Jump to content

Talk:Tokyo Two

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename

[edit]

I suggest the article should be renamed something like "Whale meat theft by Greenpeace" and we deal it as a crime case like ja article which is, IMHO, more detailed and more neutral. This article is not really a bio. The focus of the article is the theft, not the lives of Sato and Suzuki. They would have remained non-notable without the theft and the trial. Their names are still not so notable in Japan. A lot of Japanese people recognize them as two Greenpeace male members, not by their names. Oda Mari (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Sato and Suzuki - Two persecuted anti-whaling activists"? Just kidding. But seriously, the English language news media are calling them "The Tokyo Two", which seems very NPOV. They didn't steal the meat, they turned it over to the police as evidence of a crime. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with GoN's implication (assuming I am understanding him correctly), that "Whale meat theft" is definitely wrong--until the two are convicted, theft is far too strong a word. And I don't think we can have an article called "Alleged Whale Meat Theft by Greenpeace Members." As for an alternative name, I don't have one off the top of my head, but I'll think about it. The problem with keeping it as Tokyo Two is that eventually this runs up against WP:BLP1E; so some name relating to the event would be better.Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I thought the new name above would be the best candidate. What would be appropriate? "Trial of Tokyo two"? Currently the the content of the article is a Greenpeace members' one-sided story and not neutral. Oda Mari (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to give the police side of the story, go right ahead. I'd love to see their justification for their behavior. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the Rodney King beating. "He kept moving, so we had to keep beating him!" Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I think the name works. Maybe "Whale meat theft controversy", if they get convicted. I will agree that it's a fairly one-sided article. I've tried to make sure that the source of various statements is mentioned, such as S & S claim that ZYX and Greenpeace says ABC.Ravensfire (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with the current title for now. It's better than any of the alternatives. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Tokyo Two Controversy" might also be a good title perhaps? And I see that this article should be about the theft, detention, trial and aftermath, not as much about Suzuki and Sato as persons. And referring to the other discussions, as Suzuki and Sato are Greenpeace activists and their actions were part of Greenpeace campaigning, it is very reasonable to include also arguments of Greenpeace relating to the incident. Suzuki and Sato acted as represetantives of Greenpeace, and their actions were actions of Greenpeace.84.250.5.104 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rename proposal

[edit]

Hi, I'm Japanese. Could you tell me who invent this word? No public newspaper and TV who use it name in Japan, nor GP Japan website, and no people who knows "Tokyo two" name in Japan. What newspaper use this name? ja:グリーンピース宅配便窃盗事件 means "Greenpiece whale meat theft incident". So a few people who knows this incident has occurred by TWO number in Japan. It is GP's systematic incident, no important TWO member. I'd like to propose rename. GP expressed in their legal pressrease this incident as "持ち出し" [1] "Carry out". --Tondenh (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And tell me why "TOKYO"? They stealed it in Aomori Prefecture, so Aomori Prefecture police dept arrested them, their Detention (imprisonment) is also Aomori Prosecutor dept. first court is also Aomori, High Court is Miyagi Prefecture. Who named "Tokyo" ? --Tondenh (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the English language sources, several different sources use the name "Tokyo Two". What they are called in Japanese has no relevance to this article. However, I do see that only a few of the sources use that term, so we probably should use something else. I would not mind "Greenpeace whale meat theft incident"--does anyone object? Tondenh, let's see if anyone else objects for a few days, and, if they don't, I'll move the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I please wonder if you help it, my English level is en-1 --Tondenh (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I renamed it. --Tondenh (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section below entitled "Restoring original article name". Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring original article name

[edit]

How is the title "Tokyo Two" biased? There are many news articles that refer to these guys as the "Tokyo Two", even in the story titles, but I have yet to see one news article about the "Greenpeace whale meat theft incident". Just Google the new title - one hit, this article. "Tokyo Two" 586,000 hits. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I'm unable to revert the title change. It says it's an undoable edit, but the change doesn't happen and doesn't appear in the edit log. Ah, I see, you can't undo title changes from the edit history. I could re-move it, but since searches for "Tokyo Two" redirect to this page, I'll leave it for a while pending further discussion. But I still feel the new name has no merit. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is classified as a "biography of (a) living person(s)", and because it is about Mr. Sato and Mr. Suzuki, not primarily the theft (btw, a more NPOV title would have been "Greenpeace theft of stolen whale meat incident") I'm going to change the title back. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the name used in reliable sources? That is, random blogs (even Greenpeace's) don't count. Could you find some news sources that use this term? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "Tokyo two" is too commonly name to evaluate it, other pages are matched. "Tokyo two" is supporter's side name, not geography based, they have no relation to Tokyo. It is clear that between Tokyo prefecture and Aomori prefecture. See map. How about rename "Aomori Two" or "Greenpeace Japan Two" or "Japanese ship's crew stole whale meat" [2] ? --Tondenh (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the references section of this article! Or do a news search on the term "Tokyo Two". They are widely know in the English-speaking world as "the Tokyo Two" and are commonly referred to as such in news reports. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Tokyo two" is named by supporter media. Different from Fukushima 50, not geography name. We do'nt call "Fukushima 50" as "Tokyo 50".--Tondenh (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is logical, but it is original research WP:OR. The media have called Sato and Suzuki "the Tokyo Two" and the name stuck. That's just how it is. If you can find more English language news sources that call them "the Greenpeace whale meat thieves" we can consider changing the name of the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Whale meat prices slashed in Japan" [3] ? I have no disupte other names except "Tokyo Two". --Tondenh (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see any mention of Sato or Suzuki in that article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 of the articles call them the Tokyo Two. The others make no mention of a special term. If that's commonly the case, we shouldn't use that special term. Also, see the next section. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try counting again. There are three articles cited in the references section that have "Tokyo Two" in the TITLE of the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, 3. That doesn't change the underlying concern. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wmm, It highly might to write why or who named it on this article. It seems that who named it is Aussie media, Amnesty doesn't call so [4]. Could anyone tell me more information? In Japan, we have no source that two person was born in Tokyo Pref. Why Tokyo, not Aomori... --Tondenh (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does. The mainstream media widely refer to Sato and Suzuki as "the Tokyo Two", and we even have three mainstream media articles with the term used in the titles of the articles in the reference section of the article. What further proof do you need that they are actually referred to as "the Tokyo Two"? You're a Wikipedia adminstrator, so you should know how this works. Regarding who named them this, you may as well ask who named President Richard Nixon "Tricky Dick", or who named William H. Bonney "Billy the Kid". Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that a lot of the sources don't call them the Tokyo Two. However, @Tondenh, one thing that you should know is that it doesn't actually matter if none of the Japanese sources call them the Tokyo Two; we only care about what the majority of English sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wmm, No japanese media which calls "Tokyo Two", and no translating word of it. GPJ didn't name it. GPJ writed "They attentioned by the world aka 'Tokyo Two' ..." [5]. I'm not well abroad media, so I don't know what "the world" points.. So, no Japanese who knows this word, because they did in Aomori pref. Therefore, It seems that the named person is not Japanese, significantly. --Tondenh (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JPN media research

[edit]

for example, this is same date pressrelease.

but, Japanese version doesn't contains "Tokyo two" word. GP uses "Tokyo Two", but GPJ don't. --Tondenh (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be a BLP

[edit]

If we treat this as a BLP, it needs to be deleted, per WP:BLP1E. These are two people notable only for their involvement in a crime. Instead, the article should be recategorized and rewritten to be about the event. We can include in that event the appellation of "Tokyo Two" given by some sources, but the main title should be something more like "2012 Japan whale meat incident" or "2012 Greenpeace whale meat incident". When an event has no regularly agreed upon title, Wikipedia has to provide a descriptive one that best matches the event. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that these two are "notable only for their involvement in a crime" seems extremely biased against the subjects of the article. They are also notable because their case has been taken up by a U.N. human rights group and Amnesty International (as noted in the article). Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's still the case. That doesn't make them personally notable, as humans. This is standard practice per WP:BLP1E. You can choose--either we change this to an article about the event, or I will nominate it for deletion (where the inevitable result will be to change to an article about the event). Unless they are notable for something besides the theft and resulting trial (which includes all of the movement that attempted to influence the trial and secure releases for them), then that's what our policy says. This event, and their role in it, doesn't come close to overcoming the standards needed for WP:CRIME. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the theft of whale meat, it's about Sato and Suzuki exposing corruption in the whaling industry, and their persecution for doing so. According to your interpretation of BLP1E, the following biographies would need to be deleted: Jesus Christ (just another religious zealot until he was crucified by the Romans), Neil Armstrong (only notable for being the first man on the moon), Nena (one hit wonder with "99 Luftballoons"), Jimi Heselden (inventor of the Segeway scooter). Some better comparisons, however, would be Rosa Parks (notable only for refusing to give up her seat to a white person in Montgomery, Alabama), Rodney King (notable only for almost being beaten to death by the police), and Tank Man who stopped a line of tanks during the Tiannamen Square protests. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, several of those are not living people, and thus BLP1E doesn't apply. The rest are notable for many more things than a single event (like JC); Rodney King's legacy and news coverage beats these two's by probably a thousandfold, and I don't even know what you're getting at with Armstrong. Also, you've made the case for me: this article isn't about Sato and Suzuki, it's about the event--that's what your first sentence says to me (their goal, their persecution (although I don't see that in the article now)), etc. Again, I'm not saying this article should be deleted, I'm simply saying that it violates our policies to call it a BLP, to title it like a BLP, and to write/categorize it like one. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the "Arrest and Trial" section for how they were treated by the authorities for reporting a theft, and the international organizations that expressed concern about their treatment. These guys have had numerous news stories written about them in newspapers from all over the world. You've got to be kidding that they aren't notable. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start an RfC tomorrow, as I don't think we'll get anywhere with just the 2 of us going back and forth. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of Wikipedia articles that use this format: Chicago Seven, West Memphis Three, Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, Jena Six, NatWest Three and no article yet for "The Martinsville Seven". Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Just created an article for the Martinsville Seven. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered the category "Enumerated defendants" (and this article is already in that category). Most of these articles are not BLPs. So I could agree to removing the BLP category, but I don't agree to deleting the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a technical issue, so I posted the question here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tokyo_Two
  • I tweaked the templates - for the title, I can support - 2012 Japan whale meat incident. - ... I started to rename it and rewrite the lede but came quickly to the conclusion that the event is not very notworthy A couple of activists intercept a whale meat package and get a suspended sentence. Isn't there an article about greenpeace's anti whaling activism where a paragraph of this can be merged and a redirect created? Youreallycan 19:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a non-notable event, there certainly was a lot of world-wide press coverage. I'd say this is notable per the reliable sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What should the focus of this article be, and should it exist at all?

[edit]

Above, a discussion has begun about how the article should be titled and what its focus should be. Currently, the article is titled after two members of Greenpeace who engaged in what they and other environmentalists called activism to expose problems in the Japanese whaling industry; the Japanese government decided (in court) that their actions constituted simple theft. The event did gain a fair amount of news and web coverage at the time, but not much since then. There have been three main ideas so far, which will be detailed below. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Keep the article mostly the way it is. This position argues that the two people (called the "Tokyo Two" in many but not all English language sources) are notable, and their notability is sufficient to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:CRIME. Thus, naming the article after them and calling it a biographical article are acceptable.
  2. Change the article to be about the event. This position argues that the two people are not notable by themselves, per WP:CRIME. This position also argues that the event is notable enough to meet WP:EVENT and/or WP:GNG, and thus can remain a stand-alone article. However, it needs to be renamed to be about the event, not the people, rewritten to be clearly focused on the crime/trial/international response, and recategorized.
  3. Merge the article to some other place (to be determined). This position argues that people are not notable enough for an article. It also argues that the event does not rise beyond WP:NOTNEWS, and thus should not be a standalone article. Instead, the relevant content should be merged to some other article about either anti-whaling or Greenpeace activities.

If you look at the section above you can see the supporters of each position and some of their arguments. Input is appreciated, and alternative suggestions are also welcome. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed at how much effort is being exerted to rename or abolish this article. It doesn't seem like it should be such a big issue. Clearly these guys exist and they are notable per the reliable sources. Is Wikipedia running out of storage space, or is this article "not liked" by someone, or is it a search engine issue? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3 - as per my previous comments - a paragraph in an article , not an event worthy of its own article. - not notable crime, not notable living people and not notable human rights persecution either. - Youreallycan 10:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #2 primary, Support #3 secondary. ja:グリーンピース宅配便窃盗事件 is #2 event article. --Tondenh (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1 - WP:BLP1E does not apply since these individuals are notable not only for the interception of a whale meat delivery but for the subsequent treatment they received as a result as well as the subsequent international response. The two subjects have been central figures in a significant series of events and have drawn world-wide attention from very high-profile organizations. I don't consider biographical categorization to be important one way or the other. Jojalozzo 00:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two people are not notable individuals in regard to wikipedia policy and guidelines at all. - If your comment was a correct interpretation of wikipedia policy they would both have their own biographical article. The reason they havent is because they are not notable individuals - as such BLP1E clearly does apply. Youreallycan 20:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Youreallycan 20:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the category "Enumerated defendants". There are many articles of this kind. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They've renamed that category. It's now Category:Quantified groups of defendants Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories don't assert notability - Please see - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST - the project is big and there are millions of violations out there - I prefer to focus on policy and guidelines. - Your comment fails to address my rejection of your claim that they are notable as individuals - they have many faceted notability you asserted - that is completely false. This is a not notable crime and a not notable torture and they are not notable individuals - WP:BLP1E applies in spades - try to look on it from an uninvolved position. Youreallycan 16:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said "they aren't notable as individuals" and I pointed out that they are notable as a "quantified group of defendants". There are scads of media stories on these guys from several countries. That makes them notable per WP:GNG. Your personal opinion about their notability is not a factor. Ghostofnemo (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are trying to assert that they are notable as people, then the relevant guideline is WP:CRIMINAL. They do not meet that guideline. Meeting WP:GNG is not necessarily enough (it only leads to "presumed notability" and , particularly when WP:BLP1E is involved. They are discussed in reliable sources because of their crime, for the trial, and for the media attention associated with that crime. But the crime does not meet the restrictions we have to protect living people. Quoting from the guideline, "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". Coverage of this event did not last beyond the actual event and trial. It's not still being discussed, it's not some sort of landmark court case, it hasn't altered the face of either whaling or the anti-whaling movement. I'm willing to accept the article if it is rewritten to be about the event, although I'm on the borderline to thinking it should be merged somewhere else, and would consider that result acceptable. I am not willing to violate WP:BLP by keeping this an article about two people, because it is basically branding them as important only because of a crime they committed. That's real harm, to a real living person, and WP:BLP exists to prevent that. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option 3 As an outsider, I find the event may add to some bigger article, but does not seem significant for its own article at this time. If a new development results from this, I can see supporting option 2. As for option 1, I find it unlikely these individuals will develop into notable figures in their own right in the near future. If they did become notable individuals, this would become a sub-article for the persons. Finally, "Tokyo two" does appear to be a misnomer in every right. Cjripper (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please check out this list of Chinese dissidents. All of these folks have articles about them, but many of them have received an equivalent amount of or less international media coverage than the subjects of this article. How are their "crimes" of challenging their government different from the "crimes" of the Tokyo Two for challenging the government supported whaling program in Japan? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And why is this article categorized as a "crime related article", while no one would seriously consider the Chinese dissidents to be actual "criminals"? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because, um, they committed a crime. And because interfering with a lawful business operating legally under international treaty is, well, a crime. Perhaps there were illegal activities going on amongst the whalers (i.e., the alleged crime the two were trying to uncover), that was never proven.
In any event, I'm seeing a growing consensus over, at a minimum, making this a non-biographical article. I'm willing to accept merging of the content somewhere else, per option 3. Does anyone have any suggestions? I would object to the broad details being removed entirely from WP. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-whaling - Youreallycan 12:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are few countries in the world that would tie suspects to chairs and interrogate them for 12 hours a day for almost two weeks because they took what they believed to be evidence of theft to the police. Clearly their persecution was political and not criminal. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why both Amnesty International and the U.N. protested on the behalf of these two "nobodies". Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the Chinese government certainly considers their dissidents "criminals" for violating Chinese laws like criticizing the Party, forming illegal organizations, etc. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of article with background material

[edit]

Hi I expended considerable effort revamping the article so I'd like you to get over the not-noteworthy delete/not delete topic and discusss the neutrality issue. Someone already wrote in on my user talk page that it was non-neutral in tone. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure whether he felt my opening paragraph was two harsh against the Tokyo Two, or if he thought my overall addition was leaning too much in favor of Greanpeace's view.

neutrality

I also realize people have completely different ideas on what would consitute a neutral stance on this, and I don't think any one person should act like the guardian of the wiki neutrality criterion on this. Though I've already reorganized and revised the Japanese version, I completely disagree with above user Oda Mari's assessment that the (old) Japanese article was neutral.
--Kiyoweap (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I can give point by point of instances of bias in the old Japanese article if this becomes an issue. ~----

(Additional) Since I rewrote the Ja article to actually make it more readable, to describe it in a way so you can more easily understand what went down, I can back up my above claim about the bias of the old Japanese article, citing numerous counts, if anyone desires. I do have a question regarding my use of Greenpeace's interview with its informant, an alleged ex-whaler. But for the whaling side's denials, I would characterize the ex-whaler's story as his true life experience, as the details are too compelling for me to doubt he was a one-time insider. Of course I don't know if all he alleges really occured. This informant has also been shadow interviewed by an Autralian news reporter too (cf. video clip cited in reference). --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick total revert

[edit]
I didn't get past the first two paragraphs of the lead before I had to revert it. If you think that was neutral, please re-read WP:NPOV. We don't balance out a story of established facts by stuffing it full of the principals' POV; we report what reliable sources say. I recommend that you suggest individual changes a step at a time, and we can review them (start in the body, not the lead, because we won't know what the lead should say until the body is more polished). I'm not saying all of the changes were wrong, but that so much of it was self-evidently biased that it's not a good place to start. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that the large edit I posted was a bit rough cut. So I'll let the revert stand for now and I'll see about trying to post my changes piecemeal. But I believe Qwyrxian and others already have certain set ideas on what should be regarded as "established facts" and what is "POV" regarding this article, and doesn't seem poised to budge on these, so I'm going to try to explain the thrust of my attempted edits and use of sources first in this talk, and see how they argue.
The article already included the statement that the Tokyo Two stole the whale meat package acting on the belief it was embezzled", and I gather there is consensus that this statement as to motive (extent: 1 word) is allowed, even though I assume Qwyrxian and others regarded as an allegation=POV. What I did was evolve the "embezzled" part into a somewhat more detailed allegation to hightlight what I thought were some key points in this case. (Continued to #Use of informant as sources below)--Kiyoweap(talk) 06:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC) (missing signature inserted using RevHistory)[reply]

Coatrack

[edit]
The article already states that the Two's defense was that the meat was embezzled; it further states that the claim was investigated and dismissed. That's enough information for this article. The reason I was able to reject your version so quickly is that looking at just the lead, you had committed approximately 80% of it to their claims, and only 20% to the actual disposition of their case and crime. That's just obviously biased, and that you wouldn't see it is just, well, astonishing. The two are famous for being arrested for stealing whale meat to support Greenpeace's cause, under a justification that was not found to have legal merit. Your version was a WP:COATRACK to try to make this an article about the Two's claims. Reading through the rest of the article just gets worse and worse. Your version looks perfect for the Greenpeace website, not a neutral encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, Qwyrxian was the one who reverted my edit wholesale, and though in my opinion his action goes against WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite.. etc.". I was willing to submit to this for the time being, as long as the deleter himself was going to be forthcoming with some indication of what material can be incorporable into this article, even if it is sourced to Greenpeace. But it looks like he has already staked out his own small area of what should be noted in the article, and it doesn't seem like he thinks any of my edits should be included.
So I feel his is just a lipservice posture of fair-mindedness. He has engaged in a similar open-minded posture regarding the naming of title, but in the end advocated changing the title to "Greenpeace whale meat theft incident"--does anyone object?" -- which I believe is a highly prejudicial title as per WP:POVTITLE. I wouldn't really object strongly to this title being used, except for the fact that its proponents seems to want to wave it around like some Bill of Rights that this article should focus closely on the conduct of "them criminals", and everyone should fall in line on that rule.
I contend that those who advocate this topic be treated strictly as a "Greenpeace whale meat theft incident" just want to trivialize it. (By way of analogy Watergate shouldn't be trivialized in terms of how serious a crime the break-in itself was.)
The other dimension to this Tokyo Two case is that there was an ongoing practice of whalers secretly transporting out whale meat, in boxes labeled suspiciously as "cardboard"...(abridged)
--Kiyoweap (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC) (detail truncated by --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC) [extent 2,000 bytes])[reply]
(* Note: I'm excising most of text that Qwyrxian accuses me below of soapboxing because I'll admit it got a bit rambling.Kiyoweap)
Please see WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is not a place for you to stand on a soapbox and tell us your opinions of the Japanese whaling industry. Nor is it appropriate for the article to spend thousands of words trying to justify the actions of these two people. This article is about an event that happened and/or the two people who perpetrated the event. The story is very simple: the two thought there was some bad stuff going down in the whaling industry. To prove that, they engaged in illegal activities. When they tried to use the results of those activities to raise a case against the industry, they were arrested. The government looked into their claims, and decided not to prosecute. The two were later convicted of illegal activities and spent time in jail. As a result of all of this, they received some international press, primarily in connection to Greenpeace. That is what the article currently says. That is what the article should say. Anything is else just obviously a violation of WP:NPOV, just like if we tried to occupy 90% of the September 11 attacks article with information about how the policies of the US "caused" the attacks--even if it's true, it's not neutral and it's not due. I'm not trying to suppress anything, only to make sure this article continues to be compliant with WP:NPOV. And I know I'm being a bit abrupt here, but the fact that you can't see that your version is ridiculously biased means that you simply cannot edit this article neutrally. If you think I'm wrong, raise the issue at WP:NPOV. Provide a link to the current version, and a link to your preferred version. I am absolutely 100% certain as to which version would be preferred. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the accusation I was soapboxing, I was trying to air some material here to see if I can get any sensible feedback, by presenting a mix of (IMO) facts and allegations for general feedback on noteworthiness, relevance etc. I'll admit I got a bit out of rein. But I don't know how much I am expected to humor my deleter. He seems to want to say everything but something specific about the article, and whistles me for penalty when I try. Now he's baiting me to, what, defend the side of airing Al Kaida propaganda, as being comparable to my stance??? Or bait me into taking the debate to another arena, and make me overstep normal procedural protocal? I suppose that's tha hang-out for referee types like him. I want to get back to article writing, which is my usual living space. Which is what I'm going to do.
Basically, I'm going to start by sourcing the information from independent sources outside Greenpeace so you know who doesn't accuse me of it being a Greenpeace mouthpiece or whatever. I have now tracked down the ex-whaler informant as being interviewed by The Guardian and also used in The Sydney Morning Herald (both are newspapers which were already sourced in the version of Tokyo Two that stood), so I now consider this informant's material perfectly fair game to use (#Use of informant as sources). It seems to be his opinion that the Tokyo Prosecution Office's refusal to indict whalers. --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to try adding more info. Start out of the lead. Keep in mind WP:NPOV, and especially WP:UNDUE. Do not include excessive info about the informant, the Two's claims, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of informant as sources

[edit]

(I'm going to re-restreamline my request) The Tokyo Two had acted on the tip of a whistleblower. Some like to think him as just "an informant who claimed to be a member of a whaling crew" (as represented in old version of article Wikipedia:Tokyo Two on 19 March 2012‎), the subtext being he might be just a fake. But the whistleblower was interviewed by Western media in 2010, dubbed "Kujira-san" (Australian ABC TV and The Gurardian article cited, link under #Snipped sources below, and Matsutani, Minoru (September 09, 2010). "Judgment draws near in whale-meat trial". Japan Times. Retrieved May 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link). Presumably the whistlblower has been vetted for background and considered legit, not alleged. So I now consider material covered in these media fair game to use. But right now I haven't decided what content to incorporate in article from which source, and will welcome concrete input on how to present them in a balanced way.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC). --redited Kiyoweap (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snipped sources

[edit]

I've cut the long list of sources that were jsut added, and I'll keep them here:

more sources for possible use
Western media
;Greenpeace sources

We don't just include sources in a reflist that are possibly related; references are only for things actually cited in the article. Of course, some of those may be worth adding, thus why I've kept them here for possible future use. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back to a version of the talk where you've quarantined my cited sources here, and rewriting my response so it'll make sense. I really have to question the propriety of your conduct in this. You're making up your own truth based on just cursrily glancing. I'm going to partially uncollapse the list above to counter your tricky maneuvers. I reject you assessment that these may be only "possibly related". They were footnoted sources on the whisteblower ex-whaler, who was interviewed in 2010 by those Western media, known as "Kujira-san". i.e., they were "actually cited in the article" contrary to what you say. Right now you with your latest edit, you have removed the external link (url) information from footnotes that had already existed. So you need to rectify it. For example Robinson's Sydney Morning Herald article, from which I later pumped for more infomation.
To put it bluntly, I think your tactic of quarantining my sources here and collapsing it is to hide it from public view, to prevent other editors from possibly becoming enlightened to the viewpoints or facts that you object to. --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Are you saying those sources are cited in the article? If they are, you need to use inline references. Per WP:CITEVAR, you have to maintain a consistent citing style, following the prior style unless there's agreement to change on talk. If they were cited, I didn't notice because I always use inline citations + reflist, for a variety of reasons, and I assume most other editors do as well. If I removed cites that are used in the article, I apologize, and will put them back in the right place. Which ones are cited in the article but not currently done as an inline citation? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yanking "template:cite book" family of references, and not realizing that just kills people's footnotes is alarming, but will spare you the diatribe. Anyway under the footnote section links that are not followed by the external link icon are likely anchored to a cite reference and will deaden upon their removal (Test click to check). To undo, just replace the appropriate cite type references. Probably easiest to restore the 7 or so Western media articles. I'm not going to do the extra work of narrowing the list to the version after you major cut my edit, seems like a cruel joke to me.
Now the Ryan 2010, p. 125 type reference that anchors to cite references is quite common. As for nonstandard use of #Sydney-Morning-Herald-2010-06-09 it can be replaced by Sydney Morning Herald, June 09, 2010 in outward looks by using a label for the anchor, but the use of # hasmark was kept as reminder it was an anchor and not a directly external link. Non-inline style usually for books etc. but I wanted to use for newspaper article so I can insert short quotes from them as well in Tokyo Two's case. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked every single reference currently in the article. Every single one currently works; thus, removing the refs was appropriate until such time as info from them is added to the article. As for Harvard referencing style, I hate it, I can't stand it, and it makes editing nearly impossible. It's awkward to use because it means that every time you edit something and change or even add a reference, you have to edit both the section with the information as well as the section with the reflist. It is only useful in cases where the vast majority of references are from books from which you are citing many different pages. Since that's, of course, not the case in this article, there's no need for the system. Newspaper articles are generally short enough that referencing a page isn't necessary even when referencing a quote, especially if the article is online (where pages might be altered or dependent on how the reader chooses to organize the info). If there should be substantial changes to the article such that you really do need to reference page numbers on lots of things (I'd say, half of the references at a bare minimum), then I could live with switching to Harvard style. Per WP:CITEVAR, we're supposed to preserve the current citation style unless there's a talk page consensus to change it. Since at this point you haven't even take the first step to show that tripling the length of the article isn't in direct violation to our policies (as I assert it is), I think we should handle that issue first before we handle referencing formats. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean the links work? They don't. I'm not talking about the links on this talk page. Go back to the Article and redo your homework. E.g. the link #Sydney-Morning-Herald-2010-06-09 I already mentioned. You've removed the {{cite news}} item that this anchor links to, so it's got nowhere to go.
Consistency of citation style is just a side issue. In this case, it is a non-issue, because I've already indicated that by adding a label this anchor link can be changed to Sydney Morning Herald, June 09, 2010 or whatever style is any one thinks should be adopted. Mostly the reason I didn't confrom is that doing it would make it longer, in the beginning of the article, which defeats the purpose of using the anchor in the first place (see my rationale below).
Whether I want to use a tools like the anchor or the {{harvnb}} should be a prerogative, and no justification for removing the {{cite news}} sources used. Saying things like I hate {{Harv}} is totally lame. It's true the manual of use could be more beginner friendly, but I've worked it out, and it's quite simple. I will concede that this does not work well with articles, but pending the event of a tool {{Harv}} like template extendable to articles, I decided to use the anchor like #Sydney-Morning-Herald-2010-06-09.
Rationale: I don't feel I have to micro-justify my use of the anchor in this instance, but one rationale I can point to is, I put four citations right after the "Tokyo Two", to sampling the actual usage I came across to indicate the currency of this nickname, which had been contested above in this Talk page. But if I put the full {{cite news}} there, it would clutter, so I wanted to use shorthand, and put the full {{cite news}} separate. (An alternative might be to use the {{Reflist}} template combined with the "|refs=" parameter but I had no prior practice in this, and just realized it could be used by browsing the wiki docmentation).
Anyways, I repeat, the person who removed the {{cite news}} and quarantined them here needs to restore the {{cite news}} in one way or another. If you insist on doing it your way in your current edit fine, just copy and paste the {{cite news}} references inline where they belong. But you broke it you fix it. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC) (amended from 18:15 version)[reply]
Sorry about that, now I understand my mistake--you had made 2 edits in a row, but for some reason I just manually removed the list (possibly so I could cut and paste) not noticing that you had changed one of the refs also. I think it's fixed now. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! Apology not accepted! All you did was roll back to the version before I ever touched it. At least in 1 edit previous you had given me concession on at least metioning Kujira-san. Now I'm back to nothing. As long as you were going to remedy this in some sincere way, didn't have to be in the way I prescribed, I was just going to let this topic slide, and just collapse this thread because it's distracting. In fact I was about to do that, but decided to check just in case, and lo and behold. Looks like I have to keep this thread open. If you're even sincere just revert your last move, on (09:17, 24 May 2012‎) to go 1 edit back, and if you're too lazy to do a proper job, just undo your (23:31, 21 May 2012‎) edit, to restore the {{cite news}} sources you've quarantined. I think I might have forgotten to enclose them in
to decrease the font size so you may have to do that as well. Then if you're too lazy to do put it inline the way you want now, just think about doing it over the long run or recruiting someone to do it. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real feedback requested

[edit]

Recently I tried to make revisions to this article but have been wholesale reverted, twice. I require an explanation in sanerational, real arguments beyond "It's obvious" and repeated "go read WP:NPOV" comments, why no part of my sourced information in my edits cannot be used.

My first revision is the following:

this is admittedly sourced largely by Greenpeace organization documents. Much of it is used to describe his own actions (sneaking into a delivery courier companyy depot and intercepting whalemeat he considered evidence), presumably not disputed since he and his partner were indicted for it.

My rewrite, a toned-down version, sources news media descriptions closely, 1/2 the size, but more sketchy and staccato in flow:

You don't require anything here. Don't expect a real response when you make a massive change then "require" an answer. I didn't revert your addition myself since it was full of information. However, you did present some possible concerns neutrality wise. Read it through, rework it, and either post it here or try again. No one should have to hold your hand when it comes to a core principle. Cptnono (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not saying that none if it can be used...but I'm saying that the bulk of it can't. So, like I mentioned before, going step by step might be easier, then I or someone else can point out exactly the problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about requesting "sane arguments", it just slipped out, after my frustration. Anyways Cptnono tells me to rework it, but my second draft was toned it down and more reliably sourced, and the fruit of a whole other set of labor. Besides, Cptnono comes in already with prior familiarity and stance on whaling vs. anti-whaling, as well as editiorial decisions, having looked at his contribution records, so it seems more than a little ingenuous to appear to be giving me friendly and distanced advice from a netural stance. Anyways, I assume we all have our biases, but if you can suggest them, I will look at any other opposing view sources directly pertaining to this article if you have them. Obviously there is no way to force these out of either of you gentlemen if you can't be bothered. I'm waiting for others to pitch in, or eventually may request participation by caling on this in the various projects which covers this article, but I'm still looking into what this process involves, and what kind of dialogues get exchanged. Cheers. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tokyo_Two&oldid=1226356393"