AussieLegend (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
::You said in your edit summary that reasoning wasn't provided. It has been provided. You simply do not agree just as I have not been convinced by your reasoning. I don;t have the time right now to find secondary sources but it is probably all there.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC) |
::You said in your edit summary that reasoning wasn't provided. It has been provided. You simply do not agree just as I have not been convinced by your reasoning. I don;t have the time right now to find secondary sources but it is probably all there.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::Unless you can find a reliable, secondary source that contradicts the primary source you can't rely on your own beliefs and suspicions (read [[WP:OR]]) that the source is wrong. Reliance on OR as justification for removal of cited content is not maintaining a a neutral point of view. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 18:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC) |
:::Unless you can find a reliable, secondary source that contradicts the primary source you can't rely on your own beliefs and suspicions (read [[WP:OR]]) that the source is wrong. Reliance on OR as justification for removal of cited content is not maintaining a a neutral point of view. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 18:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::We have a disagreement on how to implement policy. BLP is clear that both positive and negative info is under its scope. Watson has admitted to not being a reliable source and SSCS is savvy in communications. I was OK with the info being in until I looked at it closer after it was being tinkered with. Fans and people related to the group often come to Wikipedia and adjust numbers that seems benign. Unfortunately, it gets out of had when we start using tumblr as a source. I think the best course of action is to look at key words from the primary source in secondary sources. If nyou wanmt to use the primary source still while seeing if secondary sources are available, please feel free to revcert my recent edit but attribute everything from the primary sources to SSCS.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 19:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:59, 31 December 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Early activism & Greenpeace
I added back the view from other early Greenpeace members, as it was properly sourced. Also removed weasel word "he was indeed a founding member" and refererring to New Yorker, as the sources didn't have New Yorker in them. For more discussion about Watson's role in early Greenpeace, see the archived discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Watson/Archive_3#8th_member_of_greenpeaceShubi (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- SSCS is not RS typically. One RS does not discount numerous other RS. I do not mind saying that he claims it but do not give it undue weight and do not use a primary source that is credited by RS as being dishonest and known here as propaganda.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- So you dont think Watson & SSCS is a reliable source, so you reverted back to the edit where Watson & SSCS is still as a RS, additionally with the weasel word "indeed", but at the same time you removed other addes sources (early members of Greenpeace)? Please read the edits first before you revert them, and please explain why the additional sources aren't reliable, but Watson still is? This is the second time additional sources on the same question have been removed without any explanation why those sources are not valid.Shubi (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Greenpeace seems to have a habit of rewriting history; Watson isn't the first person who claims Greenpeace has written them out of its history. Greenpeace lists 7 people as founders of the "Don't Make A Wave Committee",[1] and mentions Patrick Moore, who says here in a 2010 article that "until recently" he (Moore) was explicitly listed as a founding member and that "there has always been an element of historical revisionism in the Greenpeace organization." This article lists Watson's Greenpeace membership number as 008. From this it's a reasonable assumption (althought admittedly WP:SYNTH) that Watson was a very, very early member of Greenpeace. When you have a situation where there are multiple primary sources contradicting each other, you need a reliable secondary source, and Greenpeace isn't one. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Greenpeace is a reliable source for it's own viewpoints. In the same way the other early GP members like Watson, Moore, Bohlen, Hunter, Stowes etc. are reliable sources for their own viewpoints. When there is a dispute between relevant parties, all the differing views should be presented, as is done in the Greenpeace article on the history section. There the views of Moore and Watson are also represented, along with viewpoints of Bohlen, Dorothy Stowe, Dorothy Metcalfe, Hunter and the past and current views of Greenpeace and an academic secondary source. Why cannot the same sources used here, as the edit did not state that that one party is wrong and other party is right but merely presented the different viewpoints? Now the view of Watson is presented with weasel wording "he was indeed a founding member", giving Watsons viewpoint more credence, and at the same time the omitting the views of other early Greenpeace members. Why is this better than the removed edit?
- Greenpeace seems to have a habit of rewriting history; Watson isn't the first person who claims Greenpeace has written them out of its history. Greenpeace lists 7 people as founders of the "Don't Make A Wave Committee",[1] and mentions Patrick Moore, who says here in a 2010 article that "until recently" he (Moore) was explicitly listed as a founding member and that "there has always been an element of historical revisionism in the Greenpeace organization." This article lists Watson's Greenpeace membership number as 008. From this it's a reasonable assumption (althought admittedly WP:SYNTH) that Watson was a very, very early member of Greenpeace. When you have a situation where there are multiple primary sources contradicting each other, you need a reliable secondary source, and Greenpeace isn't one. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- So you dont think Watson & SSCS is a reliable source, so you reverted back to the edit where Watson & SSCS is still as a RS, additionally with the weasel word "indeed", but at the same time you removed other addes sources (early members of Greenpeace)? Please read the edits first before you revert them, and please explain why the additional sources aren't reliable, but Watson still is? This is the second time additional sources on the same question have been removed without any explanation why those sources are not valid.Shubi (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
If there are no counter arguments why other early GP members aren't a notable source for early days of Greenpeace, why the link to history & founding of greenpeace is not appropriate and why Watsons view is affirmed with the weasel word "he was indeed a founding member", I will restore the removed edit.Shubi (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Watson has tried very hard to paint a picture of him being a founder and the argument has gone back and forth in reliable sources. He is an early and influential member according to RS and previous consensus drawn from lengthy discussion. Overriding that is giving to much weight to an argument that only serves to prop up Watson as some sort of quasi-martyr. We do not need to use SSCS or GP as sources since both are terribly biased. We have enough SRS to write a neutral line that does not pick a side in the stupid fight.Cptnono (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Currently the article has this:
- The edit you are opposing was like this:
- According to Watson he is one of the founders of Greenpeace.[2][4]Greenpeace states that Watson "...was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder."[5] An interview of early Greenpeace members Dorothy Stowe, Dorothy Metcalfe, Jim Bohlen and Robert Hunter does not identify Paul Watson as a founder of Greenpeace.[6] Barbara Stowe, daughter of Dorothy Stowe, has stated that Watson "wasn't there right in the beginning". [7] Watson has criticized Greenpeace of rewriting it's history to deny Watson's founding role.[2]
- So let's go through what you saw as the problems of that edit: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubi (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Watson has tried very hard to paint a picture of him being a founder and the argument has gone back and forth in reliable sources."
- 1. The removed edit did not take a stance on the issue but rather offered more views and sources. Instead the current edit does use the weasel wording "indeed a founding member". You failed to anwser why is that weasel wording acceptable?
- "We do not need to use SSCS or GP as sources since both are terribly biased."
- 2. By Wikipedia policy WP:SELFPUB Paul Watson can be used as a source for his own life. And as a notable environmentalist, and an early and influental member of Greenpeace, he can be used as a source to comment the early days of Greenpeace. And the current edit already does use him as a source.
- 3. By Wikipedia standards, Greenpeace is a reliable source to have it's views incorporated in articles.
- 4. Wheter or not Watson and Greenpeace are biased is irrelevant. Both are reliable sources for their own viewpoints and the current edit does already include their views.
- 5. The added parts used Jim Bohlen, Dorothy Stowe, Dorothy Metcalfe, Barbara Stowe and Bob hunter as sources, not a statement from Greenpeace. You failed to anwser why the views of other early members can be ignored but Watsons view can be included?
- "Overriding that is giving to much weight to an argument that only serves to prop up Watson as some sort of quasi-martyr."
- 6. The edit you are oppising did not override the consensus that he was an early and influental member. Instead it added the views of other early influental members.
- "We have enough SRS to write a neutral line that does not pick a side in the stupid fight."
- 7. Removing the sourced views of other early members and affirming Watson's view with weasel wording is not neutral.
RfC: Can other early Greenpeace members used as a source on Paul Watson?
Interview hosted on the Greenpeace site with other early Greenpeace members does not identify Watson as a founder of Greenpeace. Can this interview used as a source on Watsons bio to comment his claim of co-founding? Discussion Talk:Paul_Watson#Early_activism_.26_Greenpeace has not resolved this. Also can there be a link to the founding section of the Greenpeace article to shed more light and is "indeed" a weasel word? Shubi (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Interview hosted on the Greenpeace site with other early Greenpeace members does not identify Watson as a founder of Greenpeace"=OR. We have enough sources independent of the subject to justify saying he was "early and influential". Primary sources should take a back seat to those.
- "Indeed" is weasel since it inserts fact in Wikipedia's voice when the point is contended.
- Something people have forgotten (but since this is such a long RfC start anyways and it is relevant to the request): BLP covers both positive and negative. We are not here to promote any position. We are not here to promote the position of a person who has admitted to not being honest if it is beneficial to his cause. Conversely, we are not here to promote Green Peace's assertion.
- This can all be handled in the body and applying a label is not needed. Cptnono (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Rely on what the reliable sources state is what policy dictates. In the case at hand, I suggest The New York Times is a reliable source.
[2] Greenpeace leader visits boardroom, without forsaking social activism "“It's all about extreme political correctness,” said Paul Watson, a founding director of Greenpeace who is now the head of Sea Shepherd," December 6, 2011 - By JOHN M. BRODER .
[3] Conservationist Injured Protesting Seal Hunt "The injured man was identified as Paul Watson, leader of the Vancouver-based Greenpeace Save-the-Seals Expedition." March 16, 1977
[4] Eco-Pirate-The-Story-Of-Paul-Watson "A profile of the controversial founder of the environmental activist group Greenpeace, Paul Watson."
[5] Seal Hunters and Protesters Clash North of Newfoundland "In one of the protests, the Greenpeace Foundation said it a statement telephoned to tue Reuters office in New York that "expedition leader Paul Watson carried" March 16, 1976
[6] Hunting the People Who Hunt the Whales " are members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, led by Paul Watson, whose confrontational style got him tossed out of Greenpeace." November 7, 2008
[7] Battle Against Whaling, Groups Split on Strategy " The shift infuriates Paul Watson, the Sea Shepherd founder and the captain of the Steve Irwin. One of the original founders of Greenpeace in the early 1970s, he parted ways with the group in 1978 because he wanted it to be more aggressive." November 23, 2008
These and a slew of other sources make it clear that he was a "founder" and "leader" in Greenpeace, whose "confrontational style" led to his ouster. Not the first organisation in this world to re-invent who was and was not a "founder." Collect (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Gonna side with Collect on this one. It's pretty clear he was part of Greenpeace at its beginning and was ousted. Buffs (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but “being part of the group at its beginning” and being a founder are not the same thing. The question, I suppose, is: Was Watson one of the actual founders of the group, or just one of the very first to jump on the bandwagon once it was already hitched? There are very few people alive today who know for sure, and I’m pretty sure they’ve each taken one side or the other. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 09:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- NYT can be used as a source, I'm not denying that. And I don't deny that Watson was an influental early member, but I am wary of making factual claims of anyones founding status, as there seems to be tons of reliable sources that contradict each other on who when Greenpeace was founded and by who. For example sources referring to Watson as a founder refer Greenpeace being founded in 1972, and there are a lot of sources Greenpeace existed before that.
- "Captain Paul Watson, membership number 008, left the Greenpeace Foundation he helped set up in Canada in 1972."
- [8]
- "despite the fact that Watson was one of the founders of Greenpeace in 1972"
- [9]
- "Paul Watson, who helped set up Greenpeace in 1972"
- [10]
- "The Canadian journalist Bob Hunter, who has died of prostate cancer aged 63, was one of the co-founders of Greenpeace in 1971."
- [11]
- "He [Patrick Moore] was one of the cofounders of Greenpeace, and sailed into the Aleutian Islands on the organization's inaugural mission in 1971"
- [12]
- "Hunter, a columnist for the Vancouver Sun in the 1960s and most recently an ecology broadcaster for Canadian media, first came to prominence in 1971 with the launch of Greenpeace and its protests against U.S. nuclear testing."
- [13]
- "He [Bob Hunter] helped to launch Greenpeace in 1971"
- [14]
- "In 1971, a small Vancouver group called Don’t Make a Wave rented a beat-up fishing boat which they renamed The Greenpeace and headed to Alaska to protest nuclear testing. The test went ahead but the environmental lobby group, Greenpeace was born."
- [15]
- "On his Sea Shepherd website, Paul Watson claims, 'I was a founding member of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee in 1970. This is simply false. The Don’t Make a Wave Committee founders, Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Irving Stowe were quite conservative by nature and couldn’t stomach Watson."
- "Paul Watson goes on to claim, 'When Greenpeace was officially registered as the Greenpeace Foundation in 1972, I was one of the signatory founding directors.' The Greenpeace Foundation was established on May 4, 1972, and was the first registered organization to use the name Greenpeace. This was accomplished simply by changing the name of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee to Greenpeace Foundation. " -Patrick Moore, who of course also has his own agenda
- [16]
- "Bohlen, Stowe and a university student named Paul Cote had formed the Don't Make a Wave Committee in Vancouver in October, 1969, to protest against American nuclear testing [...]Several of the younger members of the Amchitka voyage renamed the committee Greenpeace in 1972."
- [17]
- "The 1969 demonstration along the Canada-US border did not halt the initial test; however, it raised significant public concern about nuclear testing. The demonstration inspired a small group of environmentalists and peace activists to organize further in order to capitalize on this momentum. [...] This led the protestors to start their own group to host the campaign: the 'Don’t Make a Wave Committee.'[...] In 1971, this committee officially incorporated as Greenpeace.[...]The 'Don’t Make a Wave Committee' was founded for a specific campaign on nuclear testing; however, after this campaign, the founders dissolved the committee and changed its name to the Greenpeace Foundation" page 6
- [18]
- I just asked can the views of other early members be included, not as a source for facts, but as a source for the views of other early GP people, as their views are relevant to the issue. It is possible that Greenpeace is rewriting it's history, and that is why included that criticism from Watson, but even that quotation was removed. And that is why I asked can there be a link to the Greenpeace history section, as it explains the situation more. Because there is a lot of debate among the early members, this seems to be reflected in third party sources, and therefore, as I have previously suggested, Wikipedia should not make factual statements out of anyones founding status, like "indeed a founding member", but rather explain that even the early members and third party sources have contradicting information about the founding time and founders. That is why I also asked can there be a link to the history of Greenpeace.Shubi (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- A large number of your sources actually back the use of "founder" (what do you think "set up" means?) And we deal in facts and not recollections. Contemporary news reports make the "founder" status clear. And "founding member" is a cavil which does not work. Collect (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm still not arguing that it cannot be stated that NYT and several other sources report Watson as a founder and influental early member. But there are also several other reliable sources, including New York Times, which say that Greenpeace was founded before 1972, the year Watson is reported to be founder and he says himself Greenpeace was founded. So when was Greenpeace founded, in 1972 as reported in some RS about Watson, or 1969 - 1971 as reported in other RS that don't deal with Watson? Because the facts from reliable sources about the founding are cleary in conflict, I think it should be taken into account. And it is a fact that Greenpeace itself and other early Greenpeace members, such as Moore, Bohlen and Stowes have conflicting views with Watson and each other. Wheter or not they are speaking the truth is up to the reader to decide. That is why I think Watson's criticism of Greenpeace rewriting history should be included in the article, as should the views of other early members, as should be a link to the history of Greenpeace. It should be made clear that there is some sort of debate about the founders. I also refer to this academic source:
- A large number of your sources actually back the use of "founder" (what do you think "set up" means?) And we deal in facts and not recollections. Contemporary news reports make the "founder" status clear. And "founding member" is a cavil which does not work. Collect (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I just asked can the views of other early members be included, not as a source for facts, but as a source for the views of other early GP people, as their views are relevant to the issue. It is possible that Greenpeace is rewriting it's history, and that is why included that criticism from Watson, but even that quotation was removed. And that is why I asked can there be a link to the Greenpeace history section, as it explains the situation more. Because there is a lot of debate among the early members, this seems to be reflected in third party sources, and therefore, as I have previously suggested, Wikipedia should not make factual statements out of anyones founding status, like "indeed a founding member", but rather explain that even the early members and third party sources have contradicting information about the founding time and founders. That is why I also asked can there be a link to the history of Greenpeace.Shubi (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- “Unlike Friends of the Earth, for example, which basically sprung fully formed from the forehead of David Brower, Greenpeace developed in a more evolutionary manner. There was no single founder.” Frank Zelko, a historian writing his doctoral dissertation on Greenpeace at the University of Kansas
- [19]
- Shubi (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Collect I agree that the sources support Watson's title. Calling his work into question looks like it is only a retrospective attempt to remove him from a list -- something hard to do when they can't remove his actions. Any true doubts don't appear much in third party sources. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- They actually do. Sources discuss that there is disagreement between Watson and the organization as to if he was a founder or not. Greenpeace denies it. It is a BLP violation to promote Watson's view if it paints him in a more positive light than others would.Cptnono (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the debate between Greenpeace and himself was about the title and not his actions. Dreambeaver(talk) 20:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your understanding is incorrect:
- "He was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder."[20]
- "...Watson told the Guardian that Greenpeace's claim he was not a founder member..." [21]
- "Watson claims to have co-founded both Greenpeace and Greenpeace International in the early 1970s (something that Greenpeace disputes)..."[22]
- "On his Sea Shepherd website, Paul Watson claims, “I was a founding member of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee in 1970.”[16] This is simply false."[23]
- If we want to say something along the lines of "He is often cited as a co-founder of Greenpeace but the organization rejects the claim" or "He says he was a founder of Greenpeace but this is disputed by the organization" then I would be OK with it. But the label of "founder" is disputed and canot be presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your understanding is incorrect:
- My understanding is that the debate between Greenpeace and himself was about the title and not his actions. Dreambeaver(talk) 20:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Positive claims require positive proof. But there are no reliable primary sources on the matter. We have on one side Watson claiming he was a co-founder of Greenpeace, and on the other, Greenpeace themselves claiming he was not. Watson’s is the positive claim and the claim we’re talking about writing in the article (we can have Greenpeace’s claim as a counterclaim to Watson’s, but it would be silly to put Greenpeace’s claim on its own). Now obviously, there are just plain no reliable primary sources on the matter, so it can never properly be settled. So the best we can do is present both claims.
In the end, though, it’s not even particularly important whether Watson was a founder of Greenpeace or not, because there’s plenty of documentation of how he was an influential member of the nascent organization, leading a handful of campaigns. Which is why we adopted the “early and influential member” phrasing that’s been there for a while. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 08:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Primary sources
Sorry to revert so quick but this is a BLP. If editors are going to question something as mundane as kids' names then it should simply be removed until a proper secondary source is found. Sometimes we should periodically scrub the article of primary sources if it gets out of hand. For example, we do not need to glorify/romanticize Watson's claim of "riding the rails". Also, is Tumblr even a source? It might be but I am not familiar with the product.
Primary sources can be used on Wikipedia. However, there is a right place and time while we also have to keep an eye on presenting claims as facts. We cannot present information that would seem innocent in any other context with Watson (speed of boats, where he is, his early activism, etc) since it ends up being disputed. The guy has said that he uses the media to his advantage so it has to be very vanilla for it to be usable. We run the risk of assisting in his message instead of conveying encyclopedic and truthful information if we do otherwise. Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nice try but some of the content you removed is sourced to the New Yorker and KOMO Staff & News Services, which are not primary sources. A minor edit war over names doesn't justify wholesale removal of other content. A single word was changed in the section that you removed and that word is sourced to the New Yorker. The IP changed it to Roberts,[24] and this was quite correctly reverted by Murgh.[25] Mythic Writerlord's reversion back to the IP's version isn't supported by the source, which says "His second wife, Lisa DiStefano, was a Playboy model."[26] None of what was changed was sourced to SSCS so there is simply no justification in removing content claiming a problem with primary sources. Content that complies with WP:PSTS is acceptable in all articles. Certainly, content that doesn't comply with WP:PSTS can be removed, but removing the entire section as you did is inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- You said in your edit summary that reasoning wasn't provided. It has been provided. You simply do not agree just as I have not been convinced by your reasoning. I don;t have the time right now to find secondary sources but it is probably all there.Cptnono (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unless you can find a reliable, secondary source that contradicts the primary source you can't rely on your own beliefs and suspicions (read WP:OR) that the source is wrong. Reliance on OR as justification for removal of cited content is not maintaining a a neutral point of view. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- We have a disagreement on how to implement policy. BLP is clear that both positive and negative info is under its scope. Watson has admitted to not being a reliable source and SSCS is savvy in communications. I was OK with the info being in until I looked at it closer after it was being tinkered with. Fans and people related to the group often come to Wikipedia and adjust numbers that seems benign. Unfortunately, it gets out of had when we start using tumblr as a source. I think the best course of action is to look at key words from the primary source in secondary sources. If nyou wanmt to use the primary source still while seeing if secondary sources are available, please feel free to revcert my recent edit but attribute everything from the primary sources to SSCS.Cptnono (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unless you can find a reliable, secondary source that contradicts the primary source you can't rely on your own beliefs and suspicions (read WP:OR) that the source is wrong. Reliance on OR as justification for removal of cited content is not maintaining a a neutral point of view. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- You said in your edit summary that reasoning wasn't provided. It has been provided. You simply do not agree just as I have not been convinced by your reasoning. I don;t have the time right now to find secondary sources but it is probably all there.Cptnono (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- ^ "Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace: some facts". Greenpeace.org. Retrieved October 31, 2009.
- ^ a b c "Greenpeace Attempts to Make Captain Paul Watson "Disappear"". seashepherd.org. Retrieved June 23, 2010.
- ^ "On the Frontlines: With Captain Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society", (Fall 2009), Resistance: Journal of the Earth Liberation Movement
- ^ "On the Frontlines: With Captain Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society", (Fall 2009), Resistance: Journal of the Earth Liberation Movement
- ^ "Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace: some facts". Greenpeace.org. Retrieved October 31, 2009.
- ^ "Interview by Michael Friedrich: Greenpeace Founders". Archive.greenpeace.org. Retrieved 2011-02-21.
- ^ http://jonimitchell.com/library/view.cfm?id=2172