Talk:Anti-whaling

Animal rights High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Environment
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

No real information other than a list of links to organisations. Not useful as a separate article.

your addition adds to the idea that this is a

talk) 11:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Disagree, &not only because the suggested merge article, "

non-violence page so thats what i modeled this article after. I plan on flushing out more details soon and asking other editors for contributions. PrBeacon (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

these are reasons why this sort of article which appears to me to be a

talk) 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your feedback. As I said, more details are to be added & clarified... including specifics to be worked in as appropriate:

• greenpeace campaign "we believe that commercial whaling in all forms must be stopped."
• sourced definition, history of protests & legal action, modern conflicts and balance issues e.g. subsistence whaling & cultural context.

You've mentioned the forks a few times now, here & at the controversy page, so I'd like to ask: what about the distinction I make above between debate & action?

Also, there are many articles already on Whaling, History of Whaling, Whaling in .. (several countries featured individually), etc., so couldn't it be argued that that POV is well represented in a wider context?   Respectfully, PrBeacon (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see you acting on the criticism and improving the article. Your Greenpeace reference shows commercial whaling which is good. I suppose as there has just been a new split to whaling controversy the best way of developing wikipedia in my view is to expand the new article and only split off into yet another article when it is justified. I will have a closer look through what you have done today.

talk) 09:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at this topic from a historical perspective there is more than enough to warrant its own page. (Though I'm not entirely sure the title works). Other pages tend to focus on the ideas/ideals behind the controversy as opposed to the action, protest, legal progress, etc. A good guide to the early civilian action against whaling is the book "The Whale War" by David Day (which also contains a couple of great timelines). Another is "Harpoon: Into the Heart of Whaling" by Andrew Darby. Time magazine and the New York Times also have a great deal of archived news online which could be helpful in finding supporting citations (for example: [1]). Cetamata (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No real argument with you there. that is why I suggested a merge not a deletion. A lot has been added since my merge suggestion but I am still not sure warrents a separate article at present.

talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

A lot of this article currently appears to be a fairly tenuous attempt to prevent a merge by throwing in lots of

talk) 15:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The title should be changed to "Anti-Whaling Movement" in my opinion but otherwise this article has the potential to provide something new to wikipedia which has been framed in the same way in books like The Whale War. Touch lightly on the reasoning and refer to the whaling controversy page. Then log the beginning of the anti-whaling movement and cover how it's changed from Save the Whales to the sinking of the Sierra to whale wars and internet based petitions. I think if it's covered well the article has the potential to be brilliant. Cetamata (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently little here that isn't covered in other places. What about

talk) 16:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't agree. In fact there is already a model for treating a multifaceted subject that covers a long timeline. Look at Civil Rights for example. There is a Civil Rights and Political Rights page. Multiple Civil Rights movement pages. And additional pages for Civil Rights Leaders and even some major legal decisions relating to it. The anti-whaling movement is similarly international, both legal and protest actions, politically charged and a host of notable individuals are linked to the subject. The Anti-whaling movement may not be documented or prioritized as important as the Civil Rights movement but that's no reason to suggest the content has to be consolidated. Especially when there is wealth of information defining the "controversy" which is more about moral and legal interpretations of animal rights vs industry. And separately, there is a long history of this movement's actions, events and contributors. I say build this article up. Cetamata (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point about Marine conservation activism#Whaling. It looks like it's already attempted to do what an Anti-Whaling Movement page would do. However, that section is lacking overall in its coverage of the entire Anti-Whaling Movement. Cetamata (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's of good suggestions here, much appreciated. And much of it surprisingly from someone (C) who I thought was at least anti-conservation or possibly anti-activist. Now I regret how that escalated. Unfortunately the underbelly of extreme activism divides the conservation movement as a whole, not to mention the funding issues, and especially within the anti-whaling crowd. So I see my role here on WP to walk that fine line, so to speak, as challenging as it may be. For example, many conservationists are also anti-SSCS to varying degrees because of the harsh negative light it brings. Just think of the Limbaugh-O'Reilly-Beck contingencies. And I'd like to to see Wikipedia, and in particular this article, reflect that subculture. However, I understand WP concerns about too much attention to controversies and POV skewing. Yet I think these larger issues will always be contested but never B&W much like the

pro-life

(anti-abortion) with their multiple camps.

      Obviously there are trade-offs with subjugating the concept of "anti-whaling" to other, bigger concepts like "anti-whaling movement" or "marine conservation activism" and especially "Whaling controversy." And to me it's more than semantic. These terms take on loaded connotations and therefore become issues of contention here. Some even get scrubbed or whitewashed, often without notice.

      A side issue is if the term "anti-whaling" is even appropriate anymore. It can be easily misconstrued or misused -- I refer back to the abortion debate to illustrate that. And it seems that the mainstream press is extracareful in using it, too.

      So lots to work through and around. As for the WP:OR concerns, admittedly I've started with a few shortcuts here, grabbing from other articles to synthesize sort of an outline. I never meant for this to be an overnight project. I'm unsure of the timeline, on either side (mine or WP's) and even uncertain if I can sustain the effort. I've slowly started to ask around for help, ideally I'd just like to focus on writing and editing, not coding. I've been a semi-regular editor here for nearly a year but this newpage creation stuff is too much like writing programming code (solo), which i hated in school. heh. But thanks again for the feedback. Respectfully, PrBeacon (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, think this article is one of your better contributions and has definite potential. I think it deserves some more attention before we decide whether to merge it with Whaling Controvery or let it stand on its own.

I can lend a small hand with the coding. I'm not a programmer and I'm not overly familiar with wiki markup, but I've had an easy enough time with it so far and hope to learn a few new things here. Heck, I just put the {{update after}} tag to use for the first time just now. — 

TALK), 00:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]