Bethune has commented on the hood now. It is much less of a concern now that he has acknowledged it. I still think dding it would be too much weight (hell, we couldn't even put in that his wife dumped him) and what he says really should be taken with a grain of salt, but the door is certainly open if anyone has any ideas on how to do it in a way that does not give it a ridiculous amount of prominence. Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got a ref on that? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found one and added it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delayed response. It was in one of them I added but looks like ti is taken care of already.Cptnono (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His comment on this issue seem like a throwaway statement (that is, something that doesn't have enough importance to meet a the standard of Relevance), and one that betrays any understanding of normal police procedures in Japan. Just the fact that he said this doesn't make it relevant, as I'm sure he has said a great many things related directly or indirectly to his captivity and legal status. My feeling is that out of caution for POV issues, the sentence should be removed. Thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence right now. I don't think it is needed but it was contentious before so wanted to bring it up.Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant quote from the now deleted line's reference: "The UK is a party to both the international covenant on civil and political rights, and the European convention on human rights. Both prohibit inhuman and degrading treatment. But even under customary international law, humiliating and degrading treatment is prohibited in all circumstances." If Bethune's human rights were violated during his arrest and detention, surely it is relevant. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff of the deletion that includes the referenced article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=364511505&oldid=364503183 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit GoN. You missed the point completely. If your reason for the edit is that it was some sort of crime you see then it shouldn't be in. If you can honestly say the sources made it a meaningful part of his life story then we might be good to go. I don't buy into the 10yr benchmark some Wikipedians do but I do believe we should not be leading the reader to the conclusion that individual editors have. Cptnono (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's HIGHLY irregular to hood a prisoner for an act of civil disobedience. Some people consider it a crime to even hood captured soldiers. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you think it is a crime. Do the sources? The fact that he mentioned it meant that it might be good enough but if you are doing to push a POV you need to get off of this article. I am on the fence but am biased from discussing it. However, I am confident that I am not inserting such material to make a point.Cptnono (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bethune says he was hooded. Some legal scholars say hooding prisoners violates international law. How is that POV? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bethune says he was hooded. Some legal scholars say hooding prisoners violates international law. There you go. See the difference?Cptnono (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be obvious to some readers that hooding prisoners is a violation of human rights, but I'm sure many people are unaware of the seriousness of this behavior by Japanese authorities. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it may not be serious. It may not have been torture. You asserting that it is does not make it so. Even Bethune has not said that he was tortured.Cptnono (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My RS and the deleted lines are not calling it torture - they're calling it a violation of international law. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to restore the deleted lines. I believe I've addressed the deletor's objection: "Terrillja (talk | contribs) (20,728 bytes) (Undid revision 364503183 by Ghostofnemo (talk) EU law is not international law)" The source says it's a violation of international law (see above). Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comment about the UK (oops, I have to go back and remove the reference, too), because those aren't the same thing. In the UK reference, they are referring to prisoners having their heads covered by a bag or sack. That is, the prisoner's entire head is covered, as if they were an animal--the prisoner cannot see at all where they are going and must rely entirely on being led by the guard. The "hooding" that Bethune is referring to, in Japan, means basically that they put a sweatshirt on him with a big hood over his head. He would have still been able to see where he was walking, and his face wouldn't have been completely covered. This is standard practice in Japan to protect the accused. These two types of hooding are not at all the same thing. In fact, I would argue that the event Bethune is referring to is so small that it is not Notable.Qwyrxian (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to support your assertion that his head was not covered completely? Bethune says he was hooded "like a terrorist or a psychopath" not like a common criminal on a perp-walk. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reference: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3728678/Whaling-activist-fears-long-jail-term and here is the quote: He has told the Sunday Star-Times from his Japanese prison that authorities have treated him like a terrorist or a "psychopathic killer" – covering his head with a hood and surrounding him with up to 100 guards." and "I had a hood over me, like I'm a psychopathic killer. It was bizarre." These comments do not make sense if it was the hood of his sweatshirt or jacket. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you look at "round one" of this hooding debate, there are videos of Bethune hooded, and his head appears to be completely covered with a black nylon hood. His face is not visible. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can view the video here (hood visible around 1:10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gkzjNoOxPQ Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted again, for yet another reason: Terrillja (talk | contribs) (21,951 bytes) (→Arrest: maybe in a war: "In addition to violating international humanitarian law - the law governing the conduct of armed conflicts and military occupations" this isn't a war.) Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from the article. Note the words I have capitalized: "Hooding is a form of sensory deprivation. It is disorientating, frightening and possibly dangerous for THOSE SUBJECT TO IT (particularly when their hands are also tied). Hooding also serves to dehumanise the PERSON subjected to it, possibly leading to rougher treatment at the hands of his captors. Indeed, television footage of British troops escorting hooded SUSPECTS did not show them acting with much solicitude. Hooding has often been used as a "softening up" technique prior to interrogation. The fact that it is being practised by British troops does not give one confidence as to their behaviour once the cameras stop rolling and interrogation starts." Nothing about SOLIDIERS or TROOPS or POWs. By the way, didn't you know that Bethune was detained on the high seas, and not in Japan? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was detained on a Japanese vessel, which by international law is considered to be Japanese soil. They didn't pluck him out of the sea. You are taking an article on wartime activities in war zones and the legality of hooding and trying to connect it to a civil matter. Pure and simple synthesis to advance a point.--Terrillja _talk 20:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second this point, which I didn't think of before--in order to keep the line, you first need to establish that the hooding described in the UK article is comparable to what happened to Bethune. Furthermore, you must demostrate it through external sourcing. Since it appears that you are the one making the connection, that qualifies this as original resource. So the second sentence should be removed. Once we do that, I think we need to remove the first sentence, since it is no longer notable (it's no more notable, for instance, than him saying "I never got any good food in jail....").Qwyrxian (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, we have the video of Bethune hooded:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VpAXYNErHk&feature=related

We have Bethune being quoted in a reliable source:

"Bethune had been taken back to the Shonan Maru to re-enact the boarding, accompanied by a security detail of more than 100 people, he said. "I had a hood over me, like I'm a psychopathic killer. It was bizarre."" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10646961

And we have an article from a legal scholar http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/11/iraq.iraq in which he states

"However, what we have seen on our screens are pictures of hooded and bound individuals, many of who were obviously terrified by such treatment, being pushed around by British soldiers. Hooding - the placing of a bag or sack over an individual's head and securing it so that it cannot be removed - is a practice with an ugly history. It is not only inhuman and illegal; it is also often the harbinger of further rough treatment. Were such a practice to be adopted at home, there would be an outcry. It is difficult to see why practising it abroad on foreigners renders it acceptable. There are no good reasons to hood detainees. It does not provide any extra protection to the detaining troops once the suspect is bound, nor is there any need for British troops to hide their identify from their captives."

Note that he refers to the hooded persons as "individuals", "suspects" "foreigners" and "detainees". Nothing about enemy soldiers, war zones, POWs or even "combatants". He also says that this would not be acceptable in Britain. This clearly indicates that he is talking about the hooding of civilians, and not just in war zones, because Britain is not a war zone. IF you have a source that contradicts this, please share it with us instead of summarily deleting stuff without any sources to back your assertions. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a new news story. Apparently protesters displayed a picture of a hooded Bethune outside the courthouse today. http://www.3news.co.nz/Bethune-to-take-stand-Japanese-coastguard-rallies-support/tabid/419/articleID/158457/Default.aspx "A poster of Mr Bethune being arrested was shown – handcuffed and led down some stairs wearing a hood." Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? When was the last time you saw a civilian prisoner hooded like a terrorist? If the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) says it's a human rights violation to hood suspected terrorists, it surely must be a human rights violation to hood people arrested of common crimes.

"In their report, the ICRC delegates protested vehemently about the “hooding, handcuffing, beating, threatening” of prisoners and the way that they had been kept for days at a time in painful and humiliating positions." http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/6DZK8M?OpenDocument&style=custo_print Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Last time. Wikipedia is not scandal mongering. It is also not meant for you to be puzzling sources together to come up with a novel conclusion. There is no reason to repeat this. You have been told this multiple times. From now on every attempt at WP:NOT will be met with this time stamp. You have heard it enough times. If you can present reliable secondary sources discussing both Bethune and the hood in a way that you have been trying to imply then go for it. Until then stop it. Enough editors have said it so this is it. I think we are all done dealing with your disruptive assertions.Cptnono (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you issuing a WP:NOEDIT order then? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is that? I'm not even going to be bothered by looking. You can edit all you want. However, I am sick of seeing you implying things on the talk page and am going to respond that way until you actually present sources that say what you are trying to say.Cptnono (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a repeated pattern. I make an edit, backed with a RS. It's deleted with no sources to refute my sources. I provide more evidence. It's deleted for another reason, again no sources. I provide still more evidence. Then people start threatening me that I'm violating consensus. Where are YOUR sources that I'm completely off base here? Such as one stating that hooding is an acceptable police practice? Or that Bethune was not hooded? Or that the person in the video is not Bethune? Or that there was no picture of a hooded Bethune held up outside the trial? His hooding has been mentioned in numerous news stories. You want me to provide some more examples? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a pattern too. You make an edit based on original research and then argue and argue when you have already been told that your interpretations and synthesis are not allowed. How is someone going to source that something didn't happen? Seriously, you have wasted enough of your own and others time here.--Terrillja _talk 13:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed the reason for your deletion! Now it says: "Terrillja (talk | contribs) (21,951 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Ghostofnemo; Contested whether or not his head was fully covered as in hooding, link is deceptive." Speaking of OR, his hooding is contested by WHO? Do you have a reliable source saying that all the hoopla about the hood is a false issue? That he really wasn't hooded? It just takes one news story claiming this is a hoax. Many editors have made assertions and stated opinions that he wasn't hooded, but no one has provided a RS to back it up. I, on the other hand, have provided numerous RS which mention Bethune's hooding, a video of a hooded Bethune, and other sources that discuss the legal issues involved. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was apparently wrong about a picture of a hooded Bethune being displayed by Bethune's SUPPORTERS. Oh, the chutzpah - The Japanese Coast Guard is displaying it! http://www.3news.co.nz/Bethune-takes-stand-Sea-Shepherd-supporters-protest-outside-/tabid/1160/articleID/158522/Default.aspx Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under a hood. Not hooded or completely covered as in hooding. I was under a hood yesterday too. A sweatshirt hood. And I didn't change my reason, I removed something different. Move along.--Terrillja _talk 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are using yourself as the source for your deletion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After serious contemplation, and some time spent looking at Wikipedia guidelines, I went ahead and removed both sentences referring to the hooding (along with the associated references). I believe the Ghostofnemo is making a good faith edit by including this information, but is not following policy. Specifically, I'm looking at WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Peter Bethune is a notable person, and this event and trial appears to rise to notable status. However, that does not make every detail, and, more specifically, all statements made by Bethune, his lawyers, the Japanese courts, etc., notable. This page shouldn't read like a daily-updated news story--it should focus on only those aspects of Bethune's life that are and will remain notable at an encyclopedic level. That Bethune felt that he was treated unfairly or like a terrorist is simply a statement he made, and our goal is not to reference every statement he made. Unless this were to continue to be an ongoing issue (say, he or others made sustained international complaints about the hooding), we have to, because of the conservative nature of BLPs, keep this information out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bethune's hooding seems notable for several reasons. First, it has been mentioned by the international press in several articles and a hooded Bethune has been shown in news video. Second, Bethune himself has made statements to the media regarding his hooding. Third, it represents a possible violation of the subject's human rights by the Japanese government, which is holding him as its prisoner. Would you argue that the treatment of a Guantanamo detainee is not notable in an article about one of them? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating previous arguments warrants a repeated response.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything at WP:NOTNEWS that applies to this situation. Can you quote a policy for us that would support your deletion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[note WP:NOT again.Cptnono (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this is from WP:UNDUE: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." In other words, reliable sources determine relevance, not editors, and I've got them. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is from WP:YESPOV:

"The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral, point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides.

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a particular topic. It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material."

Note the phrase, "all the disputes within a topic". Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you aren't interpreting those guidelines within the pillar of WP:BLP. The standards for BLP articles are not the same as for other articles--they must be more sensitive. Quoting: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." and "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. " Both of these apply--the hooding is too small a detail to be notable to an encyclopedia--again, until it is covered as a major issue (either in Japan or internationally), his alleged treatment during a portion of his arrest is not notable. Looking back to WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." The issue with hooding each occupied one sentence, if i recall correctly, in the news articles you sourced. They were by no means a notable part of the article. Wikipedia is NOT NEWS. It should not attempt to include every interesting statement made by or about the subject. Other than these two sentences, you haven't made any case (outside of your own original research) that this rises to the level of notability. The only result, whether you intended it this way or not, is to add POV to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hooding material was well sourced. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that it did not occur, except in the minds of some editors here. Many reliable sources mention it and not one RS has claimed the hooding allegations are unfounded. It regards his arrest and was posted in the arrest section of the article. It does not imply he was being tortured. So it was well-sourced, neutral, and on-topic. Bethune is notable in part because of his arrest. That's why he's in the news recently. So the hooding is relevant to his notability. The quoted line from WP:NOTNEWS regards including an ARTICLE on a news topic in Wikipedia, not including details of news reports about someone in their BLP. I have done NO original research. All of my edits have be sourced by RS! It is not POV. It is statement of fact and quotes as reported by RS. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the diff we are discussing, the deletion I'd like to see reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365323353&oldid=365225337 This is only two lines: one quotes Bethune on the hooding, the other states that a picture of a hooded, handcuffed Bethune was displayed to the public by the Japanese Coast Guard. Not undue weight I would argue. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move on, you have already been told over and over why these were removed.--Terrillja _talk 02:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The news media disagree. Here are some of the articles mentioning the hood, to prove its relevance by its mention by reliable sources:

News articles that mention the hood:

• http://www.3news.co.nz/Pete-Bethunes-wife-shocked-at-arrest-/tabid/417/articleID/146204/Default.aspx
• http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3728678/Whaling-activist-fears-long-jail-term
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/27/sea-shepherd-whaling-activist-court-tokyo
• http://www.3news.co.nz/Bethune-takes-stand-Sea-Shepherd-supporters-protest-outside-/tabid/1160/articleID/158522/Default.aspx
• http://www.3news.co.nz/Bethune-to-take-stand-Japanese-coastguard-rallies-support/tabid/419/articleID/158457/Default.aspx
• http://news.ph.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4105972

Two news videos that considered the hood important enough to show during their broadcast:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gkzjNoOxPQ
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VpAXYNErHk&feature=related Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your argument against inclusion, besides the fact that you wore a hooded sweatshirt yesterday? Do you seriously consider that to be an argument that trumps all this media coverage? Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop repeating the same arguments over and over again Cptnono (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I follow your link there, I find this: "If you can present reliable secondary sources discussing both Bethune and the hood in a way that you have been trying to imply then go for it." That's what I just did, and what I've been doing all along. What's your next reason for exclusion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a knack for only picking certain bits when convenient. For example, not scandal mongering. You have made it clear that your intent is to show it in a way that is much more than what he said. You also failed to address all of the other "nots" brought up. I wouldn't bother listing a rebuttal to every single "not" since I doubt you are convincing anyone now after bombarding this page Better luck next time.Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hood has been mentioned by RS media, also (yeah, OR) it seems a Japanese authorities attempt to dehumanize and package Bethune so he's not appearing as the happy-go-lucky white dude, neighborhood English teacher; but rather a "terrorist pirate". Anyway media noted it, editors are noting it, excuse me I just skimmed this discussion dunno who is arguing what, but yeah hood notable no? RomaC (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, Japan does this for almost every criminal that is shown on TV (before their conviction), even when the criminal is a well-known Japanese celebrity. More importantly, this is not notable, it's not central to a discussion of either Bethune's life or the trial specifically. Just because a variety of news articles mention a particular fact does not mean it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia.Qwyrxian (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:YESPOV: "An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view." Please note the word "all". This seems to be a dispute within this topic. Once again, I jump through all the hoops, but it's clear that this will never be allowed into the article because some of the editors have decided that, despite numerous WP:RS, they just personally don't like it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I resent the repeated OR accusations. Where is the OR? I'm directly paraphrasing the WP:RS. Are you suggesting that I'm misrepresenting the sources? In what way? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's that diff again. How is this OR? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365323353&oldid=365225337 Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one making it a dispute and stop repeating yourself Cptnono (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If you can present reliable secondary sources discussing both Bethune and the hood in a way that you have been trying to imply then go for it." Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We just had this conversation 24hrs ago. You are implying that ti is a scandal. You are giving it undue weight. You have said so yourself that you are linking this to intl law. It is obviously read that way by Qwyrxian which means you succeeded. If you had not admitted to it, merged it with that line that got tuck in about his diet in an inappropriate place, mentioned how many visitors he is limited too, his exercise routine, and other aspects of his confinement I could understand that it is simple commentary about his imprisonment. It isn't. You are trying to create a scandal that no sources have linked with intl law or torture. Stop only picking parts of arguments that you can combat and read the whole thing. Stop disrupting the page. Start focusing on other aspects. Have you even paid attention to his last court date? Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think those two lines are undue weight. There is nothing in the diff above about international law. If I did list every complaint he has, that would be undue weight. The hooding and the cabbage soup and rice diet are the only two complaints I know of that have been reported by the press. Well, being housed with convicted felons and being held in solitary confinement, but those were just mentioned in one article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when you are arrested you are housed with other alleged criminals. Your freedom is hampered by its very nature and the food is not always the best. That is the way it is. If you want to create an article on prison conditions in Japan I am sure there are sources available. Sometimes alleged criminals are transported. Every system has a different way of doing it. Sometimes the vehicles used to do it do not have many windows. That doesn't men the city is trying to deprive the inmates of their senses. If you had made a paragraph discussing his conditions (with mentions of more than just the negatives since some reports say it has been fine) it might not have been a big deal. Some editors might have suggested that it was not all that important and leading, but weight of the hood would have been reduced and it might have made it appear like you were not trying to lead the reader as you have certainly tried to do as mentioned in your comment up above at 11:29, 29 May 2010. So again, start adjusting your focus. Keep an eye out on sources. Hell, his new book will have plenty of info on his detainment so you might just have to wait a bit. Did you know that he is expected to serve less time according to his lawyer if convicted now? There are all sorts of other things to focus on.Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in many countries it's customary for suspects to be released on bail. It is not customary to house suspects with convicts. It is not customary to feed prisoners cabbage soup and rice three times a day. It's not customary to hold prisoners for months prior to trial. It's not customary to hood prisoners. AI has pointed out that the treatment of suspects is a problem in Japan. If you want to add information about how well he has been treated, based on RS, please do so. But please don't delete the referenced contributions of other editors. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "many" and some of your assertions are disputable. I'm not going to bother explaining to you the different aspects of different processes and conditions of the US or other country's justice systems since that is not what this article is about. However, I will point out that reliable sourcing is not everything. How you use them is a big part of it. See the list of guidelines and policies for further information.Cptnono (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually cptnono, reliable sourcing seems pretty much to be the core of wikipedia. if capt. bethune was hooded in a manner that useually precludes torture or similar actions it should be note, especially if there are proper sources. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Five pillars there you go. Verifiability is part of the NPOV pillar.Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uh, so your agreeing with me now? 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point was that there are not sources that say that, and thus it is not verifiable. --Terrillja _talk 00:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was more getting at that sources are important but not the end all be all. Other editors have expressed concerns with the neutrality concerns weight to him saying he felt like a terrorist with a hood would provide. Add on top of that the concerns with attempting to lead the reader to draw the conclusion that he indeed was treated improperly and it becomes even more complicated. So basically, sourced ar enot everything and this has even been commented on recently by Jimbo Wales noting that people are using claims in RS to add anything and everything to articles. Cptnono (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reliable sources that say he was hooded (see above). But any mention of this has been deleted from the article by some of the editors. The deleted lines did not imply Bethune was tortured. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they have bestowed upon themselves the power to be gatekeepers of information, and protect the public from information that they feel is not appropriate. Luckily, people can find this forbidden information by searching the news reports. You know what they say, "Don't rely on Wikipedia." Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Along with idolizing Kim Jong-il, my interests include making babies cry and scolding cute puppies.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if somthing that happens might lead you to believe that he was improperly treated, then thats all the more reason to put it there! its not saying"he was tortured" its stating a fact that you can draw your own conclusion from! removing it is pro-japan biased by depriving people of information. and im not surprised by your hobbies cpnote. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of me thinks I should just ignore this....but the fact is that this issue has been debated here, at the Tokyo Two page, at an RfC, at WP:ANI, and, most recently, at the Original Research talk page. Every time it has been debated consensus has found that including both of those violates WP:SYNTH. GoN even tried to get the WP:SYNTH policy changed (or, in his/her words, clarified), and that failed. So we cannot include those two statements without violating Wikipedia policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the simple the fact that Bethune was hooded (we even have video), or even that he complained about it, cannot be mentioned in the article, despite several reliable sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a simple fact with no reasons to back it up is not a fact. now, this siriously should be on wikipedia. if you dont then you are trying to put biased info up. you are not God, nor are you overlords of what poeple can or cant know. this is a simple fact what were trying to put up. the way you people are fighting to the death to keep it out makes me think your either hired by japan or just extremly biased outright. (im 69 115) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.52.29 (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way you are fighting to the death to put it in makes me think your either hired by Sea Shepherd or just extremly biased outright. See how that wasn't useful in any way?Cptnono (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong - I'm arguing it SHOULD be in the article, not because I'm a paid agent of SSCS, but because IT HAPPENED! BTW, don't you think that the apparent stalking that is occurring when I start a whaling related page (Bethune, Tokyo Two) and the deletion of well-sourced, relevant and NPOV information, is not slightly suspicious? Why have the editors here call for a "topic wide" ban on my edits? Could it be they don't like to have things critical of whaling pointed out? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and that comment was cpnote? since when do 2 wrongs make a right? anyway, back to the matter at hand. you dont get to be biased and get away with it. this happned. whethere or not he was tortured, we dont know and we dont pt up our thoughs, but this we do know happened. there for it should and WILL be added. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it should and WILL need consensus. As I said at the very top of this discussion, the door is open. Others disagreed. Until consensus is reached it will simply be removed which doesn't help anything. Throw up some drafts and see if you can gain support. Until then, stop trying to make a point since it looks like everyone is tired of dealing with the same stuff when there are multiple other aspects of the guy's life that are important. In fact, if Ghostofnemo had attempted to actually improve the article with facts that might just be boring and non-contentious then he probably wouldn't have run into so many roadblocks.Cptnono (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

however, needed consesus isunfair, as one peerson disagreeing alwos them to get what they want, aka minority rule. weve all presented good reasons for this to be up, youve merly said it can leed people to think japan tortures him. therefore, its right for it to be added. now if we cant get this going somwhere, either for or against, i think we should contact an admin or somthing to solve this problem as we all have better things to do. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I said I was open to it and multiple editors said no. They convinced me. So now it is you and GoN only.Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

im saying, this is and event that happned, plain and simple. give me one GOOD reason it should not be in there. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that the article doesn't state "While in custody, Bethune was made to go to sleep at 10:00 pm every night" and "Very few food choices are available to Bethune while in jail" or "During the trial, Bethune was examined directly by the judges, not by the opposing counsel." All of these things are true (well, I'm guessing on the bedtime), but none of them are important enough to put in the article. Having arrested suspects wear something covering their head is normal police procedure in Japan. WP cannot list every commonplace aspect of every event it covers. Furthermore, I don't think we could mention it without going into great detail to deal with the cultural misconceptions--that is, as far as I understand Japanese culture, a Japanese criminal (and even more so a wrongly accused person) would, in general, want to be hooded due to privacy concerns. After we're done explaining all that, we'd be giving far too much weight to an aspect of this event that doesn't deserve it. We should no more mention that he was wearing a hood than we should describe the color of the clothes he was wearing. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for editors here. There has been some trouble regarding assumptions of the guy's treatment. Now we have an answer.

" In Japan he had been treated with dignity and respect, although he was locked in his prison cell for more than 23 hours most days.

I have no complaints whatsoever about my treatment while I was incarcerated in Japan, he said. "[1]

So that should put to rest many of the concerns.Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]