Talk:Seaspiracy

Summary: Sources and things to avoid

This is an overview, relying on past discussion on this talk page where relevant, intended as guidance of new editors.

Sources to avoid

• Metro: deprecated at WP: RSP meaning not allowed to use as source on the English Wikipedia article link I just tagged it as "better source needed" in the article --Trimton (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• The Focus: The Focus (Seaspiracy article) is a low quality newspaper without a Wikipedia article (probably not notable), and apparently it's also a training vehicle for journalists. --Trimton (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Things to avoid

• using sources with vested interest: WP:IIS says "Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic" [and such sources shouldn't be used] --Trimton (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• citing press releases for factual information: they may bend the truth WP:PRSOURCE. Still ok to cite them as saying "organisation x stated that" --Trimton (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• writing that anyone "claims" something: the verb "to claim" sounds like the person is incorrect so goes against WP:NPOV. Alternative words are "person x stated, said, wrote abc" or "according to x, abc is the case", See WP:CLAIM for more words to watch and neutral alternatives. --Trimton (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• original research do not provide original research or original synthesis. "The article should contain material about the film and issues and people who appeared in it. It shouldn't veer off to discuss those issues separately, using sources unrelated to the film". See WP:OR. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • for guidance on the scientific accuracy section, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Historical and scientific accuracies Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This includes linking studies to Seaspiracy that weren't linked to it by reliable sources WP:SYNTHESIS says "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia" --Trimton (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Original research

KfKPHVz94csUvCJ, please respect bold, revert, discuss. The material you've added is what we call original research, including original synthesis, which is a policy violation. The article should contain material about the film and issues and people who appeared in it. It shouldn't veer off to discuss those issues separately, using sources unrelated to the film. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks SarahSV. As far as I understand original research, the Monbiot statement being debated can be mentioned on Wikipedia only if it was part of a notable response to the film, right? User:KfKPHVz94csUvCJ quoted Oceana's press statement, which doesnt seem reliable since its a vested interest. But if someone else made this point in response to Seaspiracy, then we could mention it? Trimton (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"has been criticised" isn't a neutral description

The current lead states that Seaspiracy "has received criticism for its scientific accuracy ". Please note that, to my knowledge, all of the criticism comes from actors that were criticised (MSC, Oceana, Dolphin safe label by Earth Island Institute) or from academics with a vested interest in the fishing industry. Christina Hicks, an academic interviewed in the film, criticised Seaspiracy in a tweet which also included a statement that she " love[s]" the fishing industry and has committed [her] career to it". Bryce Stewart has given paid workshops for the fishing industry. Lots of other fishing experts also have this kind of vested interest.

In line with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should attribute such criticism as "defenses" or "criticism from the industry the film attacked", in the lead. We already write this later in the "Responses" section, so it's only fair to include in the lead.

When criticism from neutral sources emerges (environmental scientists that don't regularly get paid by the fishing industry), this should be given more weight than what vested interests write.

Many newspapers have stated the film was "criticised a lot" but then only cited the fishing industry. The only newspaper of record that's written about the film so far is NYT. The simply say Seaspiracy sounds conspirational, but don't question the scientific accuracy, if I recall correctly.

Please correct me below, or discuss sound criticisms of the film :) Trimton (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that the academics who have criticised the film have a vested interest. Hicks was not criticised in the film either, she was quoted as an expert at JCU. Both her and Bryce Stewart are academic experts and fisheries scientists at research institutions, not representatives of fisheries companies or "the industry", so are probably fairly well placed to comment on whether a film is scientifically accurate about fisheries. Callum Roberts is also a widely respected marine and fisheries scientist, quoted as a key expert in the film, and admitted that the film "wasn't made for scientific rigour". Outside of academia, you can also look at Blue Marine Foundation's criticism. Charles Clover literally wrote the original book on overfishing (End of the Line) and made a number of specific criticisms of the film's scientific accuracy. I personally think based on this it's fair to say that the scientific accuracy of the film has "been criticised". Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As a comparison, see articles What the Health and Tiger King Arcahaeoindris (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems there's a pattern in which wikipedia awards too much space to documentary critics. The tiger king article says "the series and its filmmakers have received criticism from conservation and animal rights groups for its framing and inaccuracies related to private breeding and wildlife conservation issues." I like how this specifies the criticism as "inaccuracies related to x and y", but then I can't really find an "inaccuracy relating to wildlife conservation issues". The only thing the article seems to be saying is that Carol Baskin's tiger cages were portrayed as unethically small, but that the cages actually meet the standard of some sanctuary alliance. I just flagged this as a dubious criticism, since the reader doesn't know what that standard is. Standards often reflect merely what's economically feasible, e. g. "premium" animal welfare according to Germany's label means 1,5 square metres per pig - very few people would consider that a premium life. Trimton (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree about Bryce and Stewart for the reasons I mentioned. Ray Hilborn was accused of Greenpeace of conflict of interest (see his wikipage). "Since 2002, Hilborn has brought in more than $3.55 million from industry" writes the Seattle Times. He also criticised an academic article that talked about illegal fishing using insider information (see his wikipage) so he doesn't seem neutral. Callum Roberts doesn't seem to be cited in our article? So the only reliable author and institution I see at the moment is Charles Clover / Blue Marine Foundation. Thanks for pointing that out! His reviews is more positive than reflected in our article. I'll update it. Trimton (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Updated it! Trimton (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and further edits. I'll just refer to WP:POV and quote: "Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations." It's not really our place as editors to vet which experts we quote based on who we think are reliable or not reliable based on supposed conflicts of interest. Callum Roberts is quoted in the Guardian. I mean ideally we would want to aim for something like the scientific basis section of An Inconvenient Truth, but that film has been out for almost two decades so definitely more sources to quote from. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it gave me impetus to refamiliarise myself with WP:BIASED. It does seem to allow for editorial vetting of experts when it states "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering" (emphasis added). "scientific accuracy" critics apart from Blue Marine Foundation (BMF) aren't independent from the topic of whether Seaspiracy is scientifically accurate. PETA probably neither, for that matter, since the advocate against fishing for different reasons. I agree about the short timeline, and I hope we do get to the Inconvenient Truth quality once there are more independent sources like BMF. Trimton (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Also see WP:IIS which says "Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic" [and such sources shouldn't be used] and WP:PRSOURCE for the 2048 empty ocean study that a day ago our article called "later contradicted by the lead author", citing a press release by the fishing industry. --Trimton (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I just updated the header to say who criticised seaspiracy. By the way, that's another reason we need to rewrite it - saying "received criticism" would usually attract a tag Trimton (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your clarifications. I'm not sure if I agree with this application of "independence of the topic at hand". I would say this applies to organisations and individuals criticised in the film (which we have already distinguished). I wouldn't say this should apply to all fisheries scientists. A climate change denial documentary that has been criticised for its accuracy by climate scientists would not necessarily apply the same principle. I also don't think the idea "mostly by fisheries academics" is supported by sources. This is not claimed anywhere. The Guardian and Telegraph articles, NYT review and Blue Marine comments all broadly dispute the accuracy and neutrality of the film. We can cite these. Caveating this by stating that only fisheries scientists claim this, and implying they have a vested interest, is kind of edging into WP:OR esp WP:OR#Synthesis of published material. I'm going to edit it slightly. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

have changed opener to "attracted controversey". I also found this review which examines its science a bit more but not sure it should be considered a reliable source. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Green is the new black probably only a good source for finding reactions, not to cite directly (since not established) Trimton (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's OR since all byt BMF are fisheries scientists. That's just reading the articles carefully. They all introduce the critics as fisheries scientists, don't they? Trimton (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I read the WP:OR you linked and it doesn't seem to forbid this kind of summing up. In any case, do you agree that we should say does the criticising ? I'm happy to user other terms than "fisheries scientists"! Trimton (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I added a summary to the top of the talk page, please feel free to add stuff there Trimton (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The Focus is bad source. Seaspiracy accuses no one of "conspiracy"

We should not quote the The Focus article which says Seaspiracy called the dolphin safe tuna label a conspiracy. The Focus is a low quality newspaper without a Wikipedia article (probably not notable), and apparently it's also a training vehicle for journalists. The article's claim that Seaspiracy accuses Earth Island of conspiracy is based on the Earth Island defense press statement which says Seaspiracy accused it of conspiracy. If you look at the transcript, the film doesn't do thay. It doesn't mention the word conspiracy (Ctrl+F for it), and it doesn't imply conspiracy anywhere, at least not in the sense of "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.", which is the Oxford Dictionary definition of a conspiracy. Seaspiracy does say that groups like Earth Island receive money from the fishing industry, but not that they have a common or secret plan. So Earth Island is using the strawman fallacy to reduce the credibility of Seaspiracy, something I might also do if my income depended on it. Trimton (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean it's surprising, since the title Seaspiracy literally plays on the word "conspiracy". But as someone who's watched the film, I couldn't help but notice. Trimton (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair point about the Focus. The idea of a "conspiracy" is mentioned in this Guardian article but yes it seems like this is a quote from Earth Island's response. As to whether a conspiracy is implied, this is probably going to be slightly more subjective. By calling the film Seaspiracy, isn't this already framing the events as involving some kind of conspiracy? He does, however, openly accuse EI of a "coverup". This could then meet the definition 'a secret plan to do something harmful'. There's also the "follow the money" line where he suggests EI "work with the fishing industry to sell more seafood". "No wonder they don't want to talk about..." also implies some kind of cover-up. At one point he also says "At this point, I began to wonder what else was being covered up." This kind of terminology is at least very similar to conspiracism (as NYT review says) but agree we need to be WP:NEUTRAL here and this may be subjective. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Variety of English

I first tagged this article as "use British English" since the director and protagonist speaks British English. Then someone else added an American English tag. I just deleted the A. E. tag but if there's a good reason I'm happy to switch! Trimton (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

White saviour narrative?

Our article said "Some critics on Twitter accused the film of perpetuating a white saviour narrative. "

White savior narrative in film says in its first sentence that "The white savior is a cinematic trope in which a white character rescues non-white characters from unfortunate circumstances".

That doesn't apply to Seaspiracy. These Twitter users seem to use an expansive, nonstandard interpretation of the term, in which a white man (is Ali Tabrizi even white?) saves marine animals (by filming their slaughter? He doesn't save anyone or anything, and the former slaves he talks to are all free and put in danger by him). The critique seems defamatory, so I deleted the White Saviour Twitter criticism in line with WP:DUE Trimton (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with deleting as Twitter opinions aren't reliable secondary sources, and don't belong on Wikipedia. Stix1776 (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ray Hilborn not excessive detail

Due to WP:IIS Trimton (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually IIS might warrant we delete his comment entirely. Its perhaps WP:UNDUE, especially since his statement isn't very informative. Quoting him saying the film is "so full of misinformation, it’s astounding" doesn't tell the reader much. Trimton (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Went ahead and deleted the "excessive detail" tag --Trimton (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As he is a high-profile fisheries scientist, I would argue his statement, or at least mentioning his critique of the film, is worth keeping as per WP:IIS. I question whether highlighting an accusation made by an organisation as a 'controversey' is worth mentioning in this article. There is already a section on this on Hilborn's article. This wasn't mentioned in articles quoting his thoughts on the film, so to an extent is WP:OR.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I have clarified the statement slightly by specifying Greenpeace as the source of criticism. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You know, I actually think this is WP:OR. The source that discusses this controversey is unrelated to the film and so is original synthesis (WP:SYN). I'm going to WP:BOLD and remove this, but welcome any further suggestions or disagreements. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok my point is that his statement isnt independent since he received 3.5m dollars from the fishing industry. Doesn't matter that this didn't violate any university policies, he derived his income from the industry. His statement, or at least what's cited here, is merely empty phrases. He seems to be accusing the film without citing any evidence. If he did cite evidence, please add it, otherwise it's pretty "undue" Trimton (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

So the quotes in other articles are taken from this video of him talking about it here: https://sustainablefisheries-uw.org/ray-hilborn-on-seaspiracy/ I understand your viewpoint, but as a scientist of stature in fisheries and marine science (albeit a pretty controversial one) with a pretty well developed article of his own, his opinion is at least worth mentioning as someone who has been outspoken about it. He's certainly more notable than the other marine scientist quoted, of whose criticisms have not been elaborated on either. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Does the video substantiate his criticisms? Agreed that all commenters' criticisms should be elaborated upon, and otherwise deleted. Wikipedia isn't a collection of tweets or hot take comments. Trimton (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete Since his non disclosing of fishing industry funds is already a public issue [1], we should be wary of citing anything from him. At least make sure that it's peer reviewed.

Per WP:REDFLAG, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" that could be "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest". Sustainablefisheries-uw.org is literally a website founded/headed by him [2], funded by the fishing industry [3] , and it therefore primary and self-published. "High-quality sources" means peer review for science issues per WP:Source. Stix1776 (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hilborn is also quoted in this telegraph article, where the criticisms are more elaborated on. Using this would avoid the self-publishing issue. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that the Telegraph article is *better*. To me, sustainablefisheries is a no go. Also the language used in the Telegraph article is much more nuanced that sustainablefisheries. There's still an an obvious conflict of interest regarding him. Can't you find another academic to cite? Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight

More than half of the content in this article is focusing on the controversies provoked by the film, which is why I added {{undue}}. ~★ nmaia ^d 15:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. So you'd like to see more in the synopsis section? Or more details about production? Trimton (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely some room for more of the synopsis and production. I think also the film's public success and impact could be included. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Another note on this: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Controversies which says "If a film is considered controversial as a whole, then that kind of coverage may make up a large portion of the article." Although I agree other sections warrant expansion, doesn't this therefore not warrant the WP:UNDUE tag? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I see, well spotted! We should remove the tag. Trimton (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep the tag Literally the very next sentence in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Controversies "In contrast, isolated criticisms may be briefly summarized". None of the controversies are briefly summarized, as they take up many paragraphs and much of the total article. Stix1776 (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A synopsis of 400–700 words would be about right for WP:FILMPLOT, putting us well under. If the issue is false claims made by the documentary then I would say that the synopsis could incorporate corrections ("Tabrizi claims that X, though source Y said that Z") or it could focus on the concrete locations travelled to and topics explored rather than specific statistics. Additionally, surely there's information out there for a Production section—when was the film greenlit, how long a period was it made over, why did the makers choose this topic and choose to get involved, what parts didn't make the final cut etc. Without a proper synopsis and (less importantly) production information, this absolutely is undue weight to criticism and reads as sensationalist. Additionally, not all criticism is the same and the lead needs to draw clearer boundaries between which criticisms are on ecology-based factual grounds by academics, which are on stylistic grounds by non-subject expert film critics, which are on ethical grounds by subjects selectively edited out of context and which are self-interested parties releasing statements about a documentary which criticises them. The body does a good job of segregating this content but I feel there's some unduly long parts and some belabouring of the self-evident: that organisations which would be put out of business by the movie's success opposed it. Wikipedia has no right of response, so for instance what justifies the inclusion of the Oceana primary source statement if no secondary sources have covered it? I'm worried about us potentially parroting PR departments. — Bilorv (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Much of the controversies section are groups being criticized saying much of the same thing, which is makes the article redundant and unreadable.Stix1776 (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I've made an edit to the section about the responses of those featured, per the above, the undue weight tag and the fundamental pillar that requires we don't blindly parrot press releases. — Bilorv (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I've introduced a more extensive synopsis that actually follows the film's plotting, while moving the short, initial synopsis to the lead. If we can do the same for production and introduce summary style to the criticisms then I think the tag can go. I don't have a problem with the criticisms per se but this clearly had undue issues as originally written. Greenbound (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I will add that the original draft was scrupulous in source formatting and insertion, which is excellent for an update now. Greenbound (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Is "the Hindu" worth citing?

In this edit User:Gandèlion removed this review in The Hindu. The justification of this was "it is a very poor article, not pointing out the misinformation, while not understanding how proteins actually work - so this really not a valid source." I question this justification as this is a quote of a critical (audience) review, not a scientific one. Based on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_reception is this worth quoting? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. The Hindu seems to be an OK source generally but this particular review is superficial and has its own scientific problem. It's superficial when it says "While talking about the problem of plastic in our oceans, the documentary says that 46 per cent is from plastic fishing nets. It misreads the information from a 2018 paper [linking Lebreton et al.] that said at least 46 per cent of plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch was composed of fishing nets. Of course plastic in our ocean is a problem, but the presentation and lack of understanding of basic science is a major flaw." the review doesnt say how this was misread. The scientific problem is the bizarre protein comment, as highlighted by User:Gandèlion, since scientific consensus is that plants contain enough and good protein (see Vegan nutrition#Positions of dietetic and government associations). --Trimton (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleted it since no objection Trimton (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

After looking at WP:RSP (see WP:THEHINDU) - this paper is a newspaper of record and considered reliable, particularly compared to other reviews which get quite a bit of weight here. I will reinstate this review, but summarise it to avoid WP:UNDUE weight.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article deserves a mentioning here, especially when it's about "concerns over its scientific veracity and accusations of misrepresentation from participants", when being factually wrong in its scientific understanding of proteins and is not pointing out the misinterpretations. Gandèlion (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Pauly is on the board of Oceana

I don't think he should be listed as an academic [4]. At the very least, he should be included in the section on *Responses from those featured". His conflict of interest is pretty big. Stix1776 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

He was not interviewed or featured in the film though, as all others currently in this section were. There could be more of a case of this going under "Responses from environment groups" as he is leader of Sea Around Us, but then again this is an opinion piece from him as an individual and not necessarily representing the organization. I imagine he was asked to comment by Vox, and indeed be on the board of Oceana, because he is first and foremost a prolific academic marine biologist. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:REDFLAG, we can't ignore his personal conflict of interest and his unsurprising dislike of the film's message. The comments he gives in this article are beyond the area of his expertise (ie. anti-Asian racism). This article is already giving too much space to the controversy (WP:UNDUE). Or at least, as a middle ground compromise, find an academic without a direct personal/financial interest. Stix1776 (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

On that particular point about anti-Asian tropes, perhaps, but Pauly is well known as one of the most prolific scientists in the study of overfishing, marine biology and the impact of industrial fishing on marine life, so the majority of his criticisms in this article are exactly within his area of expertise. See his article. We can certainly mention his sitting on the board of Oceana, but his article was fairly nuanced as he does commend some of its points, and elaborates on his criticisms overall, and discloses his ties with the organization while defending it. I am aware of WP:UNDUE but I also wish to stress WP:FALSEBALANCE here as this is a fairly conspiratorial film and its critics cannot be dismissed outright because the film itself cast a fairly wide net on the groups it decided to criticise. For instance, Callum Roberts is an ambassador for WWF, which is another organisation passingly criticised in the film. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

*Comment The WWF wasn't mentioned in the film. If I'm incorrect, please post a source. Stix1776 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the WWF logo appears in an infographic in the film, along with other conservation organisations that the film criticises. I do not fancy finding a timestamp. As I said, "passingly criticised". Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There are transcripts of the film online. I've already CTRL+F, searched for "WWF" and "World Wildlife", and found nothing. You're welcome to try this. Sorry, but it's much easier to prove something than disprove it. Stix1776 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• As I said, WWF logo. You are right, it is not mentioned in the transcript but if I recall its logo does briefly appear. So does the Greenpeace logo. --Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Couple of points to discuss. First, Pauly is an academic, under contract at the University of British Columbia. There is no other definition of that. He sits on the board of Oceana, and I thought there could be a COI, but later reading his work, I understood this is his line of thinking, way before Oceana was even founded. The other point is the fact he points out in the Vox articles. That we can verify (% of fishing nets now in the ocean, discards, bycatchs and so on) and add a layer of accuracy to his commentary. You gotta respect his work, also. FishBase is the most complete data set of marine life in the world. If somebody can claim that the oceans will not be empty in 2048, is Pauly and his team. Having said that, I do believe is important to point out that he sits in the board of Oceana, but the Vox article is an op-ed, not necessarily the organization's point of view. Naldox (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

So how is this not a COI and not WP:REDFLAG? How is this not WP:UNDUE? I feel like my comments were just ignored.

You mention the % of plastic in the ocean. I'm sure that he knows more than me about this and I'm not questioning his judgement. However, the source that he gives for 20% is a summary that doesn't try to rigorously count the percent. There are other studies that go the other way [[5]] for instance. The 20% isn't settled science, at least by the papers he's sourcing. Which to me is a huge WP:REDFLAG and further shows his COI. Academics don't take such hard answers on politicized topics so easily.

In summary, how is this not a COI and WP:REDFLAG?? Stix1776 (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, please WP:Assume good faith. We have been responding to your comments. This is hardly WP:REDFLAG as Pauly's article does not make particularly controversial claims that are not supported by other marine scientists (just e.g. see [6] [7] [8] [9]). If we are still talking specifically about plastic pollution statements (which is not even currently quoted on the Wiki article), the links provided in the Vox article are to OurWorldinData, which is a reliable secondary source that aggregates multiple studies. It even says based on several studies "Although uncertain, it’s likely that marine sources contribute between 20-30 percent of ocean plastics, but the dominant source remains land-based input at 70-80 percent." This aligns with Pauly's statement. The figure you link to only outlines floating macroplastic pieces seen on visual survey transects, by weight. The percentage of floating waste, by weight, seen on visual survey transect does not contradict a broader overview of waste entering the ocean, which can sink, be microscopic or have a low density (such as bottles, bags etc). That article you link is primarily about the vast volume of microplastics. Hence Pauly's article is not encompassed by WP:REDFLAG. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added a line on his affiliation with Oceana. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. Is no one going to talk about the personal interest he has in this?

I'll assume that OurWorldinData is a very reliable source as you say it is. Can we use that assumption to weigh his statements:

• "undermines [its message] with an avalanche of falsehoods" - possibly reasonable, given his field
• "employs questionable interviewing techniques" -What field are you in, Dr. Pauly? Media studies?
• "uses anti-Asian tropes" - Nothing to do about the data or his scientific expertise, nor is this sourced.
• "blames the ocean conservation community, i.e., the very NGOs trying to fix things" - not relating to this data, and very much against his board of director COI
• "He also defended the work of Oceana" - Do I need to explain this one?

I don't know why WP:Assume good faith is mentioned as I haven't made any personal statements about editors here. I'd very much rather keep things academic. Stix1776 (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Coming back to this. The current information quoted is from the top of Pauly's article and summarises his main points. Note there is still less detail here than there are for other reviews, such as Charles Clover's, which has an entire paragraph dedicated to it at current. Note WP:FALSEBALANCE

• "undermines [its message] with an avalanche of falsehoods" - if reasonable given his expertise, then great, that sounds like some kind of consensus.
• "employs questionable interviewing techniques" - part of the summary of his criticisms, but if you think this isn't relevant or a strong argument can be taken out.
• "uses anti-Asian tropes" - part of the summary of his criticisms. He more or less accuses the film of depicting Asians in a negative light. There is an article in Nature which just came out here which goes into this criticism in more detail.
• "blames the ocean conservation community, i.e., the very NGOs trying to fix things" - the full sentence then says "rather than the industrial companies actually causing the problem". This does relate to his expertise and data, does it not? This is in agreement with the film that industrial fishing is the main threat.
• His defence of Oceana is mentioned as this is a way to mention he is on their board, as you have highlighted. Isn't it better to mention this than not mention it?

Hope that helps. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Have edited the quote Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yet still not talking about the COI.

The standard Arcahaeoindris put out in the beginning of this discussion is that Pauly is an expert. Yet somehow we're debating things outside of his expertise.

The Nature article does not mention "anti-Asian tropes".

The article that Pauly cites for net plastic at 20% of total does not attempt to count the amount of plastic, which again seems very disingenuous.

Thank you for engaging. Stix1776 (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so yeah he is on the board of Oceana. This is now clearly stated in the article - although I will take this out as his defence of Oceana's work specifically probably is not impartial. However, his extensive work on overfishing, the fact the article is not self-published, the fact fishing/marine life related claims link directly to peer reviewed literature and is supported by other experts makes commentary on the film's coverage of fishing issues and conservation outside the scope of WP:REDFLAG, and also WP:COI. Please refer to my third bullet point above on "blames the ocean conservation community...", also in response to COI claim.

I have since removed some of the statements outside his expertise from what is quoted in the article.

The Nature article talks about the eurocentricism of the film, so is broadly talking about the same thing as Pauly, even if not specifically about Asians.

We already discussed the plastic figures. Let's remember that the key difference here is the filmmakers quote data on a specific part of the surface of the Pacific and Pauly is quoting data on overall total waste entry to the ocean from all sources. As such, the former is a subset of the latter, and as I discussed above, figures vary based on what and how waste is measured, and Pauly links to two different reliable sources for his statement. What's your evidence for this being disingenuous? In addition to OurWorldinData Pauly's article also links to this peer reviewed review paper. What's your evidence that this isn't "settled in science"? Is it possible that the filmmakers might be the ones here less well equipped to get their facts right. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Made changes to the paragraph. Please say any of the paragraph does not align with Pauly's expertise or is unsupported by further links provided in his article.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Vegan

Is there an embargo on mentioning this? It's obvious, relevant, and widely discussed in sources. It can be presented neutrally. Greenbound (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)