Jump to content

Talk:Greenpeace

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.213.40.129 (talk) at 10:50, 11 June 2011 (→Unbalanced and biased article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Greenpeace Record and Video Projects

Notations for the various Music and video projects from Greenpeace need to be put after their respective events that caused their creation, e.g. Greenpeace: The Album after ``The Sinking of the First Rainbow Warrior in 1984.

The First Greenpeace International Record Project also known as Greenpeace: The Album, going on with the two-disc Rainbow Warriors album and the Alternative NRG Project through to more modern compilations, need to be acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.178.70 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 72 years old and been in the music and film business since before most of these Wikipedia editing kids were born, and it's VERY annoying to be constantly seeing requests for improving articles, spending hours or days doing so and then having some kid come along and erase it and put it back the way it was.

These kids need to grow up and defer to their elders. When we edit a page they need to leave it the HELL alone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.178.70 (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-violent/violent Action

I'd like to clarify the description of Greenpeace's actions, which are currently described as being exclusively non-violent. There have been some objections, so rather than keep reverting each other back and forth, perhaps we should hash the issue out. I cited the following article as a reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/703085.stm, since it discusses Greenpeace activists destroying a field. I assume the issue is the debate over whether or not destruction of property is violence. The wikipedia page on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action#Nonviolent_direct_action) says there's some controversy over this, although suggests that the consensus is that property damage is violent.

Certainly, the current phrasing is unacceptable, since it's taking a rather partisan minority view on the issue. But perhaps the best thing to do is find some other word that avoids the dispute, or, barring that, cut the word non-violent and just describe it as "direct action." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.70.195 (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the maize crop thing, I think it is also worth noting that the Greenpeace activists were found not quilty of causing criminal damage by the jury: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/7608371.stm Shubi (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the relevance (to the question of violence---it's certainly relevant to any direct discussion of the incident). As the article discusses, they were acquitted because the jury was sympathetic to their motivation, not because of any doubt about what happened.75.82.62.109 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They would be innocent until proven guilty. An acquittal is legal finality regarding the charges. The sympathies of jurors are less relevant then the motives of prosecutors. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire debate is POV pushing to the extreme. If anybody has proof that Greenpeace is a political organization which promotes violence, then take it to the office of Homeland Security. Otherwise, the passage in the text is restored. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example of Greenpeace promoting destruction of property was given above. Destruction of property is widely (though not universally) considered to be destruction of property. A description which makes the controversy clear would be appropriate; categorically describing Greenpeace as non-violent is quote POV. Elseif (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think using one incident where the activist were found not quilty of causing criminal damage by the jury is a good example. But then, that's just me.89.27.59.129 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest archiving and putting up a link to the archived discussions. This page is way too long to be able to follow anything that is being said here in any of the topic threads.

Done!Shubi (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Borlaug

The greatest man in the world died recently, and had a very well known and documented fight with Greenpeace over genetically enhanced food. Norman's work alone filled 2 priorities at once and he isn't mentioned on this page at all:

Saving ancient forests (see deforestation, Intact forest landscapes) Promoting sustainable agriculture (and opposing genetic engineering)

If you can get over the last part "opposing genetic engineering", nobody in their right mind would fight this fight.

Norman Borlaug saved a billion people, prevented most of the rainforrests from being destroyed, and was still targeted by this highly political orginization. If they had it there way, this entire world would be covered in famine with no forrests at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.22.126 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpeace Foundation versus Greenpeace International

Hi.

At present Greenpeace Foundation redirect to here, Greenpeace International.

But Greenpeace Foundation, aka Greenpeace Foundation Hawaii still exists, similar to London Greenpeace.

See:

http://www.greenpeacefoundation.org/about/about.cfm

How do I split these two apart or where do I put links if I want to make a separate Greenpeace Foundation page?

Thanks. --Dolphin song (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that in the beginning of this article there would be a link to disambiguation page about other uses for the name Greenpeace, but this page would remain as the primary topic, as Greenpeace International and it's regional offices are overwhelmingly the largest and most known Greenpeace there is.Shubi (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I created a disambiguation page with links to other Greenpeace articles. The Greenpeace Foundation article is now just a stub.Shubi (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring the page

I would suggest restructuring of the article and really thinking what is relevant and what is not. The organization is huge, so I think we cannot write about everything it does, but focus on the main points so that the article wouldn't be too long. I think even the opening of the article now is too long and messy. If some sections start gaining length we could start separate articles for them.

My suggestion for a new structure would be this:

0. Intro text, infobox,
1. History (The background, formation, growth and restructuring, offshoots like London Greenpeace, Greenpeace Foundation and :Sea Shepherd)
2. Organization (Governance, regional offices and financing)
3. Campaigns (Climate, Forests, Oceans, Toxics, GMO, Nuclear power and disarmament)
4. Working methods (Direct action, lobbying, media use)
5. Ships
6. Criticism

Shubi (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restructured the article, removed a lot of unsourced parts and irrelevant lists. For example it is quite trivial to have a long list of location of all the offices, and also it is trivial to have a list of random protests that Greenpeace has done. The grammar I wrote might be crap, since I'm not a native English speaker. Please comment on the changes I have made.Shubi (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

needs better image showing office locations

highlight the entire country is a little useless for conveying where greenpeace is located and could suggest the organization is not concentrated in any particular regions, when it certainly is. 74.100.178.116 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is useful to highlight the entire country, as the national offices operate on issues concerning the entire country. What the highlighting of the entire country suggests is up to the viewer to decide. To me the map shows that Greenpeace is concentrated on industrialized/western and major developing countries. There's not much Greenpeace offices in Africa and Middle East for example. But I think the addition of the offices as dots in each country would be a nice addition to the map. The map would need to be larger then, as Europe would be a bit cramped with so many rather small countries.Shubi (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strange bits

This is really vague and maybe a bit romanticized. I don't really understand what does this actually mean:

"The social and cultural background from which Greenpeace emerged heralded a period of de-conditioning away from old world antecedents and sought to develop new codes of social, environmental and political behavior."

Without concrete examples this really doesn't mean anything to me at least. I would remove this.89.27.56.101 (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what it means either, unless it's a euphemism for saying that early Greenpeace activists were West Coast stoner hippies, which may or may not be true. It should be clarified or removed. --Ef80 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In his book 'GREENPEACE and insiders account', Rex Weyler said, "The early Greenpeace crew of peaceniks and hippies was guided by supernatural signs and symbols." Weyler speaks of early Greenpeace as a bunch of rag-tag bunch of hippies. Every image of early Greenpeace shows a movement dominated by bearded-long hairs. After all, this was the 60s-70s hippie revolution!

[1] [2][3]Mombas (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what are those "old world antecedents" and "new codes of social, environmental and political behaviors"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.185.2.162 (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mens News Daily as a source?

Mens News Daily seems a rather suspicious source to me. Anyone can contribute to the site as long as the contribution is in line with the editors views. Wikipedia policy says this:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties."

Mens News Daily has extreme and strong personal opinions and errors in content and it is not in line with the Wikipedia policy. For example only one of the Rockefeller brothers is alive anymore, so it's just a plain error to say that they are supporters. It's the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, not the brothers. The site has opinions that deny global warming [1], how "Obama Administration Exports Neo-Marxist Ideology Across the Globe" [2] and so on.

I'd also like to note that The Turner Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation are acknowledged philanthropic foundations, not corporations and it's no secret that Greenpeace also accepts foundation grants. They state that in their annual reports.

I see Mens News Daily as a group blog that isn't that notable and has quite extreme opinions. I don't think their opinions really matter. Wikipedia policy states this: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."

What do others think? Shubi (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Levin & eco-terrorism

Marc Levin works for Texas Public Policy Foundation, which has gotten funding from ExxonMobil. Searches give little info about Levin's current organization, their pages don' even work. Here's [3] a crime file on his staements. He has some quite radicaln opinions. So. 1. Is Levin a reliable source and 2. Is he a notable source?
And BTW opinion of one persono does not equal with "is often criticized". For more info see [4] 89.27.63.202 (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary that Levin be a reliable source. The Chronicle is a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it's an open forum. Reverting myself in the article. It is necessary that Levin be an expert in eco-terrorism for it to be included, and I've seen no evidence of that, regardless of his bias. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think all using the term eco-terrorism should be under scrunity as the term itself is under debate and is used to discredit environmental activism threatening private economic gains. See this for an academic view on the subject: [5] Shubi (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Greggydude (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Two section

I've summarized the Tokyo Two section as there is a main article about it. I added the {{main}} template link to the article as well. Farther down there was duplicate information which I removed, except for the comment from AI. I'm eventually going to move it to the main TT article, but don't want to lose it, so left it here for the moment. Ravensfire (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my revision of the past i had seen, it's obvious to think about natural changes influencin' on the world by human activities,it is always a matter of Education and Sensitizing,education for young people who learn at schools, sensitizing for those who may be concerned or interested, for those who have means. In fact we know that as we think as Scientists that economics interests ( production and consummation) and envirronmentals or natural benefits (like energies) are connected, so that we can do economy on work by wastin' less natural matters. So why do scientists dig in their mind, spending more and more money in a limitted time for research and developement trying to save catastrofics results that we have never payed attention before until now. Less working in countries whose populations get their money from natural wealth (exploration petrol)in the third world, in lot of time concerned by over population ( where there should been control of births as the direct and the only solution of consciousness for couple of families who are over loaded by work),as this same energic matter used to industries in developping countries. The man should let existing the natural space, insteed of developin' struggles and wars of unconscious and no tomorrow's interests between people, in another case there should be manner of communication and connection to teach our knowledges and learning culture of each other but by considering that those cultures are grew on Earth, and it will continue to be done and prospering in those natural and spiritual spaces. It's certainly difficult to try to resolve problems when we can't never look at lacks of each other,wherever we belong to the right or left side, when we are in the left we try to resolve problems in meetin' places or streets where there is noone to listen to you, then there is nothing to be fed after, and when you are on the right side in place which can be your home you are well fed and when you begun discussin' about annoying problems you will feel those limits, in fact it's our own energy which is disturbed, a disconnction of our soul with our physical beeing. however we can see how the world is divided into three system since over fifty years, the industrials, communists,and third world and for those three scales of developement, the developped countries are in services activities, the developing countries are in industry,and under developed countries are in agriculture and raw matters. whatever man preoccupation with his family or professional life,and evolutions which he is exposed to, like globalization wich can be agressive, may influence him in a point of view or another,perhaps will cause him both lacks and instruction in which we can never see what is really beneficial for him.Word,Work,World will be the Way Where we Walk ;A Flesh to Direction in Space; Not matter what we are wearing costume and tie or baskets and leather jacket.like we say in french l'habil fait pas le moine.but the life of today makes him very busy, stressed by his own job and social stuffs and matters obliged to work harder in what really he is never himself,it's like a prostitution, and in another side spending his borrowed time with education of his children,we are put into fire.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.103.149.225 (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like word salad to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for Nobel

While there isn't any official Nobel peace prize nomination nor published complete lists, I don't see what's the problem with mentioning that Greenpeace has been nominated twice (at least), as the sources say. Even though the Nobel Peace Prize has no offical nominee status (as for example the Academy awards do), the Nobel Committee still has criteria for valid and invalid nominations. And these people who the Committee considers valid nominators have nominated Greenpeace twice. So the nomination is relevant, as it is made by someone who has special authority or knowledge about the subject. It is not just a random suggestion from some random guy.

The fact that Greenpeace has been nominated for the prize twice does not any claim of any official "nominee status" nor any endorsement from the Nobel committee itself. It however is an statement from the nominators of the prize. So, as it is verifiable that the organization has been nominated twice, why cannot that verifiable information be included in the article?84.250.5.104 (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is and can be no verification. It's a statement from some potential nominators, but there is no evidence that the nomination was actually submitted to the Committee. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Arthur. It's more than likely that Greenpeace has been nominated roughly every year since its inception. We can't know though. If there's no official list of nominees, there's no actual evidence. There are hundreds of nominees every year and being a nominee in itself isn't really noteworthy. There's no due process leading to them being "nominated", there's no edited shortlist. Saying they have been nominated twice creates confusion about how the price works and gives the wrong impression. Dramabog (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Peace Research Institute in Oslo says that "Confirmed Nominations: Although nominators are requested not to publish their proposals, the following list of nominees is confirmed only to the extent that the nominators have apparently chosen to publicis their choice anyway." That means that someone who has nominated Greenpeace has made his or hers nomination public. So there can be a verification of nomination, if a nominator mades the nomination public. The point is not about direct evidence for this information, but verifiability of the information from a reliable source. As far as I know there's no reason why PRIO web page or the book "World Politics in the 21st Century" would not be reliable sources for verification of the nominatios. As reliable sources they have assessed the evidence and published the information of the nominations. And as the PRIO web page and the book do note the nominations (of Greenpeace), it can be said that nomination (of Greenpeace) is noteworthy. Why else would these sources note the nominations, if not for the notability of the nomination? Several other articles do mention the nominations and have sources for them, National Council for International Visitors, International Solidarity Movement, Piedad Córdoba and Hadassah Medical Center for example. And we have the article about the Nobel peace prize to elaborate the nomination procces, and if needed it can be shortly explained here. And I'm kind of puzzled what is the confusion and wrong kind of impression that the mentioning of the nomination could give? It's not our job to remove relevant and verifiable information from Wikipedia because the information "gives the wrong impression".84.250.5.104 (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's nothing more to counter the reliability of the sources and the notability of the nominations, I'll restore the part about nominations.Shubi (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I concur with Arthur and Dramabog, there is no possible way to reliably source this due to the way that the nomination process works. If you disagree, open an RfC or perhaps take it to WP:RSN.--Terrillja talk 21:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section Needs Reworking

The Criticism section of this article needs some better examples. Right now there are only 2 major examples, and both border on what could be considered conspiracy theories. Surely there have been better-grounded criticisms against Greenpeace, it is a very large organization with a very strong political agenda (generally such organizations quickly become criticism-magnets, so to speak). Could someone who knows more about Greenpeace please improve this section? Lunamia (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to include some information from this article in Vancouver Sun by Patrick Moore.[6] Moore has also written a book titled "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist." It seems the book should be mentioned. RonCram (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpeace Worldwide [change] 


                        - 85.176.100.91 15:55, 17 Apr. 2011 (CEST) T.i.s.W.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.100.91 (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to bury the chlorine thing

I could but not notice it, have had numerous people over the years scream with terror even faint because someone was using bleach. Then like a bolt of lighting it hit me, this is really old WWI propaganda; viz the Germans used Chlorine therefore your use of bleach will kill me, my God phone the Police/Ambulance/Priest. Never met a Greenpeace activist who was not a drunk badly educated arts type 81.109.247.189 (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced and biased article

The 'Priorities and Campaigns' section of the Article is biased. Under each campaign topic, it includes one or more controversies relating to Greenpeace, in most of the topics, the controversies are given more coverage than the actual campaign topics. This is neither encyclopaedic, enlightening, or neutral.

For example:

Nuclear power: A few lines about Greenpeace's position and campaign. Followed by two sub-topics, both relating to controversies (one about an accidental press release, and one about an allegedly misleading advert).

Forest campaign: More space is given to the 'Removal of ancient tree' controversy than to the main subject matter. The story should be moved to 'Criticisms'.

Tokyo Two: This entire paragraph should be moved to 'Criticisms' and it should be shortened (as there is a full article to link to for the details).

GMOs: The main article is entirely about the Zambia issue of accepting GMO food aid. It has no mention of Greenpeace's arguments against GMO crops. The 'Golden Rice' issue is not written in a neutral way, and appears biased against Greenpeace.

Amarantus (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, almost the whole artice is stinking with anti-Greenpeace bias and need drastic reworking if it's to come even close to being neutral and ballanced; Most of the "Priorities and Campaigns" section reads like it should be "Why Greenpeace are wrong to do these things". I've added a little bit about their campaigns against oil drilling but it needs a whole lot more yet. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid separate criticism section for campaign related criticism but instead have more information about the campaigns to balance the criticism. While generally criticism can be both positive and negative criticism, usually those sections end up being a place just for negative criticism, which is something to avoid also.89.27.57.41 (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised there isn't anything on how Greenpeace is a terrorist organisation under EU Definitions. Perhaps this article was written by some brainwashed Greenpeace activist/militant. The fact is that the criticism section is rather lacking, as it portrays Greenpeace in a good light overall in the article, and we all know that isn't true. You might as well say Wikileaks is a good organisation as well, while we're at it.
  1. ^ http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/features/greenpeacepeople/sage-advice-original-rainbow-warrior
  2. ^ http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:y58cfMXrtF8J:blog.brian-fitzgerald.net/%3Fp%3D330+early+greenpeace+hippies&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a
  3. ^ http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:yBv1253oerkJ:jonimitchell.com/library/view.cfm%3Fid%3D2172+early+greenpeace+hippies&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenpeace&oldid=433699682"