Talk:Australians unite against whaling in Southern Ocean

POV

Remember, the actual meaning of the word slaughter is: "the killing of animals, generally for food". Any use of it not in this context can be taken as POV, so please think about the revision of the word choices. Additionally, this article heavily relies on items from Greenpeace, which could imply this article is in endorsement of their activities. Statements like these: "Despite international condemnation, Japan plans to double its annual catch of minke whales to 850" need to be attributed (as to whom condemned them). Also, statements like these do not comply to the NPOV policy: "Japan abandoned commercial whaling in 1986, in line with an international moratorium, but began catching whales again the following year for what it calls scientific research". The use of "what it calls" is POV in this statement. There are many more occurrances of these examples in this article, which do need to be fixed before this article can be published. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this EVERY time I publish a story about this...? "Slaughtering" whales is exactly what the Japanese Whaling fleet is doing. They are killing 1000 whales for what they call research, yet the meat is sold to restaurants. My article explains this. The article is ABOUT Greenpeace's actions, and the unification of Australian activists, the anti-whaling activites in other countries, and the ongoing protest. Furthermore, the "international condemnation" is explained later in the article with some 17 countries signing. Furthermore, Japan calls the whaling "scientific research" - whereas the rest of the world calls it "commercial whaling in disguise". Did you read the article? Please untag this article. --elliot_k 01:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I will not, until you take some of my suggestions seriously. All problems with this article are well documented above. Please attain to them. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is outrageous and insults my intelligence! I have replied to your suggestions, offered explanations to your demands. Yet you virtually disrgard my response. I really don't understand what you want me to do? I am confused and offended by you action. --elliot_k 01:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is clear and set in stone. I have expressed what is wrong with providing examples, provided solutions to them, and you continue to ignore them by complaining. That will not work anymore. You should know of the policies of this site by now. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. What is clear and set in stone? Please be specific and reply to my response. I have every right to complain when you refuse to elaborate your claims. I am confused and disillusioned by your action, Mrmiscellanious. --elliot_k 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Breakdown of POV concerns

MrM, thanks for detailing your concerns about this article. I've broken them down into separate sections so we can discuss them more easily. - Borofkin 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of word "slaughter"

MrM says: Remember, the actual meaning of the word slaughter is: "the killing of animals, generally for food". Any use of it not in this context can be taken as POV, so please think about the revision of the word choices.

I seem to remember this being discussed on a previous article, however it appears that it is still unresolved. My personal opinion is that "slaughter" is an appropriate word to use, even if there is not consensus that the animals are being killed for food. In general usage "slaughter" is synonymous with "killing". Um, is "killing" what you would prever instead? - Borofkin 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. the word "slaughter" is widely used by all media outlets who report on this issue. The only mob who seem not to refer to the killing of whales for food - is the Japanese whalers, and the Japanese Government. The word choice is deliberate and semiotically intentional - The Japanese are killing large numbers of animals for food. How many times do I need to explain this? --elliot_k 04:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Killing is much more appropriate. "Slaughter" is a slanderous term in much reporting; and I do think it was used in a negative light here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, the word "slaughter" is used by just about every other media outlet, as well as the 17 Governments, who, this week, officially referred to the killing of nearly a thousand whales as "unjustified and unnecessary slaughter which is regarded by many countries as a means to by-pass the IWC (International Whaling Commission) moratorium." Sure its a loaded word, but its an apt and widely used description of, as you say in your initial complaint "the killing of animals, generally for food". If I'd used the term violent massacre, I'd say you have a point. But slaughter is the correct term here. --elliot_k 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Reliance on items from Greenpeace

MrM says: Additionally, this article heavily relies on items from Greenpeace, which could imply this article is in endorsement of their activities.

Items from Greenpeace? Do you mean quotes, claims, etc? Greenpeace seem to have the most to say about the issue, so there will always be lots from them to report. What would you like changed to fix this? More quotes/claims from the Japanese government? - Borofkin 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So, by your logic, MrMiscellanious, there should be NO statements, quotes or claims by Greenpeace - or anybody else for that matter - simply because it may "imply endorsement"? Should we not report on what people say because Wikinews might be seen to "endorse" a certain POV? Please explain yourself clearly. Why can I not use "items" from Greenpeace? Which "items" are you referring to?--elliot_k 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that this article heavily relies upon Greenpeace as its source, and it does portray them in a positive light for them "leading the way", so to speak. I'm sure there are other groups that are equally involved in these actions. This is quite evident in the article that Greenpeace is the "leader". That is a violation of the NPOV policy. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Which sentences portray Greenpeace in a positive light? What would you like changed to fix this? Remember, things that are obvious to you may not be obvious to other contributors. - Borofkin 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Attribution of claims

MrM says: Statements like these: "Despite international condemnation, Japan plans to double its annual catch of minke whales to 850" need to be attributed (as to whom condemned them).

This is fair enough I suppose, except that the fact that there has been international condemnation of Japan's whaling activities is not disputed by anyone, including Japan. - Borofkin

As I explained in an earlier response to you, Mrmiscellanious, there is a whole section in the article which reports on 17 countries condeming the practice: "Meanwhile, Australia, Britain, Brazil, France and Germany were among 17 countries calling on Japan this week, to halt to its Antarctic whaling program." Furthermore the condemnation is sourced. What more do you want, my good friend? (By the way its actually 930 Minke Whales. And I need to correct this.)--elliot_k 04:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't specifically state whom and when they said so. These are imperative in your reporting. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I did. And there's a whole section on the subject. I even lised the countries that signed a statement to the Japanese government this week. I'm wondering if you've read the article in its entirety. I am trying to be diplomatic and nuetral here. But the bias is always going to portray Japan in a negative light - simply because what they are doing is illegal and the story itself is ABOUT the protest. I just don't get what your demands are?--elliot_k 02:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of statement "What it calls"

MrM says: Also, statements like these do not comply to the NPOV policy: "Japan abandoned commercial whaling in 1986, in line with an international moratorium, but began catching whales again the following year for what it calls scientific research". The use of "what it calls" is POV in this statement.

I do not agree. Japan calls it scientific research, many others call it commercial whaling. This seems like appropriate attribution of a claim to me. - Borofkin 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Japan calls it "research" - everybody else calls it commercial whaling in disguise. The article states: "Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research says its whaling is legal and scientifically necessary for sustainable resource management. But critics say Japan is off-loading whale meat for consumption." What do you want me to do? Remove all references to the protest. I can't do this because the story is ABOUT the protest. PLEASE REMOVE THE NPOV tag...--elliot_k 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that you have adequately addressed MrM's concerns here on the talk page, you can remove the tag yourself. It is generally considered polite to wait for MrM to remove it, but this is not required by policy. Of course, he may come along and immediately re-tag it. Hopefully he will also respond to your defence of the article as it stands. - Borofkin 04:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Even better would be to remove the tag AND make some edits that may appease MrM, such as expanding the "Japan defends whaling". MrM, in my opinion, should also do this when re-tagging: by all means re-tag, but try to make some edits to the article that address some of your concerns. - Borofkin 04:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I do believe the last time I edited one of Elliot K's articles, I was profoundly met with complaining on my edits. Therefore, since he did not welcome my help in the past, I don't wish to edit another article that he started. However, I don't give up on Wikinews - and articles must be brought to attention if they do not adhere to policies. Similarly, tagging articles are just as important as working on them, if not more important. They point out to the originating authors what was wrong with the article in context of our policies. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly encourage you to continue tagging articles that you consider to be POV, and participating on the talk page, as you have done with this article. However, you should also edit articles to fix things that you think are wrong, otherwise we cease to be a Wiki. If everyone didn't edit for fear of ending up in conflict with another contributor, there would be very little of anything going on. - Borofkin 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-Edited

I've hacked a new version. Added more information and sources. Also elaborated on the Japanese whaling industies defence. Added Related Wikinews. Hopefully this is all okay with the elusive MrM now?--elliot_k 06:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have not seen any responses to my claims, other than "so what?" (for a lack of a better term). My concerns are brought by policy, and the responses/promises of the edits have not been addressed in the new version. This article remains in development, with the NPOV tag intact. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Organizational edit

I plan to re-organize this article, address NPOV concerns, and get it published. I propose to reorganize it in the following layout:

• Introduction
• International day of action
  • Australia
  • New Zealand
• Background
  • International views
  • Japan's views
  • Green Peace's actions
• Related news
• Sources

Presuming there is no issues with this, I'm going to start now. Contact me via IRC if you want to break into it. (I can always be reverted easily at a later point, if this is not acceptable to all.) - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 02:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that it is cool to be whaling! It is not! Care more about your environment and the environment your children are going to live in!