Talk:Pete Bethune/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Photo of Bethune?

I found copyright free photos of Bethune, but apparently we can't use these in the article because he is a living person (if I am interpreting the extremely complex photo upload policy correctly). If I'm wrong, please upload a photo (I like the one of Bethune with Earthrace in the background) and delete the line about the link to the photo page. Thanks! Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the (deleted) link to the photos to the external links section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The copyright free photos are here: http://earthrace.net/index.php?section=42 and the copyright free status is discussed in the "News and Media section" here: http://earthrace.net/index.php?section=2 Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, stop indenting your comments to yourself. I have removed your comment from the body of the article and the redundant link to the same website. Comments on where to find photos should not be in the article body. See WP:MOS.--Terrillja _talk 01:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no link to the photos now. Why do you keep deleting links to the photos? Is it against Wikipedia policy to link to copyright free photos? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy The Earthrace web site says the images are copyright free and can be used by the media, individuals, etc. but it doesn't say they can be used commercially or altered, which seems to be what Wikipedia is requiring. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added an external link to another photo on another website. It's not nearly as good a photo, and it's not copyright free, but perhaps we can at least give Mozilla Firefox users access to a photo of Bethune this way. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

External link to Bethune photo deleted yet again with no discussion on article talk page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And two editors have explained why. Move on. Cptnono (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not here they haven't! Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

One says it's not permissible to link twice to the same external web site. You say it's not proper to link to a photo in the external links section. Well, if you are going to delete the [link to the] photograph, I think it's YOUR responsibility to do what you think is better instead of just deleting material. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just deleting relevant material looks like vandalism instead of constructive contribution to the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We have on talk pages and you know it since you were involved. Fine, if it is my responsibility I am happy for it to sit as is. Maybe someone else will contact the subject or maybe someone will get a photo of him if he is released. I have already combed through Flickr and the only image with the appropriate permissions was not very good. Stop worrying about it. Your time would be better spent expanding the article than arguing over little details. Also, if you want to aim for GA, the criteria state: "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided." So just stop it already. You know it isn't vandalism so I would appreciate it if you stopped making such accusations just because you want to win an argument. Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about winning. It's about quality articles. No photo of the subject of an article makes for a pretty sorry article. You really think the article is better WITHOUT a photo? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered that on my talk page.Cptnono (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Then let's get all of this on this talk page. From Cptnono's talk page: Before deleting material in the Peter Bethune article, please discuss them it on the article talk page. The material you have deleted, and most of your edits seem to be deletions of relevant material, by the way, instead of constructive contributions to the articles, is currently under discussion on the article talk page and at this users talk page: Terrillja _talk Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No. It looks silly and there is no precedent.Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You've just deleted the only photo of Peter Bethune in the article that can be viewed by Mozilla Firefox users without them having to wade through the references. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Then they will have to wade through the references. Although images are good, they are not necessary. Until you find something in the style guides (external links and images) for it it is just clutter. Stop starting drama for no reason.Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're telling me it's not a big deal if an article has no photos of the subject of the article? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That is what I am telling you. How about you focus on expanding content instead of rocking the boat. Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is from user Terrillja's talk page: Please see my note on the Peter Bethune talk page about uploading his photo. I went ahead and moved the link you deleted to the "external links" section of the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to allow a way for readers to access a photo of Bethune, since I'm unsure about the Wiki policy on this. The photos are designated "copyright free" on the web site. Why do you keep deleting the links to the photos on the Earthrace web site? Is there a Wikipedia policy against linking to copyright free photos? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop indenting comments to yourself The policy is to not have comments in the middle of teh article directing people towards another section of the article and there was already a link to the earthrace site. See WP:IMAGES for your information on uploading and such for images.--Terrillja _talk 01:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already looked there, but it says images of living people can only be uploaded under very restricted circumstances that I don't understand. Why are you removing the link to the photos? We should at least have a link to a Bethune photo until we figure this out or someone posts a photo. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If the image is freely released, then it can be used. Given that the site says that it can be used for any use, the image would be licensed as public domain. Either way, there is no rush to link an image this very second. The page has been there for days without an image, an hour to figure out how to upload an image does not constitute an emergency.--Terrillja _talk 01:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy The Earthrace web site says the images are copyright free and can be used by the media, individuals, etc. but it doesn't say they can be used commercially or altered, which seems to be what Wikipedia is requiring. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I'd email the earthrace webmaster, following the instructions here: WP:COPYREQ--Terrillja _talk 02:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Will you allow me to put the link to the photo page back into the article until this is resolved? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because the page will be fine for a few days without an image. Wikipedia will not come to a halt because a page is missing an image and the updated external link goes right to his profile along with an image. Thus, there is no need at this time.--Terrillja _talk 02:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no image of Bethune on the profile page you added. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an actual reason for not allowing an external link to that the page with the images of Bethune? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a picture of him holding a radio. I checked on two browsers, not sure what the issues is on your end. I don't want redundant links. I like nice, clean pages without multiple links to the same website, which is in line with the manual of style. Linking to his profile makes more sense than linking to a gallery of images on the same site.--Terrillja _talk 02:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm using Mozilla Firefox 3.0.18 and there is only a image of Earthrace in the banner at the top. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think readers having access to a picture of the subject of an article is a higher priority than style preferences. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems like WP:disruptive editing on your part. I have to leave now, but if you don't restore the link to the photos page, I am considering making a complaint on the administrators notice board about your deletions. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It works fine on Google Chrome and Safari, so I can only guess at what is wrong on your end, but perhaps there is some extension that is not causing it to render correctly. If you feel that bringing up your intentions to add comments to the body of an article (against MOS) and ignoring my advice on where to look for information on how to get permission and upload an image was the correct thing for you to do, feel free to open a thread, but I think anyone can see that I have tried to provide you with the information on how to upload an image and why adding multiple links to the same site does not make sense. I'm not sure where the emergency is to add an image, I'm sure if you email the webmaster you will get a response within a few days and can have an image there by the end of the weekend, just a week after the article was created. That's pretty fast in wiki-time. Most BLPs don't even have an image.--Terrillja _talk 02:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe about 30% of internet users are now using Mozilla Firefox as their web browser. First you deleted the link, with no comment on the article talk page. Then, you deleted it a second time, with no comment on the article talk page, and linked it to a page which apparently does not display the picture for a large number of internet users. You refuse to let me put an external link to the pictures of Bethune which will display. I don't know how long you're going to run me around in circles over this. I will try to find a picture of Bethune that does not link to that same web page. If you delete that external link, I will most likely make a complaint. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just email the webmaster as I have already told you twice and upload an image with their permission. That is the desired outcome anyways, so why waste time arguing over whose browser is better?--Terrillja _talk 05:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when you made the first deletion, stating it belonged in the external links section, but instead of moving it, just deleted it, and then when I moved it you deleted it again, it's hard for me to take your advice at face value. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've never posted a photo on Wikipedia. I have no idea what to say to the web master or even what the Wikipedia policy actually is. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Scroll up, I have linked pages that tell you how to ask for permission to use images on wikipedia. WP:COPYREQ should answer most of your questions.--Terrillja _talk 05:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a representative of the Wikipedia Foundation. I have no interest in, or qualifications for, negotiating with someone to release their rights to a third second party that wants to let any third party use their material for commercial purposes. I don't have any idea what the implications of that are or what I'm even talking about. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of external links to photos of subject of article

I have been trying to add an external link to a photograph of the living person who is the subject of the article. Two editors have repeatedly deleted the external links for various reasons which seem questionable to me. I would appreciate it if we could get some outside comments on this situation. submitted by Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? You are going to waste people's time and effort by opening an rfc on this? Why don't you just email the webmaster and be done with this. This is getting to be disruptive and is a tad bit ridiculous.--Terrillja _talk 06:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All I wanted to do was have an external link to a photo of Bethune. You and Cptnono keep deleting my attempts to do this for what appear to be trivial reasons. It would be great if we could get the Earthrace people to release a photo, but I don't feel equipped or comfortable doing that, because I don't know what I'm talking about. So at least, at least, we should have an external link to a photo of Bethune. But you two keep deleting them. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you feel equipped and capable of negotiating with them to get them to completely release their rights to their photos, why don't you do it? Wouldn't THAT be easier than repeatedly deleting my external links? Why can't the external link stay until we have a photo in the article? That's what I don't understand. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we have an external link to this one: http://assets.earthrace.net/hi%20res%20images/020.JPG for the time being. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Will you two allow that? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the guidelines already posted.Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which guidelines might those be? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything here that forbids links to photos of living persons: WP:EL It does say, however, that you shouldn't link to pages that won't display properly for large numbers of readers, which the current external link violates. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Mozilla Firefox users (at least me) can't see any photos of Bethune there. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Must be your settings since Firefox displays the images perfectly fine for me. The only ELs needed for this article are the Earthrace site and maybe the fleet or main page over at SSCS. There is no reason to have multiple links to the Earthrace site.Cptnono (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So why did you delete the external link to the photo from the other web site? How do you know it's just my browser? Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is about Bethune. It seems obvious that a photo of Bethune would be highly relevant to the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating yourself does not make it so.Cptnono (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't you guys have anything more constructive to do with your time than to delete external links from articles to relevant material? I've wasted a whole day of my life on this. There is no policy I can find that says you can't have an external link to a copyright free photo of the subject of a biography of a living person. It's no big deal to have an external link to someone's photo, so this repeated deletion just seems really, really suspicious. Please do some actual work on an article instead of obstructing me from improving this one. Wikipedia is making it difficult to post the photo due to their unrestricted free use policy on images. Of course no one wants their photo to be used on a box of Wheaties without their permission. I found this: "Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight, unless they are used under fair use." at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Adding_images. Since the photo's copyright holder is listing certain categories of free use, I assume that means it is free use only for those purposes (it would be ok to post it here if Wikipedia wasn't insisting it be completely free use once posted). Just let me put an external link to Bethune's photo that everyone can see. Please think about the article - readers will want to see a photo of Bethune. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've informed the Rfc bot master that his bot is not working. The Rfc has still not posted on the Rfc:Biographies page. And I still can't see a picture of Bethune on the external link that was substituted for the one I provided. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Rfc has still not posted and no response from bot master, so I added this to the Rfc list manually: I have been trying to add an external link to a photograph of the living person who is the subject of the article Peter James Bethune Talk:Peter James Bethune. Two editors have repeatedly deleted the external links for various reasons which seem questionable to me - you are not allowed to have two external links to the same web site, "It looks silly and there is no precedent", images of subjects are not necessary, "Wikipedia will not come to a halt because the page is missing an image". We can't find a completely free use photo of the subject. The (external) link one of them has inserted reportedly has a photo of the subject which they can see, but which I, with my Mozilla Firefox browser, cannot see. This seems to be a problem to me, but they don't think so apparently. I would appreciate it if we could get some outside comments on this situation. This person is the subject of recent international top news stories, and he will shortly (one would hope) be going to trial soon, so there is some urgency. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I was able to upload a photo of Bethune from the Earthrace press kit by tinkering with the image copyright tag. We'll see if it gets removed. If it doesn't get removed, the Rfc may be a moot point for this article, but in general it would be good to know if external links to photos are acceptable when a photo is not available. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of references

I don't understand why editors are removing references. It seems safer to have more rather than less. It's really odd to delete them in my opinion. Are you trying to save electrons or diskspace or something? Maybe the content is slightly different and readers would have found the now deleted content useful or interesting. Why delete them???? More is better! You can't say a source is unreliable, just a particular reference! Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC) All videos have now been deleted! Don't you think readers would be interested in seeing Earthrace/Ady Gil in action? Or learning about the vessels? How very strange to delete these: Peter Bethune Earthrace - New Record Round the World in 60 days and Sea Shepherd Unveils the Ady Gil Please undo your deletions. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I've moved the video of the Earthrace journey to the external links. I need to reinsert the "Sea Shepherd Unveils the Ady Gil" reference, because that is the only source of the date [and reason] the ship changed names. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I replaced it with RS. Too much linking to SSCS comes across as spam and is inappropriate since it is an unduly self serving primary source. They also are not reliable per Watson. Cptnono (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The New Yorker reference is a chatty op-ed that rambles on without delivering the data. Where is the date of the name change? Why is this better than the SSCS news release about this precise event? Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Then go find a secondary source to replace it. And I already explained why and am getting tired of repeating myself.Cptnono (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked long and hard to find that one. Why not leave it until YOU find a better one that has the same level of detail as the reference you are deleting? Do you question the veracity of the information? Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Potential linking to copyright infringing video

A video from this Youtube user is again on Wikipedia. I do not see how it is not copyright infringement. The user's page says that it is under free license but I don't buy it. Anyone can slap what they consider acceptable licenses on Youtube but it does not make it acceptable. We have prett high standards here and this falls short. Any thoughts? I have tried removing it from another article but it got snuck in here.Cptnono (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

They claim to have licenses, but I think that the information there can easily be referenced using other sources without questions of copyvio. Support removal of link.--Terrillja _talk 14:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support removal of link. Per OP. Oda Mari (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE Do you have any proof the user is lying about it's free license copyright status? It looks like it is from the Earthrace Foundation, which also allows the free use of its photographs. Don't you think it's a valuable addition to the article? You get to see and hear Bethune, and see the Earthrace story. I think you need some proof that this is not legit, instead of assuming the provider is lying. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this intense and persistent desire to delete references that are favorable to the subject of the article, when they seem relevant and informational. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, I thought you were referring to the Earthrace video. What are you referring to? I don't think there is anything from "newsupload" here. Which reference? Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So you opposed without even knowing whatI was talking about? #11. Already been discussed in detail on the other page.Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you didn't specify the reference, only the source. That video seems to be released under license. I assume the ABC number in the title is the release license number. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the reference in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VpAXYNErHk&feature=related Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the poster's copyright statement: "This channel is for the non-commercial, non-profit fair use for the purposes such as providing diverse perspectives on the specific geopolitic issues to those who are used to the US and Western news media, and also for the purposes of academic research and commentary. The video news clips uploaded on this channel are under the permission directly from the copyrights owners and consistent with the terms of use established by the copyrights owners. Under the very few exceptions video clips from other sources are uploaded with the intention to be protected under the Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976 in the United States where the YouTube and its parent Google company are located." Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you even read other people's comments?Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I read your comment, but you didn't cite the reference, that's why I assumed by "video" you were referring to the most recently discussed video. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to remove this because it is a copyright violation, or because you don't think it's relevant? If it's not the copyright violation, what is your rationale? If it is the copyright violation, what evidence to you have it is a violation? I've told you why I think it's not. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards copyright wise. That is why Youtube is frowned upon overall across Wikipedia. Just because the user says it is freely licensed it does not make it so. It is a copyright violation unless the owner of the video has released it into the public domain. Further more, everything here needs to have licensing providing for commercial purposes.(not rue. oops. clarified way below) The rules are strict as to not put Wikipedia into any legal trouble. It isn't needed. Cite episode without the video link might work. This isn't a mirror of every video on the web so stop forcing them into the project.Cptnono (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a copyright violation to LINK to it? I would think that would be YouTube's concern, not Wikipedia. The material is not posted on Wikipedia. When you say "frowned upon", can you cite the policy on this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Now you're raising the additional concern of relevance? Well, Bethune is the subject of the article, and it discusses and shows Bethune's arrest in Japan. Seems very relevant to me. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It was already provided. We do not link to copyright violating material. Ever. I believe this came up the first time this was discussed. But just to make it easy: WP:COPYLINK. It may be considered a form of contributory infringement which is why it raises a legal concern. I didn't say anything about relevance.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No mention of YouTube. These seem to be the key phrases: "Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC-BY-SA or open-source content. However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." So, do you KNOW that the video is a copyright violation, despite the poster's assurances that it is not? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the poster. I have no reason to since YouTube is generally frowned upon as a cite that has users in violation and his attempt to add a free license appears insufficient. The link is also not even needed since cite episode would work just fine. This is the second time you have potentially violated the copyright policy. Editors get blocked for that. Usually not on the first since it is unintentional but there is sufficient reason to believe it is in violation. Since there are alternatives, you are needlessly jeopardizing the project with the contributory infringement. Lateline is ABC's. See [1] for their copyright info.Cptnono (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a copyright violation. None. There is evidence that it is not, the posters detailed assertion that it is not. Editors also get blocked for vandalizing articles. I've just had to replace a reference you deleted that supports the date of the vessel's name change. I don't want this to get any ugly either, so stop deleting referenced, relevant stuff without a good reason. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Providing episode information is more than sufficient. If the reader wants more info they can find it themselves. The link to the episode has been removed (at least) twice and multiple editors have told you to leave it out. Move on.--Terrillja _talk 04:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not sufficient reason for removal. It shows his actual arrest and gives valuable details about it. There is no reason for a copyright violation tag because there is no evidence to support that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of material by Terrillja from "Captain of Ady Gil" section disrupts NPOV

Why are you removing so much material from the article? The reference about the whaling explains what Bethune was doing in the Southern Ocean when his ship was sunk. When you delete the supporting references, people will come in later and put "citation needed" tags because now the references are missing. He is being held in a maximum security prison. That's a fact. He is being held without bond. That's a fact. To remove this information makes it appear Bethune is being treated fairly humanely. It's not NPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"He's been in jail for weeks now and he's not going to be let out on bond. This whole thing has been completely blown out of proportion." Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/03/2863534.htm?section=justin "Mr Bethune is being held in a maximum security prison in Japan." Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/02/2863365.htm Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss your deletions here before removing things left and right. Really, it's pointless for me to even try to work on these articles if everything is just going to be undone and deleted. Please try ADDING material to article! There were so many basic things that needed to be added to this article, and none of that was done, but you have plenty of time and energy to undo what others have done. It's really quite depressing. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section POV tag so we can discuss these deletions, which I feel slant the article against Bethune and in favor of the Japanese authorities. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are diffs of the deletions:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355137943&oldid=355133005 - explains why Bethune was involved with SSCS and why his ship was engaging whalers.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355140038&oldid=355137943 - references provide details of incident not spelled out in detail in the article.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355140198&oldid=355140038 - reference provides details of events discussed in article.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355140596&oldid=355140198 - source of details about Bethune's indictment, including charges.

I think these should all be reverted for the reasons given above. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's rather odd that this New York Times article has been deleted: Japan Indicts Anti-Whaling Activist and replaced with this CNN article: Japan indicts anti-whaling activist What is the reason for this substitution? Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it because you're questioning the neutrality of the New York Times as a source? Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's always better to provide more references rather than too few. The information in each article is somewhat different and it gives the reader a broader perspective of the subject. Please see: Why and when to cite sources Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see this discussion of using multiple references: Reference overkill on simple sentences Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the deletions and agree with them, only one removed content, that was the background on the whaling. I think background can be provided by available wikilinks to Japanese whaling and anti-whaling unless we have an RS about the specific motivations and importance of his actions. I think the wording is fair as is. The second two aren't worth arguing about, who cares it it lists one or two references for a sentence. The last, about being held in a maximum security prison, that info was not in the article in the ref. Regardless, the article is good, the tags should be removed. Pirate^Argh!!1! 07:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find a source detailing his said reasoning and not what is summarized in the wikilink. This isn't an article to discuss the merits of whaling. It is an article to discuss the guy.

The removal of extra sources is not a neutrality issue.

The "maximum security" source appears to rely on what his wife says. I wouldn't mind it if it could be backed up.

No decent argument for a neutrality tag.Cptnono (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Mr Bethune is being held in a maximum security prison in Japan." Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/02/2863365.htm This may be from one of the deleted references. I still don't understand why it was necessary to delete references. If we aren't going to revert those four deletions, I will have to pick back through the article, line by line, and reverify each citiation. Why? Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why was the New York Times article deleted? Why was the maximum security prison line deleted? Why was the BBC article deleted? Why was the AFP article deleted? These are all reliable sources that try to present a balanced view of the dispute. I assume, since they were too balanced, and did not portray Bethune as a criminal, they were removed. That's why I put the POV tag. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would add back the maximum security part, don't bother with the extra references unless there is a specific reason ( or you really like to see multiple footnotes ). The other deletion

"Commercial whaling was banned in 1986, but Japan continues to hunt whales, calling it "lethal scientific research". The meat is then sold in shops and restaurants."

I think was correct to remove. It is already clear in the article what he was protesting over, there are wikilinks to the relevant articles, and the issue seems to be presented without hyperbole for either side. Do you agree, or do you think the article is ambiguous or biased as is? I apologize if the process is frustrating.Pirate^Argh!!1! 11:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so then why does Bethune spend his time risking his life tooling around in the Southern Ocean engaging whaling ships? Don't you think it might be good to spell that out? You're assuming the reader is up on all this, but that may not be the case. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The extra references give additional information and other points of view. I think it's better to have more than one source because different articles have different information and stress different things. They are also resources for the readers who want to learn more. And they are respected news sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus, replacing the deleted references saves me from having to wade back through line by line and check each line to each reference to be sure everything is still referenced. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So the only thing that appears to be a sticking point is the maximum security thing. Has anyone been able to verify this besides the one source which appears to be based on what his wife says? There are more sources (albeit based on a press release) that he is in solitary and that the Tokyo Prison Administration received a letter about it. So it "has been reported that he is in a maximum security prison and in solitary confinement" is something that can be considered. I have also seen just "jail" and admittedly know nothing about the penal system over there.I do assume that it will all be public sooner or later so best not to get to speculative or worried it (article wise not his well being). Regarding references, I would like to know what happened to the secondary refs at Ady Gil that were replaced with dead linked press releases. Different conversation thoughCptnono (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Mr Bethune is being held in a maximum security prison in Japan." Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/02/2863365.htm Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. He wife restates that later, but up a few lines the article also states this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So, can I revert those four deletions diffed above? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I did so minus the history of Japanese fishing. I see no place for that, the article as is doesn't say anything misleading, like "legal Japanese scientific research whale seeing / maybe harpoong voyage" which would need the aside. If I overwrote a subsequent improvement my apologies. Some references could be re-removed, but I'm not the one to make that decision. Pirate^Argh!!1! 12:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But the one not reverted is not a "history of Japanese fishing". It's a description of the key points of the conflict, from a reliable news source. It's NPOV. It states two facts from the news article. I think it should also be restored. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: "Commercial whaling was banned in 1986, but Japan continues to hunt whales, calling it "lethal scientific research". The meat is then sold in shops and restaurants." Anti-whaling activist faces arrest on arrival in Japan AFP, March 11, 2010 Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Restart: Ghostofnemo said "OK, so then why does Bethune spend his time risking his life tooling around in the Southern Ocean engaging whaling ships? Don't you think it might be good to spell that out? You're assuming the reader is up on all this, but that may not be the case."

I didn't see your argument here. Yes, I think it's obvious, but for the uninformed reader I've no idea. The point to Cptnono was that, the article is better without that sentence, but I'm not unilaterly against some sort of clarification. I can't myself come up with a way to put it in without going on far too long about it. It might be better to put any clarifications on what Sea Shepherd's goal is, rather than Benthune, who we shouldn't speak for. Pirate^Argh!!1! 13:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comment just above your "Restart" comment. Perhaps we posted simultaneously. I'm going to replace the "POV-section" tag until we resolve this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the inclusion of an air-quoted "lethal scientific research" as being warranted. Is this Bethune's motivation, or does he just like to comandeer research vessels while armed ( with a knife ). Either approach seems poor, which is why I prefer to leave it out with your current wording. Note the article has parts that could be selectively quoted as showing Behtune as a butter throwing loon too. I didn't see the current wording to be negative at all, just matter-of-fact anti-whaling without judgement, which is why I prefer it. Pirate^Argh!!1! 13:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just read some latest posts. Restoring the Japanese whaling part is misleading. Sorry that I cannot provide reference right now. But there is an IWC rule that the meat cannot be wasted. That is why the meat comes onto the market. Oda Mari (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The line in question does not say why the meat is sold, it simply states the fact that it is sold. You're not disputing that it is sold. So why is this misleading? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In journalism, they have this device for writing good stories: who, what, where, when and why. We know he was participating in anti-whaling activities in the Southern Ocean. Why? The deleted material explains that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And unlike your desires, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Facts, facts, and more facts. Not trying to stir up scandal over what level prison he is held in, and not a soapbox about the legality of whaling. He was there with SSCS, an aside about the legality of whaling is wholly unnecessary. And I'm glad you decided to refactor your comments. your earlier versions about me "destroying" the article by removing things that were favorable to the subject of the article were rather uncivil.--Terrillja _talk 14:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a fact whaling was outlawed. It's a fact Japan calls its whaling research. It's a fact the meat is then sold to consumers. And I have (or had) a reliable source that stated those facts. Sorry about the rant, but I was pissed. It's hard work tracking down and coding all those references, and to have them deleted just seemed really destructive, especially since there was no discussion here, just some rather cavalier comments with the edit history. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

See that is the problem. It is not a fact that whaling was outlawed. The international treaties and issues with that are far too complicated to detail on this page. You have just proven why we need to stick to the subject. You mentioned a quote below: go find one detailing why he went down there.Cptnono (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't too complicated for the BBC to explain: Whaling ban set to end Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

They didn;t explain it well if you gathered "outlawed" (where? by who? is it binding?) from it. Notice tht the subject of this article is not mentioned. Stop arguing and take the advice given.Cptnono (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

From that article: "The ban on commercial whaling was agreed by the IWC in 1982, and finally implemented four years later. But two IWC members continue to kill whales - Japan for what it calls "scientific research", and Norway because it does not accept the moratorium. Under IWC rules both are legally entitled to their catches, though most members disapprove strongly." Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

See how much detail you are already going into? Then add in that it is not binding, that Japan does not need to be part of it, and that the "loophole" is considered legitimate enough. Add on top of that the Antarctic treaties discussing jurisdiction of the Southern Ocean and there is a complete article worth of info. And then add the ins and outs of the international community making "laws" and it is even worse.Cptnono (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The deleted material is two sentences. If you really want to go into detail, the BBC material is an additional 3 sentences. I think the deleted material is sufficient, but we can include it all if you think that is necessary. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the reference. See Article Ⅷ 2 of the convention text. And this is an ICR page. Oda Mari (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. The article is about a person, not a soapbox for you to discuss the ins and outs of whaling. That is why SSCS is linked in the article.--Terrillja _talk 15:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2) The problem is that it is something that cannot be properly summarized in two lines. It takes at least a couple paragraphs. The wikilink takes care of that for us. His said reasoning would be a great fit for this article. Also, I don;t know if this is in a Wikipeida essay or guideline, but I have noticed that a good rule of thumb personally is to not use sources not discussing the subject. This keeps me from straying too far off topic.Cptnono (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The IWC treaty and Japan's position paper are way too detailed. Let the journalists simply it for us, that is their job. Regarding the "whaling soapbox" allegation, I just think it needs to be explain why Bethune was in the Southern Ocean messing with the Japanese whaling fleet that led to his ship getting sunk and him getting arrested. Currently there is no background to the dispute. I'm asking for two sentences to describe the background, maybe five if you want more detail. This seems sufficient: "Commercial whaling was banned in 1986, but Japan continues to hunt whales, calling it "lethal scientific research". The meat is then sold in shops and restaurants. The ban on commercial whaling was agreed by the IWC in 1982, and finally implemented four years later. But two IWC members continue to kill whales - Japan for what it calls "scientific research", and Norway because it does not accept the moratorium. Under IWC rules both are legally entitled to their catches, though most members disapprove strongly." Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

They do not have to abide by our neutrality standards. One example is the use of scare quotes. Cptnono (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Commercial whaling was banned in 1986, but Japan continues to hunt whales for scientific research. The meat is then sold in shops and restaurants. The ban on commercial whaling was agreed by the IWC in 1982, and finally implemented four years later. But two IWC members continue to kill whales - Japan, and Norway, because it does not accept the moratorium. Under IWC rules both are legally entitled to their catches, though most members disapprove strongly." Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Still too much for this article and it does not even sumarize it in its entirety. Find a source detailing his reasoning since he is the subject and whaling is already wikilinked.Cptnono (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have to paraphrase the BBC stuff. This is shorter too.: "Commercial whaling was banned in 1986, but Japan continues to hunt whales for scientific research. The meat is then sold in shops and restaurants. The IWC agreed to a ban in 1982, which was finally implemented 1in 1986. But Japan and Norway continue to hunt whales. Under IWC rules both countries are allowed to continue whaling, although most IWC members oppose this." Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Current news article: With some species rebounding, commission weighs loosening of ban Have to add Iceland to the list. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this? "Commercial whaling was banned by the IWC in 1986, but Japan continues to hunt whales for scientific research. The meat is then sold in shops and restaurants. Norway and Iceland also continue to hunt whales. This is allowed under IWC rules, although most IWC members oppose it." Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The text required to fully summarize the issue would place undue weight upon itself. He was there to protest/interfere with japanese whaling, anyone who wants more info can follow the wikilink. Done and over with. Citing 37 news articles does not address the fact that this is a complex issue and the text needed to fully explain it would be excessive in an article on a person, not on whaling. Though he may be best known for it, the whaling protest was for less than a year, this article should be about his whole life, not just one topic.--Terrillja _talk 15:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's in the section about his time as captain of the Ady Gil. I've got it down to four sentences. It's NPOV, backed with reliable sources, and it explains why he was doing what he was doing. I think it's very relevant. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continues in new section below: "Removal of background information on whaling" Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal life and early career - questionable quote

Resolved

 – Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your great job on this section! I wish we could find his date and place of birth for the info box and lead in. I tried for quite a while with no luck. However, I have to take issue with the quote about "raping the seabed". Of everything Bethune has said in his life, is this really the one direct quote that should be in this article? It could seem to some readers that the intentions of picking this one quote are suspect. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The writer says he appreciated the irony and it is a direct and interesting quote so I thought it was nifty. I almost threw in the line about him being a bully in but wasn't sure if that would be too much weight. Not sure though. Another line is still needed for the liposuction thing which got decent coverage. Cptnono (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You're disparaging him! Be fair. What is this man really about? Surely he has said something else he can be quoted on. If this article was about you, would you want someone quoting something goofy you said? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Although, I agree, on a deeper level the source of his activism may be a guilty conscience, but we shouldn't psychoanalyze him here. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

He found irony in it just like the reader probably will. The fact that he has the balls to admit it is pretty cool in my opinion. We could just write "he enjoys hunting and fishing. His previous career was detrimental to the environment." But this quote ties it all together. It potentially could be considered POV for both sides of the coin.Cptnono (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As a glimpse into his psyche, I agree, it's very interesting. But this is a biography of a living person. He is quoted once. Is this the most important or memorable thing the man has ever said? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, we can paraphrase it. As a whole, yes, the fact that he is an avid hunter and fisher who has previously worked in a industry that was detrimental to the environment but is also a conservationist is important. I think his quote summarizes it better than we can and removed POV by being directly attributed but feel free to propose a draft. We can also add other quotes if you think that one quote skews the weight (I disagree it does) and a good place to start would be adding something to address why he joined SSCS as mentioned above. We should also add one where he addresses that some consider him mad. He takes it in good stride and think that is also lacking. Cptnono (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any print interviews with him except the one you found, but he's done some videos. He's really into bio-fuels, sustainability and the environment. Maybe we can mine the article references for a quote? I don't think we should raise the possibility that he's mad, even as a joke. Responsible hunting and fishing are part of nature - animals do it all the time. But the quote about raping the environment just seems mean spirited in his biography, like you're trying to point out his hypocrisy or something. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the tools every Wikipedia editor should use: [2]

I think the quote actually gives him credit but yes, hypocrisy could be read into it as well as his acknowledgment of the irony irony. Don't go too quote heavy throughout the article but unless you can paraphrase it in a more neutral way then a directly attributed quote is a great option. Cptnono (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I didn't know there was an archive - I just thought stories disappeared after a while.... Very good to know! Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Make sure to click on the timeline graphic to drill down by date. Many of the sources can be found by doing keywords taken from press releases and primary sources then going to the estimated date range. It makes finding sources so much easier. This will make things 1000x easier for you.Cptnono (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And read Wikipedia:Offline sources regarding lack of online print sources. That is an essay so it is not a set rule or anything but it should guide you while considering cite episode templates or something you find in print but not online.Cptnono (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, adding in more info on the record breaking attempt, his personal life (he has two kids), why he joined SSCS, and the pending case will reduce the weight of a single quote. We should be all good within a couple days if weight is the concern.Cptnono (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's like a bio of a priest, with a quote of him joking about how he used to get smashed and go whoring. Interesting, but not something you want the world to read about in your bio. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We can't pick which quote of him to put in. We're giving too much weight to it. I like that it adds flavor, but if there is any cause for doubt (which there is) we should remove that quote as we aren't the ones to pick what single utterance is going to sum up his outlook on life.Pirate^Argh!!1! 01:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

But there is zero cause for doubt. He enjoys hunting and fishing and used to work in industries that hurt the environment. He admits that he makes an odd conservationist and believes that alternative fuels are important.Cptnono (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been mulling over alternative wording and think I have something close enough to working. Please see the most recent edit. Also, other sources also discuss that he is hunter. The new line gives it very little weight so I assume it should meet everyone;s standards.Cptnono (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of background information on whaling

(NPOV discussion continues here)

Well, I thought we had that worked out, but Oda Mari deleted this: "Commercial whaling was banned by the International Whaling Commission in 1986, but Japan continues to hunt whales for scientific research. The meat is then sold in shops and restaurants. Anti-whaling activist faces arrest on arrival in Japan This is allowed under IWC rules, although most IWC members oppose it. Whaling ban set to end Anti-whaling activists reject the Japanese government's claims that this whaling is legitimate scientific research. Why Japan's Whale Hunt Continues. Ok, what's the problem with this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't really listened to what people are saying. Your wording is poor. You selectively picked something out of the article for you to make a point. From the same reference you used for your sentence I can say "Bethune's Sea Shepherd group, called a terrorist group by the Japanese government, has caused the death of Japanese fishermen during a research voyage" Should we add that in too? Does anyone else agree with Ghostofnemo that his versions is an improvement to the article? Pirate^Argh!!1! 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference is my proposed inclusion is based on WP:RS and is WP:NPOV. Your example it not. It's important to give some background, or else readers will wonder what all this is about. What is the controversy that motivated Bethune to do all this crazy stuff? Why is it in the news? What is going on here? Very relevant and worthy of inclusion. I'm still waiting for Oda Mari to explain why she deleted this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My assumption is that we are all tired of repeating ourselves.Cptnono (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating weak or bogus reasons for deletion does not strengthen the case for deletion. Why shouldn't this be included? Is it false? Is it POV? Is it misleading? Is it irrelevant? No. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:GAMETYPE#7.Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

With a dose of WP:DEADHORSE--Terrillja _talk 04:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not a discussion. Those are insults. Is the whaling background information false? It is POV? Is it misleading? Is it irrelevant? Is it poorly sourced? Why was it deleted? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Scroll up and you will find the reasons. Unlike you, I prefer to not repeat myself.--Terrillja _talk 05:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"You haven't really listened to what people are saying. Your wording is poor. You selectively picked something out of the article for you to make a point." The wording is poor? In what way? I DID selectively picked something out of an article to make a point - like maybe explaining the conflict.

"The international treaties and issues with that are far too complicated to detail on this page." No, they're not. I did it in four short sentences.

"Restoring the Japanese whaling part is misleading." In what way is it misleading? It seems very straight-forward.

"And unlike your desires, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Facts, facts, and more facts. Not trying to stir up scandal over what level prison he is held in, and not a soapbox about the legality of whaling." The deleted material was straight facts with no POV. The legality of whaling is the reason for the conflict, that's why it's important to provide this background information.

"It is not a fact that whaling was outlawed." It is a fact that commercial whaling was outlawed.

"The article is about a person, not a soapbox for you to discuss the ins and outs of whaling." Why was this person engaging whaling vessels and boarding a Japanese whaling ship, leading to his imprisonment in Japan? Inquiring minds will want to know. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You were again very selective. What about the other reasons presented? Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Which ones did I miss? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I am not playing this game with you. Reasoning has been laid out by several editors up above.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm telling you I picked through the debate above and I think I got all the objections. If you think I missed one, please point it out. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'm telling you no, look again. You have disregarded several reasons in your rebuttal and consensus is against the tag.Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Still too much for this article and it does not even sumarize it in its entirety." Four short sentences is too much? We don't need to explain every detail. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." Consensus-building Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"The text required to fully summarize the issue would place undue weight upon itself. He was there to protest/interfere with japanese whaling, anyone who wants more info can follow the wikilink." Why would it be undue weight? That's the reason he was where he was doing what he was doing. Why make it difficult for readers to figure out what was going on by making them figure it out somewhere else? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

the article "...refitted for Antarctic waters to participate in anti-whaling activities as part of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society". I don't see any difficulty for readers. "Anti-whaling" is a clear term. Stopping the whaling of whales. Pirate^Argh!!1! 07:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is the SSCS engaging in anti-whaling activities if the IWC says it's legal? Why are the Japanese whalers claiming they're doing "scientific research"? Why don't the anti-whaling activists believe them? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what the whales think about being whaled. Pirate^Argh!!1! 07:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag as the current issue seems to be ensuring the reader isn't unnecessarily confused about the nature and motivation of anti-whaling activities. A valid concern, but not a question of bias. Pirate^Argh!!1! 07:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this dispute has been resolved yet. It's being adjudicated at the WP:ANI at Oda Mari's request. I think we should wait and see how this is resolved before you remove the tag. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The ANI is about you not the content dispute.Cptnono (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The tag says "do not remove this tag until the dispute has been resolved." Just another example of what is going on here. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I still hold out hope that with a little compromise we can avoid adjudication and having this spill over to a bunch of other message boards. Relax all. Pirate^Argh!!1! 11:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hassle

Resolved

 – Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize "After touring ports around the globe, the Earthrace was put on sale for $2.6 million and Bethune considered using it to 'hassle Japanese whalers'[13] in the Southern Ocean if a buyer could not be found.[12]" was one of GoN's neutrallity concerns until seeing his noticeboard request. I considered paraphrasing his quote with "engage", "disrupt", or "harass" the whalers but settled on the direct quote to make it easier. It can be adjusted if anyone has any ideas.Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Hassle" implies causing trouble for someone for no good reason. "I was standing on the corner, minding my own business, and a cop comes up and starts hassling me." Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In common usage, it's slang for "harass". Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh?[3] Harass is fine but I expected that to raise eyebrows. Cptnono (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Both words imply he had no sincere purpose, but just wanted to cause trouble. That is very misleading. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He said hassle. I just changed it to harass. Does it need to go back to a direct quote now? And you don't know his intention. Keep in mind that this was preSSCS.Cptnono (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

People say stupid things all the time. Famous bloopers I'm sure that's not what he meant. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He may not have meant to needlessly cause trouble because that appears to be your definition. Regardless, would anyone be opposed to "to oppose".Cptnono (talk)

How about "obstruct"? Or "hamper"? Or "interfere with"? Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Linkspam

I have added the link spam template to sources from Sea Shepherd. They are unduly self serving and have been discredited as RS with Watson's admission that they are not completely truthful.Cptnono (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to judge references case by case. Which referenced assertions do you believe are lies? Can you find evidence to prove they are lies? Why would they lie about the date Earthrace was renamed Ady Gil? Do you believe the video is faked? Why do you believe that? Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unduly self serving is the main reason. Reliability wise, we shouldn't be over linking to a website that has lies on it. The following have been disputed in the date source: "...that recently set the world record for global circumnavigation." (only half the truth), "...Captain Paul Watson (Sea Shepherd President and Founder) intends to use the Ady Gil to intercept and physically block the harpoon ships from illegally slaughtering whales." (two there: Pete denied that in a follow up interview and legality is disputed) Authenticity is therefore in doubt and it involves claims about third parties (the Japanese). That is three of the criteria from WP:SELFPUB that is being ignored. We don't even need it. We have sources available discussing the date. Here is one I found in a minute of searching [4] So if your only goal is to get the date in you now have an alternative secondary source which is preferred over a primary sourceCptnono (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you just insert your other source then when you deleted mine? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Because I thought the three other sources I provided were sufficient to verify the information and the date was not something that would be "challenged or likely to be challenged"WP:SOURCE. Oops.Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia. It's important. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Readers have to go back to the top of your article to find the year though. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is actually in the middle. I used the quote parameter of the template just to make it easy for you. So the SSCS link can now be removed.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The month and date are in the middle, but you have to go to the beginning of the article to find what year they are talking about. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments like that are why two editors have mentioned beating a dead horse and stonewalling. It is a superior source for our needs. You are really risking another drawn out ANI since you are disrupting this article.Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated." Incivility Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So are you going to remove the link or not?Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You want ME to delete my own work? I don't have any problem with the source I used, or else I wouldn't have inserted it in the first place. A "South Park" story beats a press release? It's not something I'm going to protest, but I think it's silly. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And another. Youtube video with the text that it "proves" a point. That isn't exactly what I see (does it cause a chemical burn? Does it cause the same severity? Was it the same sailor?) but the text is certainly influencing. Unduly self serving with questionable claims about a third party (that they are not telling the truth). The already provided secondary source is sufficint.Cptnono (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone inserted the details of the assault allegation. It's only fair to allow a rebuttal. You claim the rebuttal is flawed, but they claim the accusation is flawed. May as well let both sides state their case. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reread my concern To clarify: The text in the video not this article. Remove the video.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's backed up the the news source. That's what the SSCS is CLAIMING. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Now you need to reread my policy based objection.Cptnono (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say in the article that the SSCS's claims are true, it just says this is what they are claiming. The video verifies that this is what they are claiming. I don't think it's misleading, because it's clear in the article that this is a claim being made by one of the parties to the conflict. Is there a policy on this, that you can't use a party to a dispute as a reference when you are referencing their claims? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If I'm violating a policy, then remove it. Just cite the policy. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We could substitute this. It's more balanced because it also gives the whalers allegation. http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-100212-1.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And your policy citation for removal is.... where? Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That is still in violation of verifiability policy. TVNZ is already used. There is no need for another source.Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This one seems NPOV and gives much more detail: http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/activists-claim-japanese-whalers-were-hurt-by-their-own-pepper-spray Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you refer me to the policy page that appears on (that a party to a dispute can't be used as a reference to verify their own claims)? Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Selfpub is already wikilinked for you. I have mentioned it several times. Stop doing that.

I don;t care about the other source since it appears to be perfectly fine RS. I would move TVNZ to the line before it and use this new one in its place if it is that important to you.Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I did that. I checked out WP:SELFPUB and you're right. All of that arguing could have been avoided if you had just given the Wikilink. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The first video was NOT self-serving did not violate WP:SELFPUB however. That's why I didn't make the connection. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It was wikilinked and discussed both here and at the incident noticeboard. Next time just say "my bad" since there really is no excuse.Cptnono (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Try this next time: "The video violates WP:SELFPUB because it is making claims about a third-party." The first video, however, did does not appear to violate it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU5s2hJA95k&feature=related title=Sea Shepherd Captain Bethune Boards Shonan Maru 2 to Conduct Citizens Arrest? That violates the various Youtube and copyright stuff we have discussed. I assumed it was unduely self serving as a SSCS page but apparently it is a "tribute" to SSCS so therefore it would not fall under SELFPUB. If you mean the other primary source discussed up above, I simply disagree and even if I didn't it was still in violation of 2 other provisions.Cptnono (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, yes it looks like that one is gone too now. Did we discuss that? Did you label your removal edit? Either I'm getting confused or you slipped that one out without me noticing it. It can't be a copyright violation because it's their video! It would fall under WP:SELFPUB if those are SSCS people posting it, and it doesn't seem to violate the policy. It's a silent film. Why was it removed? Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You removed both videos at the same time! It only took me 20 minutes to track down the diff..... Why was the "Citizens Arrest" video removed? Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not very clear: "That violates the various Youtube and copyright stuff we have discussed." Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why you are at a noticeboard right now. Several editors over multiple talk pages have provided you links to the information you need to know. It has been explained to you. You continuously ask us to repeat ourselves. In this instance (for the most of this you should see previous reasoning): The page says that it is a tribute. Not SSCS a tribute. That means it is not SSCS. So assuming that, the following apply:

• WP:SOURCES(policy):"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles." - Random tribute page has no reputation. It is not secondary as preferred. It is certainly not necessary with so many other RS available as citations for that particular line.
• WP:RELIABLE(guideline): See above. And "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources(essay): "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website."
• WP:NOTADVOCATE(policy): "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." - Your edits come across as soapboxing. Linking to a site that is soapboxing or promotional should certainly be avoided.
• Per the above What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is also not journalism, a host for media, and so on. However, only the principles of those parts of the policy apply since they are not directly related to this edit.

If you can show that it is a primary source, then all of the above apply minus the copyright bit but with more reasoning from SLFPUB.Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, you just deleted this and you haven't explained before why this particular video must be deleted beyond this: "That violates the various Youtube and copyright stuff we have discussed." How can I understand exactly why this is being removed, so I can avoid making the same mistake in the future, if you give such a vague reason for removal? And then, you give me a huge amount of stuff it violates, which seems strange, because this has been in the article for days and days now, and is only just now being (stealth) deleted. It will take me some time to sort through all this material. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the poster of this video is connected with the SSCS for these reasons:

• The poster's username is "ThisisSeaShepherd".
• The poster gives this as his website: http://www.seashepherd.org/
• The poster's "About Me" section begins, "Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was formally incorporated in the United States in 1981 in the state of Oregon. Previous to this,...." What follows is a history of SSCS, its mission statement, laws applicable to conservation, and its perceived law enforcement role under the United Nations World Charter for Nature.
• It does say "this is a tribute channel to SSCS" but that doesn't exclude the possibility that it is also a tribute channel operated BY the SSCS.
• The video in question is clearly labeled as a SSCS video. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it violates WP:SELFPUB. "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; (no, it's a silent video of Bethune approaching the bridge of the SM2)
• it does not involve claims about third parties; (it makes no claims other than that it shows Bethune on the SM2)
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (no, it makes no claims except for 2 above, and Bethune is doing so in his capacity as the skipper of the sunken SSCS vessel Ady Gil)
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; (the I.D. numbers of the ship are clearly visible. There is no reason to doubt this is not what it claims to be)
• the article is not based primarily on such sources. (no, quite the opposite) Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES says, "Self-published sources, whether experts or not, may be considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources." It then refers to WP:SELFPUB. So it doesn't seem to violate WP:SOURCES. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLE would seem to apply regarding SSCS if this were unverifiable information released by them, but it's a video of the event in question. The guideline states: "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context." Since this is a video, with only one minor edit (a slight jump at about 13 seconds), it seems very reliable. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." It supports the assertion that Bethune was on the ship to deliver his bill and make a citizen's arrest of the captain, and not for some other purpose. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLE(guideline) - I can't find the material quoted. Can you provide a section name? Here's what WP:YOUTUBE says: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page." Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think this video violates WP:ADVOCATE? I see Peter Bethune walking towards the bridge of the SM2 and hand some papers to a crewmember, and then enter the bridge. What exactly is this video advocating? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the journalism objection, this reference is not reporting news, it's supporting the other news reference by showing the events described. At one point another editor insert that Bethune "allegedly" or "supposedly" boarded the ship for the reasons SSCS is giving. That implied to me that he was being accused of having more sinister reasons for boarding, like sabotage or to attack the crewmembers of the ship. The editor said what he meant was that it was a publicity stunt. Either way, the video shows him doing what SSCS claims he was doing. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, I'm sure you consider all this tendentious, but look at it from my point of view. You just removed a valuable primary source, and all the reasons you've given for the removal don't seem to apply. I don't think I'm doing a lot of stretching of the policies either. It would be helpful if the guidelines were more specific about what can and can't be included. I think this is a primary source showing a true record of events that are described in a secondary source. Ideally, we'd have a secondary source releasing this video (one that isn't a copyright violation). Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's what it says about primary sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RELIABLE#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Since we have a reliable secondary source that this is backing up, it's not OR. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you can't even tell if it is a tribute page or a primary source calls it into question. There are appropriate secondary RS already used for that line. If it is not a primary source it is not RS. If it is a primary source, it is linking to a promotional page. It isn't needed and you are wasting our time unless we want this to be a repository of every SSCS video ever made. Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

All the videos I've posted (which have all been removed now apparently) featured Peter Bethune doing stuff that was mentioned in the article, or were related to allegations about Peter Bethune made in the article, and they were supported by reliable news sources. I've been very selective, and have not tried to post "every SSCS video ever made". I guess if people want the whole story, they will have to look someplace other than Wikipedia. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is where you are getting confused. References are for supporting something. If a fact is "supported by reliable news sources", (your wording above), there is no reason to add a [questionable] video. There is no reason why one reference should be needed to support another reference, which is basically what you are arguing, that your videos were supported by the references following them. It just doesn't make sense. The secondary sources supported the content of the article just fine without the videos.--Terrillja _talk 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's say a news source says, "The SSCS claims Bethune boarded the SM2 to make a citizen's arrest and to deliver a bill for his sunken ship." If you have a video actually showing this, it strengthens that claim. If you have a video showing whalers spraying chemicals that are then blown back on themselves, and said whalers fleeing and acting as if they've been pepper sprayed, it also supports the disputed weakens the claim that Bethune is the one who burned them. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You said to delete it if policy could be cited. It has been cited. I can understand why you are arguing for the boarding video since you thought it was snuck out but you already agreed to have the pepperspray one go. This is you being disruptive.Cptnono (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Terrillja uses the plural "videos" in his post, so I assumed he was talking about the deleted videos in general. I don't think discussing questionable edits on the article talk page is disruptive. How much of your stuff have I deleted? None. I've only undone your deletions of my stuff. Even though I disagreed with some of your contributions, instead of just deleting it and tagging it "POV" or something, I "disruptively" discussed it on this page instead, and tried to work out a compromise. Can you explain why discussion is disruptive and deletions are not? Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As in, "Why did you think these were worth posting?" That's why. But then I agreed that since the pepperspray video has claims about what the whalers are doing, technically it violates WP:SELFPUB. I don't agree with that policy, but that's what the policy says. If it was a silent video, without any text, it wouldn't be clear what was going on. Even the title of the video involves a claim. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice

I brought the recent trouble here and Ady Gil at ANI. Oda Mari (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Liposuction

The two sources used in the paragraph go into some good detail. Thia is one of those stories that I saw pop up in many of the sources discussing the guy's life. I considered adding more (total harvested from the three, public reaction, the blends the boat can run on) but was trying to find a balance between is massively successful PR campaign and weight. If anyone thinks it should be expanded then it would be cool but I was being overly cautious. I threw in the amount since it seemed interesting (he isn't a heavy guy but some of his buddies are fat and it was a self admitted stunt which there is nothing wrong with) but if "he underwent a minor liposuction procedure" or "he underwent liposuction to remove a small amount of body fat" or something would take focus of the arguably trivial amount then that is fine by me. There are tons of sources on this and I think a least a line is warranted so let me know if you need more sources.Cptnono (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You could mention this in passing, but more than one line would be undue weight. His boat was not primarily fueled with human fat - it was just a publicity stunt. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes to our discussion history

There are two editors who aren't involved in the discussion here making changes to our discussion. If you go to the discussion history page and check some diffs you'll see it. What's going on? Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just reverting someone who was eventually banned. No conspiracy. Pirate^Argh!!1! 09:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And they were all undone. Chill.--Terrillja _talk 18:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bethune plead guilty according to news media

The news media are reporting that he plead guilty. We can add something to the effect that he did this for tactical reasons, but the news media trump the SSCS and his wife, IMHO. Here are the references to support this (they are already referenced to these lines in the article, which makes the current version especially strange): http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/27/2910900.htm?section=world and http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/trial-of-nz-anti-whaling-activist-opens/story-e6frfku0-1225871977595 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bethune's wife and SSCS have both said that he did not enter a "guilty" or "not guilty" plea and believe it is not how it is done over there. So don't add anything saying that he said he was guilty or not guilty in court.Cptnono (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There are WP:RS to support the guilty plea. What have you got? Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

[5] and I reworded it per [6] a couple minutes ago. SSCS is not a good source but it is enough to cause some second guessing. Feel free to add in that he plead guilty but you will only be tarnishing someone you have so far been adamant in supporting.Cptnono (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to support OR tarnish him - my goal is objectivity. If you want to add lines that some sources question the guilty pleas, fine, but the news media are reporting that he plead guilty. Likewise, when it was added that he distanced himself from the SSCS, I thought the situation had to be taken into account and not presented at face value. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I knee-jerked since it is a BLP. Fine: Put in that he said he was guilty. I thought his wife and SSCS saying that it was misreported was enough to be extra cautious.Cptnono (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your source says he "admitted" the other four charges against him. That sounds like a guilty plea to me. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well then make your edit. Like I said, his wife and SSCS believe that he did not make a plea of guilty based on the system over there. Maybe he did plea guilty and the reader should know that.Cptnono (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't seen your source on that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Provided up above in the edit summary of the edit. Both are linked. If you want to put in that he plead guilty then feel free. I think there are some BLP concerns but if it is in RS then I am open to you arguing about it and tarnishing the guys name. Cptnono (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Current version looks good - admitted = plead guilty. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You were right and I was wrong. Bethune's lawyer says he hasn't pleaded guilty to any charges! See article and reference. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Layout

• Should the "Arrest" and "Trial" sections be a single section?
• Should "Captain of Ady Gil" be renamed to "Sea Shepherd Conservation Society" or something pertaining to involvment since the Ady Gil is the same thing as the Earthrace?
• Should what is in "Arrest" and "Trial" be a subsection of what is now "Captain of Ady Gil"?

Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

On Arrest/Trial sections: My feeling is that this should become one section. This should become even more true over time. At the present moment, I can see how the two events have even notability to warrant separate sections, but, over time, Bethune will be remembered for the series of events related to his boarding of the Shonen Maru 2 and possible punishment for that (and possible prior) actions. Perhaps a better approach would be to title the first section "Boarding of the Shonen Maru 2" and the second part "Arrest and Trial." Perhaps, though, it's too soon to tell.

On the "Captain" sections: The naming here is definitely wrong, for the reason you state. Maybe a better title for the first section is "Circumnavigation and Bio-Diesel Activism." Although, reading that, I don't like the word "activism" (seems too POV to me, given how charged the word can be). Then characterize the second as "SSCS." That way, rather than distinguishing between the "two" ships, we're distinguishing between the two types of activities he used the ships for.

On combining all three: This seems definitely wrong to me. The boarding of the Shonen Maru 2, his arrest, and trial are all distinct events from captaining the Andy Gil. It might be possible to combine all of his environmental activism together, but that seems to minimize the distinctions between the activities and their results. However, the passing of time may indeed collapse all of these into a single notable event.Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bethune was the captain of the Ady Gil. What is his title in the SSCS? It should remain as is. The arrest and trial could be combined, but we will have the sentence soon too. I could be "Arrest, trial and sentencing" or "Arrest, trial and release". Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, he was on completely different missions when it was Earthrace vs. when it was Ady Gil. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Well we can wait until June 10th on this one and make the quick change

I like "With the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society" or something but that might be too long.

Not making a third level heading is fine with me if people are against it.

Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Denunciation of Paul Watson

I disagree with this deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365544810&oldid=365323353 because it was referenced and it provides context as to why Bethune would suddenly denounce Watson for no apparent reason. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So now you are trying to link his diet to his quote? My edit summary sums up the reasoning for removing it.Cptnono (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's this quote from the article: ""He is in the maximum security prison at the moment which houses murderers, rapists and people like that...but he is kept pretty much on his own," says his wife Sharyn Bethune. He has three meals a day of cabbage soup and rice and he says he is very very sick of cabbage." But it's a diet Bethune may have months or even years to get used to as Tokyo's Coastguard presses serious charges against the sailor for boarding the Shonan Maru 2." Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another citation of the soup: http://www.thecasualtruth.com/story/new-zealand-proposes-new-approach-anti-whaling Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/02/2863365.htm Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with distancing himself from Watson? This is why you get accused of OR. And keep in mind that the press and his wife don't abide by our neutrality standards.Cptnono (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It provides context. Do you think he would have denounced Watson if he wasn't living in a Japanese prison on a cabbage soup diet? You've never heard of coercing prisoners to sign confessions with harsh treatment in prison? I'll try to find a reference. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. That is why "I'll try to find a reference." is all that needs to be said.Cptnono (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"'Forced confessions' in Japan" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7063316.stm

"Japan urged to end 'false confessions'" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been here long enough to understand what synth is. Stop it.Cptnono (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A key quote: "Amnesty International has now called on Japan's new government to immediately implement reforms of the police interrogation system to avoid such miscarriages of justice. Suspects can be held for up to 23 days before they are charged in what the campaign group says is a brutal system that has no place in modern Japan. The conviction rate is more than 99%, often based on confessions. Amnesty International says some are extracted from suspects under duress." So this is not unknown to occur in Japan. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, Bethune has been held for more than two months now I think.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That source might be fine in an article discussing it. I am sure you have noticed by now that this article is about Bethune. There are other places on the internet to make your opinion known if you are more interested in researching topics and discussing your own conclusions.Cptnono (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this reason for deletion: "Terrillja (talk | contribs) (21,342 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Ghostofnemo; No sunth, but the source does not relate it bethune. relating it to him is synth." Does this mean that any information added to an article must directly mention the subject of the article? For example, if an article is about a particular model of a car, and it has a certain type of suspension, I can't add a line that this type of suspension is considered potentially dangerous unless the source mentions that particular model of car????? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff on that deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365556163&oldid=365554949 Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bethune is a suspect being held in Japan. Bethune has been held for more than two months by the Japanese authorities. Bethune has been subjected for periods to a diet of only cabbage soup and rice. Bethune has recently issued statements to the press denouncing Paul Watson. AI says there is a pattern of mistreatment of suspects in Japan. This mistreatment includes long periods of pretrial detention and questioning, and that sometimes this results in forced confessions. All of this is reliably sourced. What is the problem? Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ghostofnemo and SYNTH was opened before the last revert since it appeared that he was going to be edit warring this in and his previous disruption have left me with little patience for shenanigans.Cptnono (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked them to take a look at what is going on here. Don't know if I can tack that on to your request, but I tried. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't hurt my feelings. Worse comes to worse you can open a new one. I am fairly confident that your editing against consensus and guidelines is nothing for a few of us to be concerned about. Who knows, maybe a few additional eyes will help getting things straightened out.Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent)I just went back and reviewed the last set of exchanges. Ghostofnemo, let me point out something you wrote above, which I think points to our primary problem: "Do you think he would have denounced Watson if he wasn't living in a Japanese prison on a cabbage soup diet?" You know what, I totally think that. That makes a lot of sense to me. As a foreigner living in Japan, many aspects of Japan's criminal justice system seem wrong to me. It would not in the least surprise me if that's why Bethune made his comments about Watson. But, luckily for Wikipedia, my opinion is irrelevant. So, too, is yours, or the other editors here. Your connection of the two things (Bethune's treatment and Bethune's comments) is a great argument that should be spelled out on a blog, in a newspaper article, or in some other form. However, Wikipedia requires that all such research/analysis be done by outside sources. If you were able to show reliable sources that made this connection, and that adding the connection rose to the level of notability without providing undue emphasis, then it could be included. As Cptnono points out above, your edits are doubly unacceptable, because 1) the treatment you write about is so common that it doesn't rise to the level of notability required, and 2) the connecting of the treatment to wider concerns about Japan's criminal justice system are original research. Please note that you must answer both prongs of this complaint in order to re-add the info; fixing only the OR problem is not sufficient, nor is fixing only the notability problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please review this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365556163&oldid=365554949 Do you see any direct assertion that the two are connected? No. The line that was removed is a fair paraphrase of the article referenced. There is no OR, because I do not state a connection. One more time: There is no OR in the deleted line! But it IS relevant to the article because the subject of this article is a suspect in Japan who has been detained by the authorities for more than two months. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you are getting this. Maybe better way to explain it is that you make a connection through the sentence structure? You have had links and three editors attempt to describe it so even if you do not get it I hope you will trust us that it is not appropriate according to what is in place here on Wikipedia.Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So now assuming you are not attempting to be disruptive but actually aren't understanding it: As you know, a paragraph is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea. So when you have a paragraph that discusses Bethune distancing himself from Watson and you use a source to describe potentially harsh conditions in the prison you lead the reader to drawing a conclusion. You obviously believe it is related so you see them being appropriate together. However, the sources do not make the connection so you doing so within the article is SYNTH. Now say you broke it into a separate paragraph, then you would run into being off topic since the article is about Bethune and not Japan's prisons.Cptnono (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Japan has a history of coercing false confessions. AI has complained about it. After more than THREE months in detention, Bethune begins making strange statements and weeping in court. Put the evidence out there and let the readers draw their own conclusions. However, to make you happy, I have moved it to a different section entirely. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

FFS. This is a good example of your disruptive editing. You are trying to make a point. The source says "It could be three weeks before a New Zealand anti-whaling protester is allowed to speak to his lawyers." Notice the could in there though. Fine, he might have had to wait. But then you tack on the AI bit. So you are clearly trying to say that you think there is a problem with their way of doing things and compiling sources and writing paragraphs to make that point. This is highly inappropriate ad spits in the face of writing in a neutral tone. If you are trying to say he was mistreated you have to find sources that draw that conclusionCptnono (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you might say, "That's better! It's much more appropriate there, and you've shown a connection to Bethune's case with the other reference." Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You're disputing the neutrality of the BBC? Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'M not saying anything. AI and the BBC are saying it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The BBC said he might have to wait three weeks. That is all. You adding the AI bit is pure and simple leading of the reader. Maybe you are not meaning to but that is how it reads. This isn't that complicated to understand man.Cptnono (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the BBC story is about AI criticism of Japanese police interrogation methods. The one about the three weeks without a lawyer is Television New Zealand and mentions Bethune. Part of the BBC story says that suspects are interrogated for long periods without access to a lawyer. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my bad. Same thing though TVNZ said he might have to wait three weeks. POint is still the same as much as you want to argue.Cptnono (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Arrest - Amnesty International line is POV?

I don't understand the "neutrality is disputed" flag on the line about AI urging Japanese police to reform their interrogation methods. How does this misrepresent the content of the source or skew the neutrality of this section? Please see the previous line about Bethune not having access to his lawyer and the supporting reference. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have explained to you. The source says he MIGHT have to wait three weeks to get a lawyer. That is much different then hime being denied access. Then you use unrelated sources that don't discuss Bethune or arrest at all to make a point about the Japanese system. You know what OR is now. You know what NPOV is. You need to stop trying to make points and connecting dots. If the sources have not done it you should not do it.Cptnono (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Move along with your scandal-mondgering and synthesis to try and advance your POV.--Terrillja _talk 03:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a line about Bethune not having access to a lawyer to make the connection clear to the reader without having to pull up the reference. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here the quote from the referenced RS: "Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson says the Japanese are not letting Bethune see his legal team." Please revert your deletion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call Watson a reliable source about much of anything other than his life. He is known for being media savvy. --Terrillja _talk 03:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope we never have to have the Watson discussion again. He has admitted that he is not exactly reliable.Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another WP:RS that says the same thing: http://www.3news.co.nz/Sea-Shepherd-group-ready-to-defend-Bethune/tabid/1160/articleID/147145/Default.aspx Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Were taking about the sources that published the information, not who they interviewed. The editors decide what gets published. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And they directly attribute it to him since it is scandal mongering nonsense. They also don;t abide by our standards which are higher. Move on. There has to be something more important to the subject than this.Cptnono (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting source. Note the strange "he was due to meet with his lawyer last night." Not "he met with his lawyer last night." Odd, no? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, here's the link. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz+embassy+officials+meet+peter+bethune Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Or they didn't have information beyond what they were told about his scheduled meeting. Yet again, you are trying to make a scandal out of nothing.--Terrillja _talk 05:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another "due to meet last night". Sounds to me like it didn't happen. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10631797 Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No I wouldn't find it odd. However, the source actually states "New Zealand Embassy staff in Tokyo met with anti-whaling protestor Peter Bethune last night, Foreign Minister Murray McCully said today." So I guess: huh? And even if it did say what you said (which it doesn't) it would again be you connecting dots instead of RS. Just stop already. How many times do you have to be informed about the guidelines until you start following them?Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The embassy staff got to meet him, but not his lawyer. Here's another odd fact - his lawyer wasn't even admitted to the trial! What?! "The accused's lawyer, Dan Harris, said he has not been able to get into the court on Friday but has access to the statements that have been made." http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/05/28/124804d76ab5 Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another "no lawyer in court" ref: http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/bethune-could-get-fair-trial-lawyer-20100528-wi7b.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This ref explicitly states that Bethune met four times with consular staff, but nothing about a lawyer. http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/nz-govt-attacked-for-bethunes-detention-20100406-roub.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

First, The AI link is, just like before, directly and clearly WP:SYNTH. It is practically identical in format to the example on the policy page, except that the policy page uses one sentence where you use two. Second, the statement that he was not allowed to meet with his lawyer for up to three weeks is not notable, because it's potentially true for every criminal case in Japan. As I think someone (me?) pointed out before, raising these issues in an article about the Japanese criminal justice system would be appropriate. Or, if reliable, notable sources raised the connection, it would be appropriate here. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)So maybe you(Ghostofnemo) need to work on an article that discusses the justice system in Japan. Who are you to judge how they treat Bethume or even their system in general? The AI and BBC sources might work fine somewhere else. Both lawyers and the consular staff have said Bethune is being treated alright. So stop making a scandal when there isn't one.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AI says this is an issue in Japan. The BBC says it's an issue in Japan. I have WP:RS that say he was blocked from meeting with an attorney until after he confessed. The editors here, with no sources whatsoever, are denying this is an issue and deleted WP:RS referenced material that is NPOV, because they personally feel it's not appropriate! This skews the story so that it appears Bethune is receiving a fair trial, even though his attorney has been denied access to the trial! It's very POV to delete this material, and it's also POV to censor material about Japan's legal system and criticism of it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to explain SYNTH to you again. Go find some RS that says clearly "he is receiving an unfair trial". Right now it is your opinion and there is nothing left to discuss.Cptnono (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be POV to censor the material in an article about Japan's legal system. Here, it's POV to include, because you have no external citations indicating it's relevant. As a comparison, would it be appropriate for me to go to every article about a person arrested for a potentially death penalty crime in the U.S., and include a link to an AI report indicating that capital punishment is widely considered unethical and applied in a biased manner in the U.S.? Of course that would be POV, because I'd be synthesizing a general report with a specific case without an RS that had already themselves made the connection. You did note that your last attempt to add similar material was agreed at the ANI to be SYNTH, right?Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is from the reference that was cited with the removed lines: "Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson says the Japanese are not letting Bethune see his legal team. He says Japanese authorities are entitled to interrogate a prisoner without representation, for up to three weeks. Bethune has however met with New Zealand Embassy staff in Tokyo since his arrival in Japan." from http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921 Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And no, it would not be inappropriate to cite that AI has protested that the U.S. death penalty is a violation of human rights in an article about a prisoner on death row. That's entirely appropriate. He's in the U.S. and he's going to be executed, and AI has a problem with the death penalty. NPOV because that IS their position. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Human rights are universal, and do not vary from country to country, despite what the local authorities may believe. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is torture ok in some countries, but wrong in others? Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the ANI complaint, it is still open as far as I can tell. I don't know who those two commentators are. Are they the administrators who are reviewing the complaint, or just people who dropped in (by chance) to share their personal opinion? I don't think a decision has been reached yet. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"A lawyer representing New Zealander Peter Bethune thinks the anti-whaling activist could get a fair trial in Tokyo." and "He said he knew what had happened in the court 'because the hearing was pretty much all scripted, scripted in the sense that both the prosecution and the defence gave their opening statement but that opening statement was based word for word on a written statement that was provided to the judge days ago' ."[7] Cptnono (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Could" not "is getting". You don't think it's odd to exclude his lawyer. That wouldn't bother you if you were on trial? Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read further, he says that because he has some kind of faith in the judges to make the right decision. What that is based on, God only knows.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: "Despite earlier suggestions the trial was just a show, Harris said he thought Bethune could get a fair trial. "All indications and reports are that the lead judge and other two judges are fair-minded judges," he said." Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure don't. That is why we rely on sources. Me personally, I wouldn't have boarded a vessel like that so wouldn't be in the situation. In regards to ANI, I think you should be off this article all together the more and more you preach. I doubt your behavior has been egregious enough to warrant it in an admins eyes and I might just be frustrated. Some of them might have been admins some might have been random. You will have to click on their names to check. I think the one thing you should take from it is that multiple editors have now also told you about SYNTH and OR. Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If I thought the editors in question were behaving in a fair and objective manner, I would concede, but when they give me responses like "I wore a hood yesterday" so Bethune was not hooded (despite numerous reliable sources mentioning it) and people question the BBC as a reliable and neutral source about suspects rights in Japan, it leads me to believe they are not being as neutral as they seem to think they are being. Also when they repeatedly tell me that there is nothing in the source to connect it to Bethune, and it's right there, it makes me wonder. Also, when they just keep deleting referenced, relevant stuff for different reasons it leads me to believe it is the content that bothers them, not the reason they first, second, stated it had to be removed. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of OR, 221.249.212.16 is with Harris & Moure it looks like. You just reverted which is fine by me but I would reccomend double checking avaiable sources afterward to see if they are correct.Cptnono (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going by the source referenced. It says he's Bethune's lawyer. If the editor has a RS that says that, fine. He didn't supply one though. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously. What I am saying is revert their original research but take what they say as a suggestion to seek other sources. I have already done so and not found any so in this case we don't use their edit. I did modify it slightly simply since we don;t know who is employing the lawyer but that is trivial.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on their talk page explaining that if they find a source they can put it back in. It's his or her edit, so he or she can do the research. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the answer to the question GoN posted at ANI. Harris didn't say there were no lawyers for Bethune in the court. If there were none, it would be a big issue and Harris would have talked about it and have criticized the system. He only said that he couldn't get in the court. I'd like to know where were these Japanese lawyers during the trial and what were they doing at that time. Please find sources which support there were no lawyers for Bethune in the court on the second day first. Oda Mari (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted once again. The edit was reliably sourced, NPOV and relevant to the article. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365974855&oldid=365974691 This was an attempt to include highly relevant material but also take the suggestions of other editors into account. What actual reason do you have for deleting this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Scroll up. Your answer is there.--Terrillja _talk 06:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What is there in the lines deleted and the reliable sources quoted that involves synth or OR? Just read it literally. What does it say? Here it is: "Immediately after Bethune's arrest, Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society complained that Bethune was denied access to his legal team by the Japanese authorities. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921 According to Amnesty International, suspects in Japan can be interrogated for up to 23 days by the police without access to legal counsel." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be possible for us to find a compromise here. Let me undent and offer a few possible points:

• At the moment, I don't see an RS that states that he did not meet with a lawyer. That means to me, at best all we can state is as GoN put it on the most recent version, that this is just the word of Watson. The question, then, is Watson's word of any value? That is, it's verifiable that Watson said that, but just because one person (with an obvious interest in the issue) says something, that doesn't make it valid for inclusion in Wikipedia. I would say that if we could find a statement from him or his lawyer that he has not met with his lawyer, then that would make a legitimate inclusion. I looked at a couple of the past references, and couldn't find anything clearly stating this. GoN, what's your best, clearest reference(s) that states how often he was able to see a lawyer or how long he had to wait? Again, I'm looking for your help on references here, since you seem to have your finger on a the most information.
• Assuming we can find an RS, the next question is how to address the AI issue. We've already reached consensus (without unanimity) that directly adding AI's claims side-by-side with the lawyer issue is WP:SYNTH. I know that GoN doesn't seem to see it this way, but to at least 3 of us (and, apparently, 2 outside editors if I remember the ANI) do. Nonetheless, should an RS connect the two issues, I would definitely say the issue is notable and worth including.
• Nonetheless, I can see why it may be valuable to include the information that it is possible to hold a prisoner for 23 days in Japan; so can we do so without using AI? After a bit of searching, I found a US State Department site that lists that information: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78775.htm. In fact, I would say that including this information would be a helpful POV balance; the first sentence (references as per bullet point one) states that he was held, while the second sentence verifies that this is essentially standard treatment in Japan.

So, if there is an RS for the first part, perhaps something like this might work: "Bethune was <unable to see a lawyer for X days/did not regularly see a lawyer during his imprisonment/*whatever we can accurately source*> + RS. However, in Japan, authorities can legally hold a prisoner for up to 23 days without access to a lawyer + state.gov ref."

Would such a compromise be acceptable? Or is this still still failing WP:SYNTH, WP:N, or WP:NPOV? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Watson's word isn't worth zilch. And if you find a source (his lawyer) who says that he was unable to see him, good, however trying to connect that to what a common time period is would be synthesizing. --Terrillja _talk 07:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's published in a WP:RS I think that makes it admissible, especially if we attribute it to Watson. He DID say that to the journalist, and the article and the BBC article about AI back him up. Do you think the BBC and AI are unreliable or biased sources? Why do you think these otherwise reliable sources are inadmissible as references in this particular article? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, that edit is similar to what GoN tried and yes it is better. However, we run into potential scandal mongering. We shouldn't be leading the reader to believe something is afoot when nothing is there. Of course, depending on what happens next week we might have some sources connecting those dots for us eliminating any inkling of SYNTH. If he receives a long sentence (or maybe even just the expected 3 years) we should expect some outrage in the press with plenty of mentions on various things people think went wrong. I honestly have been holding off on going to nuts until then. I actually believe there should be info on his time locked up. I even started an outline but then got frustrated with GoN and forgot about it. I think the sourcing will be much clearer after the court proceedings are concluded. Right now there seems to be no clear scandal or hubbub in the sources.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Related case: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/168272/greenpeace-calls-for-fair-trial-in-japan-whale-case Still looking on Bethune. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Questioned without attorney - will get to meet with lawyer "soon". We know he met with consular officials, but those stories didn't say he met with his lawyer: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/12/2844335.htm Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The source still doesn't say what you want it to. How about you drop it until you have a source that specifically says that he was mistreated or received an unfair trial. You've yet to even find a source that says he met with a lawyer later than allowed under Japanese law. Seriously, wait until the flood of coverage from his sentencing/release and try again. Until then you are waisting our time. Cptnono (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I did, right here: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921 but for some reason I don't understand, I'm being required to find another one! Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)