Talk:Tokyo Two/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of AI line and reference regarding police interrogation

I disagree with this deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokyo_Two&diff=368040963&oldid=367918237 I do not think this is a violation of WP:COATRACK because it confirms that these types of detentions do happen in Japan, which support the subjects' allegations, and also that these practices are of concern to human rights organizations. Removal of this information weakens the case of the detainees and makes their treatment by the police seem less serious, and thus seems to be supporting a POV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of that info here is just as WP:OR as it was at the Peter Bethune article. I don't know why you don't understand this point. WP:OR is abundantly clear, and there is an example doing exactly the same thing you are trying to do. Putting the two pieces of information side by side makes it look like they are connected by reliable sources. AI has not commented on the Tokyo Two (at least, you haven't show an reliable source that they did). Should AI do so, put the source right in. Or, for that matter, if another RS, like a news source, connected the two points, then you could include that reference. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Tokyo Two are suspects in Japan. They have accused the police of harshly interrogating them. AI has complained about the harsh interrogation methods used by the Japanese police. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with those facts. And until an RS connects them just like you've done, the info must stay out of the WP page. Please recall that nearly the exact same issue was raised about Bethune, and a number of uninvolved editors at the ANI page agreed. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

But the issue was never resolved. In this case it is much clearer, because there are clear allegations of abuse by the police. Bethune complained about being hooded and fed only cabbage soup and rice, but he did not complain to the press about being harshly interrogated. We only had Watson claiming he was denied legal counsel. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And I don't have anything to back this up, but I suspect Bethune confessed without any coercion because he felt he had done nothing wrong and his actions were justified. If I were his lawyer, I would have advised him not to make any statements to the police, and make them prove their case. If Bethune had not voluntarily confessed, things might not have gone so well for him.... Also, after his "confession" they tacked on additional charges. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And the line in question does not assert that these two were harshly interrogated and that AI has complained about their case. It only points out that harsh interrogations in Japan are an issue that has been noted by reliable sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are standing by your deletion, I am going to make a Request for Comment. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it original research to make this statement? "The Tokyo Two are suspects in Japan. They have accused the police of harshly interrogating them. AI has complained about the harsh interrogation methods used by the Japanese police." In the article, the line that corresponds to the third line has been deleted as original research. Here is the diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokyo_Two&diff=368089559&oldid=368087727 Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify that above I was generically using WP:OR; more specifically, I should have been referring to the subsection on Synthesis. Also, please note that Ghostofnemo attempted to add the same basic statement to a different article on a similar topic. Other editors brought the issue and Gon's edits to ANI. That discussion can be seen at [1]; as can be seen there, the overwhelming consensus was that this was SYNTH. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not acceptable and Ghostofnemo has had it explained to him multiple times by multiple editors.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Different subject, different article, different situation, and even regarding the other article, administrators made no judgment either way about this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As Qwyrxian points out, it is similar. I would cal it exceptionally close myself. And admonishment or further instruction by an administrator is not needed when the community's consensus is made perfectly clear in the link provided by Qwyrxian. The next step is a user request for comment but I was hoping that would not be needed and know that you will take great offence to it so would prefer not to.Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

GoN, based on your above comment and ones you've made in other places, you seem to have a misconception about the way WP works (or, maybe I do). But as far as I know, administrators don't have any more authority when interpreting policy than other editors. As far as I can tell, admins have more "abilities," specifically the ability to block people and protect pages, but they're only supposed to do that with consensus or when they believe it is abundantly clear consensus would be obtained. Now, I suppose I could be completely misinterpreting WP:dispute resolution, but I don't think I have. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that if I'm accused of being disruptive, or other editors are accused of vandalizing articles, that an administrator would rule who is indeed at fault. Since they chose not to rule on this, the result is unending edit warring. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is the ocmmunity consensus that rules and it was clear. There is no edit warring but instead questionable edits.Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the removal (since I removed it the first time). Synthesis and coatrack apply - that line needs to go in an article about the Japanese criminal court system, not here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Would this be synthesis, too? Assume all these lines are reliably sourced. "Joe Smith was convicted of murder in the United States. He was executed on May 1, 2010. AI has condemned the U.S. for executing prisoners." Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is called SYNTH or leading the reader to draw a conclusion, that would be an inappropriate edit if the article was on Smith and not executions in the US. If it was on Smith and AI specifically made a mention of Smith's execution it would likely be appropriate depending on some factors (such as moving it to a new paragraph so it didn't read like WP:HOWEVER without using "however".Cptnono (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that if AI issues a blanket condemnation of capital punishment, that can't be cited in an article about an executed prisoner unless THAT specific prisoner is mentioned by name by AI? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. And that was echoed at ANI in the link provided above. If the subject isn't mentioned int he source, you need to ask yourself why you are trying to include that source.Cptnono (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it obviously applies to the prisoner who is the subject of the article! If a respected human rights group has condemned a certain type of treatment, that supports the claim that the prisoner is being treated unfairly and that his unfair treatment is notable. If Leader X commits genocide, the fact that genocide has been condemned by international bodies is relevant to that situation, even if the accused was not mentioned by name at the Nuremberg Trials or in the Geneva Conventions! Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So to make a point? That isn't the purpose of Wikipedia nor is it the purpose of the hypothetical Mr. Smith's article. How about if I provide a source that favors the death penalty? And then what if you provide another to counter that point? The article stops being about the subjects and turns into an article on the death penalty. Go add info to the death penalty article not Mr. Smith, but make sure it isn't an essay since that is not what we do here.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You're now going into hypothetical territory that does not apply to the edit under discussion. If someone has a reliable source that says tying people to chairs and interrogating them for 12 hours straight is an accepted police practice by international police organizations and human rights groups, please feel free to add that information to the article. But the deleted line should be restored. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The great thing about WP is that we (the editors) don't have to "decide" what applies or what doesn't. If the RS doesn't directly state that it applies, then we can't make the assertion. Applying a general statement to a specific case is always Original Research (when an RS doesn't themselves make said application). For example, even this would be OR/SYNTH: "Carrots are a good source of vitamin Q. The USDA has said everyone should eat at least 10 mg of vitamin Q per day." Again, you are right that it's "relevant." But Relevance is not the standard which must be met for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you quote this from a Wikipedia policy? It seems unbelievable that in an article about "Lucky Strikes" I cannot cite a source that says, "According to the Surgeon General, smoking has been found to be hazardous to your health and to cause cancer". The Surgeon General has to mention "Lucky Strikes" by name? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Again? "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."(emphasis mine) You are trying to imply something (C = Japan's justice system is bad).Cptnono (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to IMPLY anything. AI SAYS, and the BBC is REPORTING, that Japanese police are using harsh techniques to interrogate suspects and have called for reforms. So you're saying that if Lucky Strikes are cigarettes, and the Surgeon General says cigarette smoking is dangerous, I can't cite the Surgeon General because he didn't single out Lucky Strikes? That's unbelievable. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And this is not an A and B, therefore C argument. It's A is X. A claims Y about X and B. C says Z about X, Y and B. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll spell that out: Sato was a suspect in Japan. Sato claims he was harshly interrogated while being questioned by the Japanese police. AI has complained that the Japanese police are using harsh methods to interrogate prisoners. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict--this was meant to be directly after your 3:04 edit) You're implying that there is a connection. That's OR. And you are correct that you can't put the Surgeon General warning into the Lucky Strikes article. You may not like that policy, but its fundamental to the WP project. In a certain sense, your analysis of the Lucky Strikes article the most accurate analysis of SYNTH you've written so far. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Second request: Can you provide a link to that particular policy (not just to the whole page about OR or SYNTH)? I'd like to see a line that says the Lucky Strike example, or my Sato-san example, are violations. The example here on the SYNTH page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Synth#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position is not what is going on here. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What I'm doing is like this: There have been 160 armed conflicts since the U.N. was founded. The U.N.'s stated objective is to promote peace. Citizens Against Wars has stated that the U.N. is not doing enough to prevent armed conflicts. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I don't know what to tell you. "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." is exactly what you're doing (assuming that both parts of that sentence were sourced, which they could be). The two situations are nearly identical. Honestly, I'm about done, myself, trying to explain this point, as I feel like I'm running out of ways to show that your proposed edit is exactly what WP:SYNTH lays out. You're asking for policy; we're showing it to you. I can see that you somehow don't understand why what you want to do fits that policy. But there is no other policy to cite, because that is the policy your proposed edit violates. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, Ghostofnemo, you've been told by several people that the material you want to add here (AND in the Bethune article) goes against WP:OR and WP:SYN. I understand if you don't accept the reasoning you've been given, but the material will be removed if you continue to add it. You do not have concensus to add it to the article. It's that simple. I see no reason to continue to discuss this further, you're getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Ravensfire (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Threat = end of discussion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, really? ANI, Bethune, here, and now the policy page. Much like the YouTube discussion, you really should inform other editors when you are going behind their backs attempting to amend policy to force your edit. Cptnono (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

GoN, it would have been courteous of you to advise us of the talk discussion on WP:NOR, but oh well. In any event, since the consensus there (and I believe, everywhere else you've asked) is that this would be OR/SYNTH, can we drop the issue now? I ask this in all politeness, not as an attack or threat. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much where I'm coming from - we've been over this issue several times and each time it's been deemed OR/SYNTH. There are no threats - there's no reason for it. It's just not worth our time to continue this when it's been this thoroughly decided. Ravensfire (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone would tell me exactly why this is unacceptable if each line is sourced and there are no "therefores" "sos" or "which is whys" anywhere, just three statements of fact: "The U.N.'s stated objective is to promote peace. There have been 160 armed conflicts since the U.N. was founded. Citizens Against Wars has complained that the U.N. is not doing enough to prevent armed conflicts," in a logical and convincing manner, I would drop it. But instead, I get accused of not engaging in constructive discussion, and various policies are quoted which imply administrative sanctions if I don't drop the subject. MY interpretation of SYNTH would be: "The U.N.'s stated objective is to promote peace.(sourced) There have been 160 armed conflicts since the U.N. was founded.(sourced) (Therefore) the U.N. is not doing its job.(unsourced or a source that says the UN is not doing its job in an unrelated area)" What I will do is appeal this to a higher level, and let it go at this level, because at this level no one seems to understand why the first example is not synth and the second one is. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we're all well aware that your interpretation of SYNTH does not match any consensus that you have so far been shown. If you do take this to a "higher level" (not quite sure what you're thinking), I know that I, and I believe others, would appreciate that you provide notice somewhere (here, Bethune, even your talk page...). Perhaps at some "higher level" discussion consensus will change, so it would be good to know.... Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm questioning the policy in general. After being told numerous times, "Yeah, but the policy is..." I decided to challenge the policy IN GENERAL, so I didn't feel notification was necessary. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I've simply started to check on Ghostofnemo's contributions exactly for that reason. He's actively trying to avoid people who he knows disagree with him participating in these discussions. Indeed, look at the titles of the threads he's starting - the only "questionable" applications of OR and SYNTH that I've seen, or anyone else participating in those discussions have seen, are from Ghostofnemo! I'm going to be going through this article some tonight, expanding a few sections here and there, but will also be looking for and removing anything that smacks of OR, SYNTH or COATRACK. I know of at least one other coat that's been tossed on this rack that I'll be donating elsewhere. Ravensfire (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The general policy is being discussed on the WP:OR discussion page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Hopefully we'll not have to see this again, on any other page. Ravensfire (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's still under discussion at the WP:OR discussion page. Based on the results of that discussion, I'll decide what the next step is, if that's ok with you, of course.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a summary of my argument there, since people seem to want to be constantly updated on my discussion on this topic: I agree that the personality disorder example would be questionable, but I think it's clearly ok to mention general comments about a subject that are clearly relevant to the subject but which don't refer to the subject by name. Lucky Strikes are cigarettes and the Surgeon General has warned people about the dangers of smoking cigarettes, no matter which brand they smoke. Leader X has been accused of genocide, and genocide is a war crime no matter who commits it. The safety of the 123 suspension system has been question by engineers (hypothetical situation made up as an example), no matter which model of car it is installed in, and so on. These are not SYNTH, and AI's general criticism of the way Japan treats suspects is not SYNTH in the way I've used it, and I think that needs to be clarified on this policy page since so many people are interpreting it incorrectly. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take this in the very best spirit that I intend it in: isn't it possible, just possible, that since, so far, everyone else says you're wrong, that, perhaps, you are wrong? I mean, maybe? And, of course, you're welcome to take whatever step you think is correct following the discussion. Of course, should you edit against consensus (at this page and at WT:OR), I'm sure we'll correct to meet consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This person may not "support" me, but they understand my point: "There has to be some 'absurdity' criteria here. One does not expect anyone in the world (legal profession exempted) to spell out every single detail of every single statement. When the Surgeon General (or a scientific researcher) says that smoking cigarettes is dangerous, that statement involves a scientific inference to all cigarettes which everyone in the scientific world would recognize and respect. claiming that lucky strikes are dangerous to smoke is therefore a perfectly valid deduction, unless there is some reason presented in reliable sources which exempts lusky strikes from the established consensus about cigarettes in general. SYN is an invalid generalization or extension; pure deduction can't be synthetic reasoning.

• deduction: SG says cigarettes are bad; LS are a brand of cigarettes; SG would say that LS are bad - there's no synthesis here, because LS are included in the SG's original pronouncement as a class of objects
• synthesis: SG says cigarettes are bad; cigarettes are made of tobacco, and so are cigars; SG would say that cigars are bad - there is synthesis here: the SG probably would say that cigars are bad, but they were not covered in the class of objects he originally dealt with, so we cannot make that inference for him. --Ludwigs2 03:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)" Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Super. How about you stop bringing it up here until you have consensus to change the policy. You are also stretching since we are not discussing cigarettes in this article.Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your zeal to "correct" me to "meet consensus" (i.e. to impose your interpretation by force by deleting my edits), please see this from WP:PRACTICAL: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not go there. You're not even reading that policy correctly. That policy is meant to say that obtaining consensus is not about obtaining majority, it's about convincing people as much as possible by sound reasons and justifications. That does not mean that you (or anyone else) gets to start with the a priori assumption that your argument is necessarily right, well argued, well reasoned, and everyone else is patently wrong, therefore no matter what they say, your interpretation must be correct. That's not attempting to gain consensus, that's attempting to rule by fiat. Feel free to keep trying, but please continue your well-reasoned plan of not adding the contentious material until you get that consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You said it, not me. It's REALLY about the "contentious material" (i.e. about the content, not the policy). Some editors feel they have the power to completely delete content they don't like from the article, no matter how relevant or well-sourced, using whatever policy seems plausible. The contentious material is not edited to make it comply with the quoted policy. It's just completely deleted. And compromise edits are also completely deleted. And if one policy doesn't work, another and another are suggested as reasons for deletion. At least that's what it looks like to me. See 9/11 conspiracy theories or MY Ady Gil or Peter James Bethune for examples. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

But it is about you looking at it from a certain angle since your edits are not seen as acceptable. I know how harsh that sounds and it isn't meant to be.Cptnono (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable due to content? Or because of actual policy violations? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Ravensfire (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If the information is being deleted because of content, and for no other reason, it's censorship. See WP:CENSOR. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop it.Cptnono (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the policy:

However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have deleted in the past/would delete future inclusions of the same pattern of information because of policy, specifically WP:SYNTH, as it is currently interpreted by the consensus found here and the other venues this has been discussed in. The second you find the source we've talked about being necessary, I am 100% in favor of putting it in the article, regardless of my own personal opinions about the Japanese justice system, whaling, etc., etc.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And don't start pulling stiff from whatever policy you find in an attempt to keep the argument alive. The purpose of that paragraph is obviously pictures of dicks or curse words. It doesn't look like you are changing anyone's mind here or at the policy page but please keep trying there instead f here because it is just old and annoying. And take that garbage off your userpage already.Cptnono (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To Ghostofnemo - wrong. Again. Ravensfire (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So relevant, reliably-sourced, NPOV facts are not protected from censorship, but obscenity is? That's a novel interpretation... Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes, the spectre of censorship! Low blow man. Keep it at the proposal on the OR page where everyone is disagreeing with. Maybe more eyes from your post at the village pump will explain it in even more detail.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sato and Suzuki say they were tied to chairs and questioned for up to 12 hours a day without access to attorneys." OK, that Sato and Suzuki claimed something about police is a fact. But "they were tied to chairs and questioned for up to 12 hours a day without access to attorneys." might not be a fact. That is only what they said and whether it actually happened during the detention or not is not proven. They might have lied. They might have exaggerated. It's not known to us. People do not always tell the truth. But GoN thinks what they said is the truth. That is GoN's PoV. Adding AI line based on the PoV is obviously SYNTH. It's a matter of reading comprehension. Oda Mari (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a fact that they claimed they were tied to chairs and questioned for 12 hours at a time. It's a fact that AI has complained about the way Japanese police treat suspects. No synthesis and no POV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please go read OR again or the related discussion page if you don't get it still. The fact that AI anything means nothing on this page.Cptnono (talk)

Redirect for subjects names - how to?

Should we have a redirect for "Junichi Sato" and "Toru Suzuki", in case people search using the subjects names? I looked at WP:REDIRECT but I didn't see "how to" instructions, and I've never done it before. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects for those seem really helpful. I think I know how to make one; let me make one to check first then I'll come back in a minute to share. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, it's actually more complicated than I thought, because both of those names already have pages, but for apparently unrelated people. So we're going to have to make disambiguation pages, or something like that...let me check some more policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the top of the pages for Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki. I believe that should cover what we need? Since those pages are pre-existing and about people with a larger "body of work" (multiple sources for notability), but these two are notable only for one event, this seems like the right way to go. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

すばらしい! (subarashii! - fantastic!) Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Another questionable line

"However, large amounts of unsold whale meat are kept in storage, because it does not sell well in Japan.[2]" This is problematic for several reasons:

• Article is not directly related to the subjects
• Line in article is cherry picked in a point making fashion. This is a serious POV concern
• Potential violation of WP:HOWEVER

This source would be much better at another article. Ghostofnemo should no this by now.Cptnono (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• The article is about whale meat.
• The deleted line is relevant and a key point of the article quoted.
• Do you have a source that says this is untrue or a reason to believe the quoted source is in error?
• Why do you consistently remove relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV information and references from Wikipedia articles that are critical of the whaling industry? There is a clear pattern. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• No this article is about two activists
• But the article discusses that the freezing on the vessel makes it less desireable. Your version could easily lead the reader to assume that it is not liked (which other sources contradict wile others contradict that)
• It being factually correct is not the concern
• Because you continue to edit in a manner that multiple editors have expressed concern about. I do not need to repeat all of the reasoning here since it has been provided numerous times. It happens that we both follow similar subjects so it is likely we will bum into each other in the topic area. Cptnono (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links

Is a "news" story from Greenpeace appropriate under Wikipedia:External links?

• It is not an official link but a news story from Greenpeace.
• It is against "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view" seen at the guideline page.
• It does not "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."(emphasis mine) ((WP:ELYES))
• It does not "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."WP:ELNO All this should be available in RS. Greenpeace is not RS.
• It does meet "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." WP:ELMAYBE note the "maybe"

Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

External link provides information from a primary source and photos of subjects of article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That does not address the multiple issues. And the reader can google it to find an image or find one in an RS that we provide. Are images even mentioned in the external link guideline?Cptnono (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It could be used as a source about the actions Greenpeace has taken. The last line might be an interesting quote to add, as the two were acting as Greenpeace activists. That would pull it out of EL (questionable to keep it there to me) and move it into the article. Ravensfire (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even consider that. The primary source simply used as an inline citation. That would also reduce the prominence and WP:FANSITEness of having it as an EL.Cptnono (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The external link in question has been deleted by Cptnono, without any other links provided to photos or about the Greenpeace campaign on their behalf, which I don't think was the consensus of this discussion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Various standards provided. Two editors see room to maybe put in the body. You haven't provided sufficient reasoning (images are not).Cptnono (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

But you didn't put it in the body, you completely deleted it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure did. The link is right above if you want to attempt to use it as an inline citation.Cptnono (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You inserted the link above into the article? I don't see that in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokyo_Two&diff=368703246&oldid=368698469 Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No at the top of this discussion. And it is obviously retrievable by looking at the history as you just did. Stop complaining and use it as a citation if possible.Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

But it has been removed completely from the article, and not included as an in-line reference, as was discussed above. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It being removed for being against EL does not hinge on it being an inline reference. Feel free to make a proposal or try it yourself.Cptnono (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I said it could be used as an in-line reference. Honestly, given the contentious nature you've made this talk page, it's hard to find a reason to seriously work on this. It seems that nothing anyone else says is taken at face value by you, but parsed, twisted and reworked to make it mean what you want. Ravensfire (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:ELNO it's ok to have external links to official pages of the subjects (see first line), so I'm going to put in an external link to the Tokyo Two Greenpeace page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That probably doesn't meet the qualifications of a "official page". It's also probably not, as noted above, an RS. Ravensfire (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see first line of WP:ELNO Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the two criteria for WP:ELOFFICIAL and explain how both are met. Hint - it's the first one. Ravensfire (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a Greenpeace website. That's the group he belongs to. They control the website. It's about him. He's notable because of his Greenpeace activism. Is there something I'm missing? Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is about S&S, the link is not under their control. It's under Greenpeace's control. If you didn't see it, there is a link to GP as a reference in the article - at the beginning, to say they are GP activists. THAT is where something like this could go. Ravensfire (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism or just really bad English?

"The two activists were held without charge for 23 days. They were questioned without a lawyer and while tied to a chair and interrogated for up to 12 hours a day." And what happened while they were tied to that chair? They were tied to the same chair? Have you got a source on that? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a mistake in copy and pasting in an attempt to fix yet another of your endless mistakes. Another editor brought it up so I tried. In the future, don't play dumb to make a point. You provided the source and knew it was incorrect. It is now a direct copy and paste of the source so if you don't like the English I suggest you fix it without adding in more editorializing since you really are toeing the line that will get a request for a topic ban.

This is not much better: "They were arrested and detained for 26 days.[1][2] the two activists were held without charge for 23 days. Questioned without a lawyer and while tied to a chair and interrogated for up to 12 hours a day." You need a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence, and you still need to tell us what happened while they were tied to that chair... Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't know. Read the source. Feel free to fix capitalization as well. Just don't add SYNTH.Cptnono (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course we know what happened - they were fed milk and cookies! Ravensfire (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking something kinky! Way to ruin it Ravensfire.Cptnono (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but I didn't say how many cookies or how much milk! Open wide, Bessie was really full this morning!  ;) Ravensfire (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

For a not so humoruous post, I've split the big paragraph into two - before arrest and after arrest. Definitely improves the readability. I'm also trying to work on the phrasing some. It's still somewhat stilted and awkward. One of the sources is a transcript of an interview, so the phrasing there is really bad.

There's something odd though - the sources disagree about how long they were detained. One says 26 days, the others say 23 days, all of which are sourced in the articles to claims by the activists. I suspect it's 23 days, with 26 being a typo (see 3 and 6 on your keypad). We may have to put both counts in the article as "arrested and detained for 23 or 26 days". Ugly, but may be the only option here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

According to ja article, they were arrested on June 20 and the Aomori District Public Prosecutors Office indicted them on July 11. This is the G-translation. These are related Japanese laws. [3] and [4]. Oda Mari (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are the deleted lines and the sources. I don't think we can source content on other Wikipedia articles. It seems clear that they were detained for 26 days, and interrogated for 23 of those days:

They were arrested and detained for 26 days.

• http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/whaling-protesters-demand-release-of-tokyo-two-20100609-xv35.html

During their interrogation by police, which lasted for 23 days, Sato and Suzuki claimed they were tied to chairs and questioned for up to 12 hours a day without access to attorneys.

• http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2813794.htm
• http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iP1fdxgCtWGgdqVP8awQ8J8f6l5w Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing "arrested and detained for 26 days", "held without charge for 23 days", "detained without charge for 23 days". I can go with the detained for 26 days and held without charge for 23 days. I'd love to find something with the actual dates (the Japanese wikipedia article is helpful, but unfortunately we can't use it as a source). I'll probably retweak the wording some later today. Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

GoN doesn't trust ja Wikipedia. OK. See [5]. Trrible G-translation. But they were arrested on June 20. They were indicted on July 11. [6] Greenpeace Japan says the same thing. [7] But strangely there's no mention about Sato and Suzuki's interrogation by police on Greenpeace Japan site. If the information was true, why they didn't let the world know about it on their site? Oda Mari (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Careful, that almost sounds like an accusation of racism. You just can't use Wikipedia articles as a source for Wikipedia articles. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop accusing editors of censorship, accusations of racism, or other scarey charges. Even if you are not directly saying "you racist" it is still offensive but I doubt anyone could have read that message that way.Cptnono (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I said why it wasn't a good source. But then I was accused of not trusting Japanese Wikipedia. It sounds like that could be construed to mean that I trust Wikipedia in general, but not Japanese Wikipedia. That's not true, but the editor clearly stated "GoN doesn't trust ja Wikipedia." Did I file a complaint? Did I make a big deal out of it? No, I just pointed out that it could be construed as an accusation of racism. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And if you really thought he was accusing you of racism you should have opened up a complaint. It wasn't at all and you need to stop using the tactic of using scary words like that and censorship.Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you knew anything about Japan, you would know there is a 95% chance that "Oda Mari" is a woman. "Oda" is probably her family name, and "Mari" is probably her first name. "Mari" is usually a woman's name in Japan. I didn't open up a complaint, because I assumed she was acting in good faith and didn't mean to imply I was a racist. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why did you say anything at all if you were assuming the best? Stop throwing accusations and mud around.Cptnono (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I just clarified the dates with other references. Oda Mari (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Whalers blow the whistle

I've removed the last paragraph as another example of a COATRACK. This article isn't about killing whales, selling their meat or Japanese judicial practices - it's about the alleged theft, the press conference, the investigation, the arrest and the trial. Ravensfire (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sato and Suzuki allege the whalers are embezzling meat. Some former whalers confirm this is indeed the case. Seems highly relevant to me, so I put it back in. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm, can you say SYNTH, again? I'll wait for a bit to see what other think. That paragraph is NOT about the subject of the article. One source doesn't even MENTION S&S. The other does, but does not support the statement as written, hence NPOV problems. Seriously - put this in an article about the Japanese whaling industry and add it as a See Also link here. It's going to get better visibility and you won't have that pesky SYNTH to try to get around. Ravensfire (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the SYNTH policy is getting stretched even further now - you can't add anything to an article unless every line mentions the subject of the article by name? Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Given your track record, I don't think I'll trust your interpretation of anything even remotely related to SYNTH. <edit>You might want to read up on WP:COATRACK also. That section is exactly that. </edit> Ravensfire (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just read it again, and it doesn't apply here. The two suspects were arrested in connection with embezzled whale meat in Japan. The added lines are about embezzled whale meat in Japan, not what religion the two suspects belong to, what brand of motorcycle Suzuki drives, or how evil it is to kill whales. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I mention that Sato is a vegetarian? No, I didn't. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And removed this section again. WP:BRD means discussion. Since you won't wait for discussion on the point below (your Bold change that I Reverted), I won't wait here (my Bold change that you Reverted). I'd really prefer to have discussion on both of these, but I don't see you waiting. Ravensfire (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any REASON for deletion? You really need a reason, or it looks like vandalism. Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See all of those reasons above? Yeah. Those. You have not addressed them, you simply ignore them saying they don't apply in your opinion. Guess what - in my opinion, they do apply. Ravensfire (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the wording has been changed, and now the police are being quoted as saying the meat was found to be souvenirs, and was not going to be sold (interesting that Japanese police can predict future events!), I reinserting the line about former whalers' allegations that stolen whale meat is being sold. It seems VERY relevant to point this out, and misleading to omit it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And I reverted. This has gone across to talk pge sections here. You are nowhere near having any sort of consensus. It has already been explained to you why. Your best option would be to rewrite the text and integrate it into the article in another way. It should be pretty easy with the sources available.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify that much of the subjects' concerns are based on the meat being made available to the public I added a line. It was available in a source and was right there in the wikilink. This should be fixed now unless you want to make this a coatrack or point. Some minor clean up may be needed but this was an easy fix. Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Greenpeace's aims

I just deleted some information about Greenpeace's aims. This was supported by the source, but it's not clear that this was their motive at the time of the act - it doesn't spell that out in the article as clearly as you stated it. There might be a way to get this in the article, but maybe as a line about Greenpeace Japan's goals and motives (not Sato and Suzuki's motives). It's much better if you can source this from a news source or a source that is not a party to the incident. The link to the photos I like, but the other editors don't. I haven't been able to find a news story with their photos. Likewise, if you can't find a statement of their motives or Greenpeace Japan's motives from another source, it might be ok if done properly. "Greenpeace Japan has stated that it's goals are.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I'd also put the stuff about Greenpeace Japan's goals towards the end of the article, so as not to break the narrative about Sato and Suzuki. Nice picture of Sato in the BBC article. Maybe you can mention that his travel ban and ban on talking to journalists has been lifted, and use that as a source? Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I took a whack at it. Let's see what the other editors think. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

COATRACK. Seriously, Ghostofnemo, this article is NOT about Greenpeace. Information about what Greenpeace is doing, or will do, that is not DIRECTLY related to the subjects of the article does not belong. Put this in the Greenpeace article, not here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sato said that in an interview with a journalist, and it's related to his campaign that resulted in his arrest. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Check out current edit - I spelled that out more clearly. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still the same thing - this isn't about Greenpeace. Please don't readd it until we have more editors comment here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a quote of the subject of the article! Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And it's about GREENPEACE. Ravensfire (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

While going through some articles looking for possible external links, I found Whaling in Japan article. The Greenpeace information would work quite well in that article, and probably in the Greenpeace article as well. Ravensfire (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems much more relevant in an article about Sato. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff of the last deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokyo_Two&diff=370129071&oldid=370128606 I don't see what is being coatracked here. He's not talking about his hobbies or products he uses or other off topic subjects. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted - please wait for consensus before adding again. Ravensfire (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a REASON for deletion? If not, how is this different from vandalism? Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Continued readding without consensus is vandalism from that view too. Ravensfire (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not discussing your deletions. I asked what was being COATRACKED. No response. I readded. Your response - wait for consensus. Still no explanation of what exactly is being COATRACKED. How can we have a discussion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's really hard to have a discussion when you simply revert/readd things without talking about the changes on here first. It goes two ways, ya know? For your specific question, I did post about that. This article isn't about Greenpeace, and the quote is about GP's future goals. Yes, it's said by Sato - that's not enough. It needs to be directly tied to the article, and that's just not there. That's the COATRACK part - you're using this article to add something unrelated to it. It seriously belongs in the Greenpeace and/or Whaling controversy articles. Ravensfire (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You must of missed this from above, so I'm reposting: Here's the diff of the last deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokyo_Two&diff=370129071&oldid=370128606 I don't see what is being coatracked here. He's not talking about his hobbies or products he uses or other off topic subjects. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

He's a leading activist. He's talking about his own group and his own plans. Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that this article should focus on the event, not on the persons, and as an event it has as much to do with Greenpeace as it does with Suzuki and Sato. Their actions were also actions of Greenpeace with consequenses also for Greenpeace (police raid, losing supporters). Therefore views of and about Greenpeace relating to the issue and its aftermath are as relevant Suzukis and Satos views. If I remember correctly, this article itself started from a chapter at the Greenpeace article.84.250.5.104 (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We can certainly add more content regarding Greenpeace's involvement in the project, as long as that information is verified in reliable sources. I liked the info you added from AI, as it speaks directly to the perspective of a (mostly) respected international organization on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of entire "Future plans" section

What is the reason for deleting this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokyo_Two&diff=370141311&oldid=370136293 It's clear that Sato is talking about his future plans as a leading activist in Greenpeace of Japan. The article is about him and his activity as a Greenpeace activist. Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See section above. You ignored the concerns I raised and readded. Ravensfire (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I reworded it and added it into a different section. What is your reason for deletion now? Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you the section part ... but reworded it? No. Same material, same issues. Please post it here on the talk page so it can be discussed before adding it to the article. Edit wars are bad things. Ravensfire (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So is WP:OWN. Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed - you are doing your best to keep it exactly your way here, aren't you? Ravensfire (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I already told you the other day GoN. Don't throw shit like "vandal" and "own" around as you are doing. It is a lame tactic that ignores the reasoning provided by vilifying the other editor. See WP:ATWV--Cptnono (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding to both edits in this section since it is a similar pattern.

"Future plans" I see why this was labeled a coatrack. It is about Greenpeace and not one of the subjects. It certainly doesn't deserve an independent section. And why discuss future plans while ignoring that the perception that confrontational tactics are counterproductive? Kind of mangled the story there and didn't present the info in context. That leads me to this. It is written in a way that makes it sound like the Japanese do not approve. Why is there a mention of surplus but none discussing the freezing process which makes the meat suck? It is worded in a way that again leaves out key wording hich can lead the reader to draw the conclusion the editor wnats them to draw (imply is the term in SYNTH). This isn't an article about Greenpeace or Whaling in Japan. Luckily, the source used for the Future plans section is perfect to address the problem in a way that ties it to the actual subject:

Coverage of the incident in Western countries endorsed the Greenpeace conclusions that here was clear evidence of wrong-doing in the government agencies that run whaling, and showed that whalemeat was in such oversupply that it had to be given away free to crewmembers and officials.

But in Japan it played rather differently. The activists were largely painted as common criminals; and the investigation that they were told would begin into the whaling agencies never materialised.[8]

I would modify the wording slightly since we have stricter NPOV standards than the BBC but overall that is a great way to provide the background information.

That source can again be used to discuss the futures of the subject (again, the two guys not Greenpeace).

"This isn't the 1970s, Mr Sato acknowledged; and campaigners who want to effect change in Japan should not see things in the same terms as in that era."[9]

This one is a bit trickier but something along the lines of "While awaiting judgment, dude acknowledged that changes needed to be made in the way activists do things."

Cptnono (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice who was being quoted? One of the subjects of the article, who is a leading activist in the Japanese group. How can the subjects comments about the subjects own future plans be coatracking in an article about the subject? Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The we are reading the source differently since it appears to be the blogger's comments on where Greenpeace is going. I don't see any "He said..." or " '...' " It is even a separate paragraph. Cptnono (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"At the time, Mr Sato didn't accept that thesis. Now, he does - and indeed, Greenpeace isn't sending ships to the Antarctic any more.

The organisation's goal is unchanged - an end to Japanese whaling, certainly in the Antarctic. But it feels it can achieve more now by campaigning with words - by attacking the finances of the hunt, pointing up the reputational damage that Japan suffers as a result of the hunt, and so on.

Greenpeace Japan is a tiny organisation, and one of only a handful campaigning against whaling in the country. Therefore, the bulk of activism on the issue, the bulk of the pressure, comes from the outside world." Either the journalist is making this all up, or he's paraphrasing Sato. I think he's paraphrasing Sato. Ghostofnemo (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he is basing it off of his own research and thoughts on Greenpeace. Maybe it was a paraphrase. Maybe not. We don't know which is why "think" is the keyword here. Anyways, why is it needed when there are other acceptable lines that can be used in a more concise manner that directly and indisputably links with the subject's position? No reason to bicker over this.Cptnono (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Another editor added this in a questionable way. I deleted it, but since they are obviously a newbie, I feel obligated to put it in correctly. But guess what, I tried and failed. Just do whatever you like. Ghostofnemo (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My goodness...short break?

I went bed, and in the intervening 6 hours this Talk page has practically doubled in length and two editors are definitely edit warring and a hair's breadth from WP:3RR. I have neither the time nor ability at the moment to wade through this, but a scan of some of the above concerns lead me to believe that should someone choose to advance a complaint, both editors will get in trouble. None of this qualifies as vandalism or the other safety valves that allows more than 3 edits. Again, I only scanned the article quickly, but I did read the source, and I'm fairly certain there are things in the source that can be safely and accurately added to this article (since I seemed to see Sato in some cases commenting on changes in his own personal ideas, rather than Greenpeace's). But it looks to me like both of you are acting partially out of past perceptions and a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude rather than thinking exclusively thinking about content. I'm not trying to be all high and mighty, but coming into this massive wall of text sure doesn't look like a promising way to edit the page. Is there any chance that everyone might agree to a voluntary 24-hour break from editing this article? I'd hate to see someone decide to officially call this editing a policy violation and then starting looking for official remedy. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm..my suggestion may have been about 20 minutes to late, as it looks like from the above comment that GoN has "given up." Qwyrxian (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)LOL. I just woke up myself a couple hours ago and was trying to enjoy a cup of coffee while trying to figure it out. I believe it is all under control and neither editor wants to continue reverting. Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a similar offer already (see Gon's talk page). I'm planning to honor it. It is fun to see that I've made Gon's hall of same on his user page though. Ravensfire (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The weird thing for me is that I get and partially agree with what GoN is going for. I just don;t think he used the sources correctly. Nothing wrong with a couple editors hitting revert a couple times here. Sometimes it happens even though in the perfect world BRD would be used to its full potential. I think another problem is that it was two separate edits (even though they could easily be merged into a single paragraph) so it looked really bad at first. Hopefully it doesn't get too nutty like that in the future.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Another try at adding info from the Richard Black interview

I've tried to re-add information from the Richard Black source that caused so much consternation a few days ago. I tried to focus on only the opinions expressed by Sato, not Greenpeace's future plans. The article itself is hard to work with, because Black doesn't directly quote Sato, so we have to careful when distinguishing Black's opinions from those certainly expressed by Sato. I think further editing could be done here. Two things in particular: First, I think that the title I used for the last section seems very awkward to me, so I definitely think we should come up with something better. Second, the inclusion of any of this is, of course, questionable, as it doesn't necessarily bear on the Tokyo Two trial itself. However, I don't believe we could justify a separate article for Sato (I think it would fail on WP:BLP1E grounds), so this is the best place to put it. Certainly the part I added to the end of "Arrest and Trial" is relevant (although the phrasing should change after the verdict and sentencing are revealed). It's not abundantly clear from the Black article if Sato's other changes in position are a direct result of the last 2 years of arrest and trial; if that does seem to be the case, then keeping it here is relevant.

Nonetheless, I think this inclusion is an improvement over the previous attempt(s). Thoughts/edits from others? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No question it's better - thanks. I'm still really, really leery about adding this in here for exactly the reason you mentioned - it doesn't bear on the Tokyo Two trial. Also, from a pure visibility perspective, this is a horrible place for it - it should be in the Whaling controversy and Greenpeace articles as it does seem to be a fairly major shift in tactics. I think we should move it to those articles, and keep this one focused.

I think there is enough material for a Sato article, probably as four sections - basic bio, brief mention of Tokyo Two; position with Greenpeace (per GP, former campaign director and current Director of the Oceans Campaign); change of in views to counter whaling. Gon doesn't seem to want anything like that, so I'm going to try to put one together on Sato. Suzuki I think would be a BLP1E speedy delete, so no reason to attempt that. Ravensfire (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on the Greenpeace and Whaling in Japan articles, reducing the TT information in both to summaries and adding links to this article. I added the comments by Sato to the WiJ article as well. There's some other comments in the Black reference that I'm going to add here as a reaction in Japan section. Still working on a Sato article. When I get that up, I'm going to pull the Sato views section from here to that article, so it will be in the Whaling in Japan article and in the Sato article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)