then I will continue to revert BLP violations. Cptnono (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read your reasoning. If you find BLP violations then revert them, but using primary sources is not a BLP violation, as explained above. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Captain revist

As Watson has relinquished his Captain's chair and now serves onl/y as an observer, should his previous claim to captain be removed? Maybe we should exchange it to "observer"? Does there have to be a claim to a specific ship or can one just proclaim they are Captain of nothing?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/8154923/Sea-Shepherd-founder-steps-down

El Heuro (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any place in the article that we call him "Captain Watson"? If so it is a reminder to not use PS and we need to delete it. We do not call people "dr" or "mr" and we also need to watch out for broadcasting SSCS material. Watson "stepping down" means nothing and even RS does not say it without attributing it to PS.Cptnono (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

He isn't actually stepping down. It's just an attempt to side step the injuction against the Organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.246.230 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please give up on the primary sources crap. It's getting old. They're permitted as per WP:PSTS and there are numerous secondary sources that refer to him as captain, so primary sources are a non-issue. He's not referred to in the article as Captain Watson but that's completely irrelevant as the claim is "Watson uses the title "captain"", and that's sourced to a secondary source.[22] To the original question, in order to avoid WP:SYNTH you need a specific claim that shows that he no longer uses "Captain". Even when he isn't captaining the Steve Irwin, he is still referred to as captain. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Um... I think the key here isn't the title "captain", but rather the noteworthy fact that he has resigned his position as leader of Sea Shepherd. The article at gcaptain.com/sea-shepherds-paul-watson-sued-by-the-real-ady-gil/ (can't put in the full URL due to blacklisting) confirms this too. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the captain issue is trivial compared to the resignation. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not call my interpretation of policy "crap". That is a personal attack (goose and gander).Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Can other early Greenpeace members used as a source on Paul Watson?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Interview hosted on the Greenpeace site with other early Greenpeace members does not identify Watson as a founder of Greenpeace. Can this interview used as a source on Watsons bio to comment his claim of co-founding? Discussion Talk:Paul_Watson#Early_activism_.26_Greenpeace has not resolved this. Also can there be a link to the founding section of the Greenpeace article to shed more light and is "indeed" a weasel word? Shubi (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Interview hosted on the Greenpeace site with other early Greenpeace members does not identify Watson as a founder of Greenpeace"=OR. We have enough sources independent of the subject to justify saying he was "early and influential". Primary sources should take a back seat to those.
• "Indeed" is weasel since it inserts fact in Wikipedia's voice when the point is contended.
• Something people have forgotten (but since this is such a long RfC start anyways and it is relevant to the request): BLP covers both positive and negative. We are not here to promote any position. We are not here to promote the position of a person who has admitted to not being honest if it is beneficial to his cause. Conversely, we are not here to promote Green Peace's assertion.
• This can all be handled in the body and applying a label is not needed. Cptnono (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rely on what the reliable sources state is what policy dictates. In the case at hand, I suggest The New York Times is a reliable source.

[23] Greenpeace leader visits boardroom, without forsaking social activism "“It's all about extreme political correctness,” said Paul Watson, a founding director of Greenpeace who is now the head of Sea Shepherd," December 6, 2011 - By JOHN M. BRODER .

[24] Conservationist Injured Protesting Seal Hunt "The injured man was identified as Paul Watson, leader of the Vancouver-based Greenpeace Save-the-Seals Expedition." March 16, 1977

[25] Eco-Pirate-The-Story-Of-Paul-Watson "A profile of the controversial founder of the environmental activist group Greenpeace, Paul Watson."

[26] Seal Hunters and Protesters Clash North of Newfoundland "In one of the protests, the Greenpeace Foundation said it a statement telephoned to tue Reuters office in New York that "expedition leader Paul Watson carried" March 16, 1976

[27] Hunting the People Who Hunt the Whales " are members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, led by Paul Watson, whose confrontational style got him tossed out of Greenpeace." November 7, 2008

[28] Battle Against Whaling, Groups Split on Strategy " The shift infuriates Paul Watson, the Sea Shepherd founder and the captain of the Steve Irwin. One of the original founders of Greenpeace in the early 1970s, he parted ways with the group in 1978 because he wanted it to be more aggressive." November 23, 2008

These and a slew of other sources make it clear that he was a "founder" and "leader" in Greenpeace, whose "confrontational style" led to his ouster. Not the first organisation in this world to re-invent who was and was not a "founder." Collect (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Gonna side with Collect on this one. It's pretty clear he was part of Greenpeace at its beginning and was ousted. Buffs (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but “being part of the group at its beginning” and being a founder are not the same thing. The question, I suppose, is: Was Watson one of the actual founders of the group, or just one of the very first to jump on the bandwagon once it was already hitched? There are very few people alive today who know for sure, and I’m pretty sure they’ve each taken one side or the other. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 09:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with Collect's reasoning. Cla68 (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

NYT can be used as a source, I'm not denying that. And I don't deny that Watson was an influental early member, but I am wary of making factual claims of anyones founding status, as there seems to be tons of reliable sources that contradict each other on who when Greenpeace was founded and by who. For example sources referring to Watson as a founder refer Greenpeace being founded in 1972, and there are a lot of sources Greenpeace existed before that.

"Captain Paul Watson, membership number 008, left the Greenpeace Foundation he helped set up in Canada in 1972."

[29]

"despite the fact that Watson was one of the founders of Greenpeace in 1972"

[30]

"Paul Watson, who helped set up Greenpeace in 1972"

[31]

"The Canadian journalist Bob Hunter, who has died of prostate cancer aged 63, was one of the co-founders of Greenpeace in 1971."

[32]

"He [Patrick Moore] was one of the cofounders of Greenpeace, and sailed into the Aleutian Islands on the organization's inaugural mission in 1971"

[33]

"Hunter, a columnist for the Vancouver Sun in the 1960s and most recently an ecology broadcaster for Canadian media, first came to prominence in 1971 with the launch of Greenpeace and its protests against U.S. nuclear testing."

[34]

"He [Bob Hunter] helped to launch Greenpeace in 1971"

[35]

"In 1971, a small Vancouver group called Don’t Make a Wave rented a beat-up fishing boat which they renamed The Greenpeace and headed to Alaska to protest nuclear testing. The test went ahead but the environmental lobby group, Greenpeace was born."

[36]

"On his Sea Shepherd website, Paul Watson claims, 'I was a founding member of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee in 1970. This is simply false. The Don’t Make a Wave Committee founders, Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Irving Stowe were quite conservative by nature and couldn’t stomach Watson."

"Paul Watson goes on to claim, 'When Greenpeace was officially registered as the Greenpeace Foundation in 1972, I was one of the signatory founding directors.' The Greenpeace Foundation was established on May 4, 1972, and was the first registered organization to use the name Greenpeace. This was accomplished simply by changing the name of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee to Greenpeace Foundation. " -Patrick Moore, who of course also has his own agenda

[37]

"Bohlen, Stowe and a university student named Paul Cote had formed the Don't Make a Wave Committee in Vancouver in October, 1969, to protest against American nuclear testing [...]Several of the younger members of the Amchitka voyage renamed the committee Greenpeace in 1972."

[38]

"The 1969 demonstration along the Canada-US border did not halt the initial test; however, it raised significant public concern about nuclear testing. The demonstration inspired a small group of environmentalists and peace activists to organize further in order to capitalize on this momentum. [...] This led the protestors to start their own group to host the campaign: the 'Don’t Make a Wave Committee.'[...] In 1971, this committee officially incorporated as Greenpeace.[...]The 'Don’t Make a Wave Committee' was founded for a specific campaign on nuclear testing; however, after this campaign, the founders dissolved the committee and changed its name to the Greenpeace Foundation" page 6

[39]

I just asked can the views of other early members be included, not as a source for facts, but as a source for the views of other early GP people, as their views are relevant to the issue. It is possible that Greenpeace is rewriting it's history, and that is why included that criticism from Watson, but even that quotation was removed. And that is why I asked can there be a link to the Greenpeace history section, as it explains the situation more. Because there is a lot of debate among the early members, this seems to be reflected in third party sources, and therefore, as I have previously suggested, Wikipedia should not make factual statements out of anyones founding status, like "indeed a founding member", but rather explain that even the early members and third party sources have contradicting information about the founding time and founders. That is why I also asked can there be a link to the history of Greenpeace.Shubi (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A large number of your sources actually back the use of "founder" (what do you think "set up" means?) And we deal in facts and not recollections. Contemporary news reports make the "founder" status clear. And "founding member" is a cavil which does not work. Collect (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not arguing that it cannot be stated that NYT and several other sources report Watson as a founder and influental early member. But there are also several other reliable sources, including New York Times, which say that Greenpeace was founded before 1972, the year Watson is reported to be founder and he says himself Greenpeace was founded. So when was Greenpeace founded, in 1972 as reported in some RS about Watson, or 1969 - 1971 as reported in other RS that don't deal with Watson? Because the facts from reliable sources about the founding are cleary in conflict, I think it should be taken into account. And it is a fact that Greenpeace itself and other early Greenpeace members, such as Moore, Bohlen and Stowes have conflicting views with Watson and each other. Wheter or not they are speaking the truth is up to the reader to decide. That is why I think Watson's criticism of Greenpeace rewriting history should be included in the article, as should the views of other early members, as should be a link to the history of Greenpeace. It should be made clear that there is some sort of debate about the founders. I also refer to this academic source:

“Unlike Friends of the Earth, for example, which basically sprung fully formed from the forehead of David Brower, Greenpeace developed in a more evolutionary manner. There was no single founder.” Frank Zelko, a historian writing his doctoral dissertation on Greenpeace at the University of Kansas

[40]

Shubi (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Collect I agree that the sources support Watson's title. Calling his work into question looks like it is only a retrospective attempt to remove him from a list -- something hard to do when they can't remove his actions. Any true doubts don't appear much in third party sources. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

They actually do. Sources discuss that there is disagreement between Watson and the organization as to if he was a founder or not. Greenpeace denies it. It is a BLP violation to promote Watson's view if it paints him in a more positive light than others would.Cptnono (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the debate between Greenpeace and himself was about the title and not his actions. Dreambeaver(talk) 20:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect:

• "He was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder."[41]
• "...Watson told the Guardian that Greenpeace's claim he was not a founder member..." [42]
• "Watson claims to have co-founded both Greenpeace and Greenpeace International in the early 1970s (something that Greenpeace disputes)..."[43]
• "On his Sea Shepherd website, Paul Watson claims, “I was a founding member of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee in 1970.”[16] This is simply false."[44]

If we want to say something along the lines of "He is often cited as a co-founder of Greenpeace but the organization rejects the claim" or "He says he was a founder of Greenpeace but this is disputed by the organization" then I would be OK with it. But the label of "founder" is disputed and canot be presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Positive claims require positive proof. But there are no reliable primary sources on the matter. We have on one side Watson claiming he was a co-founder of Greenpeace, and on the other, Greenpeace themselves claiming he was not. Watson’s is the positive claim and the claim we’re talking about writing in the article (we can have Greenpeace’s claim as a counterclaim to Watson’s, but it would be silly to put Greenpeace’s claim on its own). Now obviously, there are just plain no reliable primary sources on the matter, so it can never properly be settled. So the best we can do is present both claims.
  In the end, though, it’s not even particularly important whether Watson was a founder of Greenpeace or not, because there’s plenty of documentation of how he was an influential member of the nascent organization, leading a handful of campaigns. Which is why we adopted the “early and influential member” phrasing that’s been there for a while. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 08:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prosecutions and Convictions

Given the continued build up of legal difficulties faced by Watson, I wonder if the section of prosecutions and convictions should not be lifted out of the "Controversy" section and be given its own heading. At the moment, this very significant factor in Watson's life and activities seems somewhat buried among more trivial matters. Given that he is currently 'on the run' from various Interpol Red Notices, this should surely be given greater prominence in the article. Veritas Fans (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's important not to be influenced by WP:RECENTISM, so a current affair shouldn't necessarily be given a more prominent spot. That being said, I wouldn't object to doing away with the controversy section and adjusting the information accordingly. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Watson's legal difficulties aren't recent; they've been ongoing for decades. His legal history is now quite substantial.

Further, it's questionable whether legal issues are by definition "controversial". Particularly in the case of criminal convictions, the matter is in fact settled and therefore no longer controversial. Veritas Fans (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Battlefield mentality

We are now dealing with editors engaging in battlefield mentality. Further edit warring should result in requests for admin intervention. We have a simple problem in which cool heads can handle just fine. Primary sources used in this article are problematic. I have attempted several fixes (removal, keeping but attributing, full on tagging). If Aussie Legend wants to play around on my talk page and then edit war here then the next step is going off of the talk page. I would rather we just find sources or attribute the poor sources we have. tumblr is not a source and any editor reinstating it has gone from bettering the project to attempting to own the page with malice for the proper standards in place. It is an easy trap to fall into but knock it off and grow up.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Cptnono, the condescending tone you are using is quite problematic. While your concerns are laudable, I believe they have been addressed above by Aussie Legend and others both through this talk page and elsewhere. Primary sources are not the problem you make them out to be, they simply need to be placed within context and used appropriately; in this case they are. While I don't own this conversation, I would like to hear from Cptnono and not others on this subject. Buffs (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.tumblr.com I see tumblr is being used extensively as a source on Wikipedia. I have started a discussion at WP:RSN about this. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

“Condescending tone”? Nice try, Buffs. Cptnono, you don’t have to take this abuse. If you decide to go to admin on this, I’m with you. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 17:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am an admin monitoring this discussion, uninvolved other than to comment on one source and notify the community of an RSN discussion. Other admins monitor this page also. I see accusations of ownership and malice, condescension, poisoning the well, demands to "grow up" and characterizing opinions as "crap" appearing from all sides. None of it is appropriate for this discussion page, although nothing has risen to a level that requires administrative action either, other than verbal notices like this. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, things could be a little cooler now. How about we try again?

• [45] says it is "unofficial" and it should go immediately. This is a BLP on Wikipedia and not Facebook. Has anyone tried a second source? Admittedly, I haven't yet since it is pretty mundane.
• Secondary sources can be found regarding Watson's early days. These might even show some bias towards the guy. I would rather use them than SSCS since SSCS has proven problematic. Here is one choice.[46] And yes, Buffs, they have been problematic throughout Wikipedia even when they seem not. Do you want more detailed info?
• The entire section could b e tagged instead of the article. Alternative to that would be an entire paragraph. However, simply finding other sources would be the best. Who knows, both the readers and editors might learn more about the subject. :) Cptnono (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Addressing CptNono,

• The sole tumblr reference I see is backed by 3 other sources. It's not like tumblr is claiming something outlandish. Tumblr may not be the best reference, but if it is accurate on the subject, it is a reliable source on this point. He has exactly ZERO reasons to lie about a grandchild. If someone claims on their webpage that they have a grandchild, let it be. If you want to put a qualifying statement with that such as "Paul Watson claims through his tumblr account..." then just change it. It isn't a big deal. We have "according to SSCS" all over the page (and appropriately so).

As for HerbalGerbil, comments like "knock it off and grow up" are condescending. If you can't see that, I can't convince you of anything. Making an assessment of his comments is not "abuse" either for admins or regular users like myself. Buffs (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• That tumblr account is still not a valid RS, regardless of other sources and your misinterpretation of what RS is.
• There may or may not be reason to lie. All I know is that as soon as one person started reverting over it (which happened) it means that there is a problem. SSCS has admitted to misdirecting the media. It is very well within reason to assume that something like Wikipedia falls under that scope. SSCS has been madly problematic. Editors and IPs have even plugged in random speeds of boats without RS (this could have an impact on operations).
• So ignoring that someone was a meany to you, can you address anything else in my previous statement? Swallow your pride for being talked to in that manner and address the issue at hand. Cptnono (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And I a going to be more pushy on BLP now. There was time for discussion and instead people edit warred. If it is overly promotional it needs to be considered a BLP violation.Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Just like the last time you did so, removing secondary souces claiming that they're primary sources is inappropriate.[47] Contesting a statement cited to a secondary source with an unsourced claim smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Please reread the edit summaries, edit history, and so on. I made it clear that secondary sources were removed for a different reason. Your lack of acknowledgment (and even twisting) of intentions is troubling. Sticking the Greenpeace line like that in the first sentence with no regard or mention of the contentiousness is a problem even if it has a secondary source. That is why my follow up edit gave you an opportunity to work the line into the second paragraph. Please stop knee-jerk reverting and try to work together. And please address all arguments made instead of just some while reveting nonstop. Others have tried to wok with you. Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And to clarify, I don't like edit warring with AL. The version I presented was better in my opinion but I am happy if it is modified. I am even OK if it is overturned after consensus is reached. However, this is a BLP. BLPs are held to a different standard. Both positive and negative material is scrutinized at a higher level than other articles. I offered a version that was inline with previous consensus, took the RFC into account, and held to the tenants of BLP. Stop hitting revert and read the edits in their entirety before assuming I am just edit warring back please. We are not here to promote Watson just like we are not here to slander the guy.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I read your edit summaries. You wrote "contested line (some call them terrorists) with an overly promotional primary source on a blp."[48] Contesting the line requires a valid argument, which "some call them terrorists" is not. As I said above, The New Yorker is not a primary source, so that's invalid too. That it is "overly promotional" is only your opinion and, as somebody who has stated that they don't like Sea Shepherd, your opinion has to be questioned. My reversions of your edits were not "knee-jerk reverting". Your edits were reverted for valid reasons, based on the discussions on this talk page. I find it extremely difficult to believe your claim that "I am happy if it is modified". It was modified and your reaction was to revert and troll on my talk page again. Mention of the Greenpeace claim in the lead is appropriate, it's a significant claim that is mentioned elsewhere in the article and was discussed at length in an RfC. Collect made a quite reaonable edit that clearly identified sources that credit Watson with being a founding member of Greenpeace.[49] Your edits, rather than transferring that clear statement to another section, only served to add a quite vague claim to the article,[50] that was subsequently, and appropriately, tagged as needing a citation.[51] And, of course, there's the laziness that I wrote about on your talk page,[52] again deleting citations rather than moving them, instead expecting a bot to fix it for you. As for "And to clarify, I don't like edit warring with AL", I don't see why you single me out, when you've also reverted the edits of Collect and El Heuro to your preferred version. Oh, we don't need consensus to revert inappropriate edits. You don't own the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

CptNono,

1. Your edit summaries are confusing, so it is not any wonder that some are misconstruing your comments. Please be more clear in the future
2. The article states both sides of the argument as to whether he was a founder of greenpeace and backs it up with citations. Consensus right now is that it is relevant and notable enough to be included in the lead.
3. Whether or not he has a granddaughter is of minor consequence and is a completely neutral subject. The tumblr claim is backed by other sources, so in this respect it IS a reliable source. Since it has other sources for this information, I see no reason to keep the tumblr source. I would expect articles about the CIA to have information directly from the CIA, but anything overly positive or negative would need additional sources. Likewise with this.
4. Consensus is almost uniformly against you on most of this. We don't need a formal agreement on the talk page for every edit.
5. Lastly, consider the following, from 9 January to 21 January (nearly 2 weeks), there were no edits to the article. Your last edit to the talk page was on the 12th, but you did not respond to other queries. Starting and framing the discussion as "There was time for discussion and instead people edit warred" is disingenuous/misleading when YOU started the most recent round of changes. If you want a discussion, discuss and don't make edits while demanding no one else touch yours.

Let's have a gentleman's agreement here. Label anything you want with {{cn}} and I will personally remove sections for which I cannot find a reliable source. Likewise, if you see a section of unnecessary boosterism/criticism, I will do the same. I promise I will address each point with you and attempt to address each point to our mutual satisfaction, ok? Buffs (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

El Heuro, Adding "wanted" to the description of the person isn't necessary, though his status as a wanted person could be is appropriately added chronologically towards the end of the lead. Buffs (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AussieLegend, Your points are valid, but calling someone's actions "lazy" & "trolling" don't help and only serve to further inflame the situation, regardless of their accuracy/inaccuracy. Buffs (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Buffs, thanks for your input. For the record, I agree with all of the recent edits made by Collect and Buffs. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with "wanted" not being in the lead paragraph. That paragraph is a his descriptor and all of that information is also mentioned later in the article. If you want to delete anything that is mentioned later, you need to pretty much delete the entire paragraph. It is just as important to who he is as saying he a conservationist or a founder of SSCS. I do not see how it can be considered inflammatory, it is just a fact.El Heuro (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

use of "wanted" in lede

As the lede already includes the details about the Interpol notice, adding "wanted" to his occupation becomes UNDUE per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe so, for a few reasons. First, the interpol notice is seperate from being wanted. He is wanted by two countries. Second, if adding any item to the first paragraph and later in the lead makes it undue, then the first sentence should only read his birthday and his nationality, as everything else is also mentioned in trailing paragraphs in the lead. It is probably his most important characteristic.

El Heuro (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are not using the Interpol notice, then you need a separate reliable source using the term "wanted" and we then should remove the Interpol material as being duplicative then. Using both pushes UNDUE past the limit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Being wanted by several countries is in several other sources, but if you need another you could use http://www.channel4.com/news/sea-shepherd-paul-watson-australia-conservation-activism I am not really sure what is meant by the interpol material being "duplicative". You can be wanted in a country and not have an interpol notice. They are separate items.El Heuro (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Red notices and contempt proceedings

Looks like there's quite a lot of important information missing from the page, including Paul's presence during the latest campaign in the Southern Ocean and the subsequent contempt proceedings. Happy to add in this info. Any thoughts? Veritas Fans (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The shooting incident

The latest addition to this article states that the shooting was staged by Watson. When I read the reference, I realized it is an allegation by Pete Bethune, an open enemy of Watson. Clarification is needed for neutrality. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)