Talk:Southern Ocean whale slaughter to resume

Active discussions

Greenpeace is not an agency, that implies they are a government organisation. Brian McNeil / talk 16:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[]

By the way, I think the title (especially "slaughter") is POV. --SonicR 16:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[]

not really, killing animals is slaughter. Doldrums 17:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[]

If killing is slaughter, then killing should be sufficient to describe what is happening to them Telewis 20:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[]

  • I agree. Article is tagged and back to develop until the title and its content is sorted out in conjunction with the NPOV policy. Please view it and what Wikinews is not. --MrMiscellaniousHappy New Year – 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Please read my responses below... I have addressed the concerns. --elliot_k 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
About the word "slaughter": its first definition indicates killing (of animals) for food. (wikt:slaughter) - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

What's the Deal with this Story?Edit

I know that Wikinews was created in an effort to create an unbiased, uninfluenced, neutral source for news but where else is this whale story being reported? Is it not fair to question the possibility of this being planted by Greenpeace? For example, look at this quote from the article:

"The activists aim to stop the Japanese whaling fleet as it tries to catch nearly 1000 whales for what is claimed to be scientific research"

If this were truly a neutral story, it would read more like, "The Scientific Japanese Whaling Fleet...1000 whales," Then, later on, have a paragraph dedicated to disputing the exact nature of the said fleet.

Not only does this story need to be heavilly edited, but it needs to be deleted all together. --Secretwanderer 21:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I think you are probably right given the first written headline that said "slaughter" instead of "kill." That being the case, why didn't you, yourself, take the story down? 22:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[]

The reason that they are not described as "The Scientific Japanese Whaling Fleet" is because there is a dispute as to whether the fleet is really scientific in nature. Therefore, Wikinews reports that the fleet claims it is scientific, and Greenpeace claims it is not. Also, there is no such thing as a "plant" on Wikinews. Members of Greenpeace are entirely welcome to come here and write about whatever interests them. Their work will be subject to the same processes as everyone else. - Borofkin 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Author's ResponseEdit

1. The story has been widely reported - have a look at the Sources under the article. Try a GoogleNews search for "Greenpeace/Southern Ocean Whales". There were over 350 global stories on the specific issue of Japanese Whaling Fleet in the Southern Ocean from January 3, 2005. This is definately a News story.

2. The title deliberately reflects the nature of the Whaling. Killing and slaughter have different meanings: ie "the killing of animals especially for food"; "to kill in a violent or brutal manner" etc. Whereas "Killing" = simply means "to put to death". Therefore I have reverted the title to reflect this.

3. Whilst I tend to focus on issues of Activism, I am definitely NOT a member of Greenpeace. :)

I'd appreciate it is folks would articulate their concerns, and point out exactly why this story is "biased"

Thanks for the responses, --elliot_k 01:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Even I think the title is POV, and I'm vegan. 'Slaughter' certainly has a negative connotation, while 'killing' is a fairly neutral term for the death of something caused by another. There's no reason why 'slaughter' should be used over 'kill'. -- Macaddct1984 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Please explainEdit

Why you have removed this article from the front page? What are your concerns exactly? Please articulate your reasons for removal. I beleive I had addressed the concerns above. What precisely is the problem? --elliot_k 02:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree. I removed the article from the lead position because it had be tagged as NPOV; I do not agree with tagging it NPOV for the title because the term used is used correctly, but until the tagger responds here I feel we must respect the opinions of other contributors who have expressed their opinion on this page. Hopefully they will respond with actionable reasons for the NPOV tag. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
In regards to the 3rd Lead - Fair enough. But its a bit rough to simply tag things without proper reason. I simply do not understand the reason behind "MrMiscellanious'" action. I am particularly concerned that it has been dumped back in "developing". --elliot_k 02:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
And why is that? This article has tons of unattributed source material which you do not claim as original reporting. Remember, it isn't good to just dump sources and expect people to sift through them to verify the authenticity of the claims. --MrMiscellaniousHappy New Year – 03:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Please define the hyperbolic term: "Tons"? All the material is from the articles cited. The story is about Greenpeace's actions in the Southern Ocean. Where is the bias? Please articulate your concerns explicitly.--elliot_k 03:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
MrM, how many times must we go though this? Your npov concerns must be specific and actionable. Also, I am very dissapointed that you have told Elliot, a committed contributor who has written many comprehensive articles about controversial topics, to "View NPOV policy", without further explanation. I think he is deserving of more respect than that. - Borofkin 03:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
I do not listen nor do I respond to demands of operation. If you have something to say, say it to my talk page. This article is based on a Greenpeace survey, and the portions of it in the article are not attributed properly. In order to maintain NPOV status, they must be. --MrMiscellaniousHappy New Year – 03:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
Hmmm, now I AM confused. Which "Greenpeace survey" are you referring to? Where in the article is this mentioned? Which "portions of it not attributed properly"...? I am confused and dismayed at your actions, MrMiscellanious. I'm happy to work through your issues, but at this point you have not necessarily clarified your reasons for putting this article back in Developing. Thanks, --elliot_k 04:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
What is this "Greenpeace survey" of which you speak? - Borofkin 04:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I have untagged the article. Of course, anyone is free to retag it. I ask that if you do tag it, you'll provide citations on this talk page. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Not Really NewsEdit

While it may have some emotional value for many of the readers who become aware of this event, it hardly qualifies as news in the strict sense of the word. There is little broad appeal and the story itself ends up looking more like an appeal from Greenpeace itself.

The efforts of a group "trying" to block the killing of whales is just not news. If someone is injured or a vessel sinks, that might qualify.

Hmmm. What exactly is "news in the strict sense of the word"? And to whom? Define NEWS... --elliot_k 16:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Well, of course, anything COULD be news. "Middle-aged Australian man wakes up, eats smaller breakfast than usual" COULD be news, but who cares? One of the inherent problems with Wikinews is that stories like "Whale slaughter" get posted while hundreds of others with much broader appeal and or significance are not. I personally don't have any interest whatsoever in this story. I have the same reaction when looking at the local newspaper. A number of stories in the paper I might skip right over. The difference is that Wikinews is written and assembled by the public. So many non-events or public relations items will show up rather than news that affects a larger number of people in a more significant way. --Telewis 16:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

You say: "stories like "Whale slaughter" get posted while hundreds of others with much broader appeal and or significance are not". What do you mean by that? Don't they all get posted? Surely the idea of YOU writing the news YOU want to see is the whole point of this project? I don't see your point when it is YOU who can post stories... I don't get your point at all... Let me ask, though, why is the massacre of 1000 whales, condemmed by millions, inside a whale sanctuary NOT news? The story is the fight to save the whales. Its a globally important story. One with massive appeal. Personally I couldnt give a toss about "Televangelist Pat Robertson claims Sharon's stroke is "divine retribution"... Or who is hosting the Academy Awards for gods sake? Who cares? Not me! This is why I write the stories I want to see... Just like you can! --elliot_k 04:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Perhaps I am engaging in a bit of hemispherism in not thinking this story is very important. I understand it has much broader appeal in Australia and regions than it does in the U.S. For that I apologize. And, too, I believe that this outlet should allow the public to bring forth articles that are being ignored by the popular media. I only WISH I had the time to write more articles, but I am glad that you wrote that one. Thanks and keep up the good work. --Telewis 08:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Return to "Southern Ocean whale slaughter to resume" page.