Jump to content

Talk:Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior

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


Effects of nuclear testing on Muroroa

[edit]

The IAEA tests found no evidence for increased rates of cancer that could not be attributable to other lifestyle changes in the area. I'm removing the paragraph about justification for Greenpeace's claims. Enough with the tired New Zealand anti-nuclear crusade. Let's present some facts for a change. Iamaelephant 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info removal

[edit]

Rebrane has done some good work, but removed information about the police enquiry which captured the agents/spies. The effect is to present the matter as if the French owned up to poor judgement, rather than commited a crime and were caught by cops. The result is, intentionally or not, a generally French slant (e.g. changing 'murder' investigation to 'homocide', when New Zealand law has no crime of homocide). I note, at the risk of provoking a re-write on another page, there was discussion on the DGSE site, where 'murder' was settled on as a reasonable description. I do not think there is any need to go as far as referring to the bombing as terrorism (which New Zealanders routinely did long before Bush made the term popular). I do think the article needs some balancing, if not the restoration of the deleted material. Will leave this a while for any comments before stepping in.

The only text I removed was one paragraph about a female agent who was never captured, which I found had been copied verbatim from a Greenpeace site, while doing research on the subject. I don't believe I removed any more information, and any French slant I added to the article was purely coincidental. Anyway, if you have any changes to make, by all means make them. I am not protective of articles I edit. Eliot 15:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not completely certain that I understand what the anonymous author is saying, but I'd like to leave a small comment: the sabotage of the Rainbow Warrior was never intended to kill anyone; the death of the photograph was an accident, so it is somewhat natural that things which might tend to suggest that this journalist was deliberately assassinated, or that the whole crew was targeted, be nuanced. "murder", as "deliberate killing of a human being", is probably not a fair description of what actually happened.
On the other hand, it is indeed blatant that the whole thing was made unilaterally, in complete disregard for international law, that its implementation was flawed and that the following political seek-and-hide party was utterly ridiculous, and in this context, the aggravating circumstances for "accidental death of a human being" are such that "murder" comes back as rather appropriate.
Just some idle though... Rama 17:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, such is my ignorance of this system I'm not quite sure how to become unanonymous and get a name instead of a number after :-). In NZ law, a forseeable death in the course of commiting a crime is murder, thus if you carry a loaded gun into a robbery, not intending to use it, but a bystander attempts to take the gun from you and it discharges, killing him, you are guilty of murder. Blowing up the Rainbow Warrior was clearly such a crime and in my opinion had the actual bombers been caught, (rather then two members of their support team), they would have been found guilty of murder. Items other than the Cabon peice were lost, and note, I'm not the person who introduced the Cabon peice, so did not know it came from another site.

To create an account, just go to Special:Userlogin - it only takes seconds. Rd232 17:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Warrior

[edit]

Question: is it really worth having a separate article for the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior? I think it would be better to make it a subsection of Rainbow Warrior. Rd232 17:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we want to go into the details, like I tend to think we are heading to, it might well be legitimate to use a whole article specifically about this; the enquiry which followed was rather theatrical, and caused changes in the government; also, the political consequences of the event are still not completely over in France. A precise record of the event would probably take the Rainbow Warrior article very much off balance, taking it into international and French politics.
Originally, the information featured here was in the DGSE article. Rama 17:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the incident and the ship each have a fairly robust article without very much overlap at all, I see no reason to merge the two. There is quite a lot of precedent for keeping famous attack and their targets in separate articles, especially if the target is notable of its own accord. (Rather unimaginable to merge World Trade Center and September 11, 2001 attacks, for instance). I have also taken the time to go through Special:Whatlinkshere/Rainbow Warrior and link the appropriate articles to this one. Eliot 21:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, keep these articles separate. Great read and fine example of stupidity of military driven goverments. Not all know about Greenpeace and what they do, so more articles the better. IEEE 12:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for the advice about how to make myself more than a number. I've ammended the offending scentence to the some what more cumbersome but accurate; "An unintended result was a photographer drowned on the sinking ship; two of the French agents were subsequently arrested by the New Zealand police and charged with murder", Is that okay?, (& yes I know they effectively plea bargined guilty to manslaughter just befoer the trail began :-).

Sunds very reasonable, and if I might add, I don't see why the bargain plea should not belong in the article as well. Rama 06:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well comment about it might, but I'm afraid that was really speculation on my part - as far as I know it's never been admitted that a plea bargin occured - they're frowned about by NZ courts, although I am aware of them happening in more minor district court matters (e.g. driving offences).

Marfart and Prieur were originally cahrged with arson, conspiring to commit arson and murder. They eventually pled guilty to manslaughter and arson. See this rather good Police page on the bombings. http://www.police.govt.nz/operation/wharf/ It also has photos of the Ouvea crew.Lisiate 03:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not as wanted posters :-). I'll add that to the links on the actual page.

French naval Victories

[edit]

The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was not the first French naval victory in 200 years - The Vichy government bet up the a few small boats of the Thai navy in the Battle of Koh Chang, 1941.

You might want to read Battle of Dakar for what happens when largely superior British forces attack an anchored French fleet, but not an unsuspecting one like in Oran. Rama 08:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they were mostly Free French troops--Streona (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was an amphbious landing with Navel support. Its a stretch to call it a navel victory as , although ships were involced, it was never a true navel action.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

the term 'dive wreck', used to describe the final disposition of the Rainbow Warrior, could/should link to artificial reef: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_reef#Notable_artificial_reefs

that's what an ex-diver thinks, anyhow. 71.112.156.5 05:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Jeremy[reply]

Some minor POV wording

[edit]

Three other agents, Chief Petty Officer Roland Verge, Petty Officer Bartelo and Petty Officer Gérard Andries, who sailed to New Zealand onboard the yacht Ouvéa, were also captured, but had to be released as New Zealand law did not allow them to be held for sufficient time until the results of forensic tests came back. Knowing the tests would show they had transported the bombs to New Zealand, the crew rendezvoused with the French submarine Rubis and sank the Ouvéa. <They were never punished.>

They were never charged there for couldn't be "punished" but my understanding of NZ law is... um non-existant, so if they were proven guilty then I can understand the statement, but until then I don't believe the statement is needed. Drew1369 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume the intention is they committed a crime and suffered no punishment for it. New Zealand law set a maximum amount of time you can hold anyone on suspicion, and also aminimum standard of evidence required to charge someone - in other words, police search the Ouvea, find traces of suspected explosives, detain the crew. Forensic evidence showed Ouvea had carried the mines that sank the Rainbow Warrior was found, but by the time the samples had been flown to new Zealand and anyalised, the Ouvea crew had been realised - and sailed beyond territorial waters. I understand the Ouvea was monitored by a RNZAF P3 Orion, which could explain the switch to a submarine. (Yes, if you are British or American you may now roll round laughing at New Zealand's concerns about your post 9/11 anti-terrorism extended detention without trial laws :-). Winstonwolfe 02:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Hmmm, on the other hand, I am not under the impression that the arbitrary detention provisions are targetted at members of allied intelligence services scoring hits on pacifist organisations. Rama 08:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd rather let the odd DGSE murderer escape than have Guantanamo, I just thought I'd better point out the irony before someone else did :-).Winstonwolfe 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I can understand that point... thanks Winston Drew1369 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But is the POV issue 'minor'? How exactly did the French justify this to themselves (insight, not ex-post justification)? Would it be classed as 'terrorism', given current models, to direct a proportionate demolition of assets in sovereign interests, perhaps too careless of the risks to human life of involved journalists et al? Hindsight is a wonderful thing but the current text risks being partisan. 86.129.159.172 13:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"transform New Zealand's "nuclear free" policy from a minority position" is also POV, where is the evidence to suggest this? Labour campaigned the 1984 campaign partially on this issue and won by a landside. Changing it to strengthing support would be a better wording.

Additonally, midnight oil although an Australian band had a New Zealander as head and this should be noted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.10.139 (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Citation needed

[edit]

I think that this matter is sufficiently sensitive for the record of event to necessitate both extremely careful and accurate writing, and pertinent citation of the best kind available.

Agents had boarded and carefully examined the ship while she was open to public viewing. Explosions were calculated that would be sufficient to cripple the ship, but, they hoped, precise and small enough not to take life. Two limpet mines attached to the hull of the ship detonated 10 minutes apart, at around 11:45 p.m., and the ship sank in four minutes. The agents failed to allow for the less rigorous safety procedures on the Greenpeace vessel.[citation needed] Some people below decks did not evacuate the ship but returned below decks to salvage belongings and make a film record of events. A Portuguese-Dutch photographer, Fernando Pereira, drowned in the flooding that followed the second blast while attempting to fetch his equipment. The other ten crewmembers evacuated on the order of Captain Peter Willcox, or were thrown into the water by the force of the explosion.

How do we know this stuff? Has it come from a record of a trial, a news report, or a movie?

  • "Agents had boarded and carefully examined the ship while she was open to public viewing."
How do we know?
  • "Explosions were calculated that would be sufficient to cripple the ship, but, they hoped, precise and small enough not to take life."
How can we possibly know what they hoped? If this information is based on what they said while on trial, then it needs to be written as "Such and such a person stated that they hoped ........"
  • "The agents failed to allow for the less rigorous safety procedures on the Greenpeace vessel."
How do we know that they failed to allow for this? Did they say so? If so, then it needs to be stated that they made this assertion.
  • "The agents failed to allow for the less rigorous safety procedures on the Greenpeace vessel."
"less rigourous" than what? "less" is a comparative term. It must have a reference point.
  • "Some people below decks did not evacuate the ship but returned below decks to salvage belongings and make a film record of events."
Does this mean that they did not evacuate the ship after the first explosion? If this is what is meant, then it needs to be stated, because it is not clear.
  • "The other ten crewmembers evacuated on the order of Captain Peter Willcox,"
Is ten the total number, the number that was still aboard at the time of the second explosion, referred to previously as "some people", or what? Do we know how many people were on board at the time of the first explosion? Do we know how many were on board at the time of the second explosion?

Amandajm (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Honesty Award

[edit]

At 21:58, 9 July 2008 User:Manxruler applied a banner "This article needs additional citations for verification." At that time the article had 20 in-text footnoted references, a bibliography of three books, 7 external links, including a court transcript, links to four documentary films and a See also link to Rainbow Warrior Case (international law).--Wetman (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold enough to remove it. If anyone should nevertheless think that all these citations and references and links are not sufficient in terms of giving sources, then I would ask that person to specifically point out which passages or sentences he or she deems not being referenced enough. A general tag, claiming that the article lacks references is indeed not very helpful when there are actually plenty of them given. --Proofreader (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as to the POV discussion, also the statement that explosions were calculated to cripple the boat but not take people's lives is of course somewhat POV as we cannot tell for sure what the intentions of the agents were but I suppose we should maintain the principle "in dubio pro reo". By now though these intentions are stated here as facts while it would be fairer to say something like the explosions "according to the testimony of the agents were not meant to take people's lives". The circumstances of the bombing are in the article and one may leave it to the judgement of the reader as to how credible such a testimony is in a case where a boat is sunk within less than five minutes and a dozen people on board using mines that rip a large hole into the hull of the boat. --Proofreader (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current article content (2014-08-23) seems to indicate that the French team researched the boat carefully before placing the mines - presumably to give people a chance to abandon ship and avoid fatalities, as was claimed, but also presumably to maximize the likelihood of sinking the ship. Absent any evidence to the contrary, this seems fairly NPOV to me. Memetics (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in agents' sentence

[edit]

The overview says that the two agents "were sentenced to ten years in prison, but in fact spent just over two years confined to the French island of Hao before being freed". But the "France implicated" section says the two "would be detained at the French military base on Hao Atoll for three years." Which is correct: Were they supposed to spend 10 years or 3 years in prison? Memetics (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were sentenced to ten years in NZ, which had to release them to the UN general as a result of France's threats of an economic embargo, who in turn handed them to France's promise of three years at a military base (basically vacation, see future history where they are promoted) and they did not even serve that. So both are correct. 16:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.203.249 (talk)

No plea bargain

[edit]

There was no plea bargain. Such things occur in the USA, but not in New Zealand.101.98.169.98 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French Official Apology

[edit]

The current article states "As of 2015 the French government has not officially apologized", citing a transcript of an interview[1] with Peter Wilcox, the captain of the Rainbow Warrior. However at least two articles[2][3] directly counter this claim - stating explicitly that the the French government did issue an official apology. Other articles (as included in the current wikipedia entry) state that an official apology was part of the political deal to return the arrested agents. A primary source - of the apology itself - would be great! But I haven't managed to dig it up. RadishSlice talk 22:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your NPR reference mentions that Jean-Luc Kister, the agent responsible for planting the bombs that sank the boat, personally apologised for the terrorist attack. That's really not at all the same as the French government issuing an official apology. NPR then refers to a 1987 NYT article stating that the French did promise to apologise, but not that they ever did. Given that the French broke other promises related to the affair (the release of Mafart and Prieur), and that no evidence has been found to the contrary, we must conclude that in all likelihood the French never apologised. --189.130.235.144 (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The statements you've noted aren't the phrases I was referring to. More explicitly - the NPR and RFI articles both unequivocally state that there was an official apology (in each of their last paragraphs). NPR: "The French government later issued an official apology for the incident and paid reparations to Greenpeace." RFI: "France has officially apologised for the incident, paid compensation and stopped its nuclear testing in 1996." Anyway, doing some further research now. I've found a French article (French Annual International Law Review) discussing the apology letter requested by NZ and presented by Jacques Chirac. Going to do further archive sifting to see if I can find an English translation of the letter in NZ publications.RadishSlice talk 11:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK So I got around to checking an archive of NZ newspapers of the time. Auckland Star Wednesday July 23, 1986 (Front page A1) includes an English translation of the French apology letter which was part of the agent swap: "This is a translation of the letters of apology received by the New Zealand Ambassador in Paris. The text was issued in Wellington by Prime Minister David Lange: Mr Prime Minister, The French Minister of External Relations informed you on September 22, 1985, that "as a result of new investigations ordered by the French Government, it has become apparent that the attack on the Rainbow Warrior was carried out by French service agents". My predecessor made it clear on the same date that he was deeply distressed at the consequences that this affair had for relations between our two countries. I wish to convey to you today the apology of the Government of the French republic for the events which took place in Auckland on July 10, 1985. I beg you, Mr Prime Minister, to accept the assurances of my high consideration. JACQUES CHIRAC Prime Minister". The same newspaper edition, on page A3, includes an article ("Lange applauds simple apology") covering NZ Prime Minister David Lange's acceptance of the apology. On this evidence, I am going to remove the line in question from the article. -- RadishSlice talk 12:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RadishSlice: Could I suggest that you actually enter this Auckland Star Material into the article? I have looked and cannot find any other reference to an official apology anywhere on the internet. Egmason (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Egmason: I have just now uploaded the scans of the articles to commons. I am not actually sure if they're supposed to be uploaded there (re copyright), but here they are:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Auckland_Star_Front_Page_A1_23_July_1986.jpg --https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sun_23-7-1986_A1-page.jpg -- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Auckland_Star_A3_-_23_July_1986.jpg I can see you have been doing great work on the article, I hadn't heard of the 1991 "more sincere" apology from the French PM.. I don't know if you were suggesting adding these articles as a citation link, or as an actual text excerpt. I'm not sure what the usual practice is for citing an old undigitised newspaper article.

As the author of the entry regarding the apology, I have read the above debate. I wish to add that the apology spoken of above by RadishSlice and others is the Official French Apology to New Zealand. Nowhere have I found mention of an apology to Greenpeace, only reparations. Though this distinction is not specifically mentioned in the Democracy Now! article I used as a ref,[4] it is in another article which also points out there has been no apology to the Pereira family. btw this is in the context of apology of the actual bomber, Jean-Luc Kister to affected members of Greenpeace and the NZ people.[5] I propose to make this distinction clear in the article. DadaNeem (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Identities discovered

[edit]

What does "Because they were carrying Swiss passports, their true identities were discovered, along with the French government's responsibility" mean? How could carrying Swiss passports result in their true identities being discovered, or that the French government was responsible? This does not follow at all.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was difficulty tracing their real identities, because Interpol HQ is in Paris, so the French police failed to answer questions re their identity. So the NZ Police, who had started to suspect French involvement, went direct to the Swiss government and found that their Swiss Passports were false.
08:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath There was one other agent, who was detained in Switzerland in 1991. He had crossed into Switzerland from France using a driver's license, and when stopped by Swiss authorities his name came up as wanted in connection. I think the Swiss were also peeved that the two agents caught had been using bogus Swiss passports. When the Swiss contacted the NZ govt to ask do you still want this guy? the NZ Prime Minister at the time, Jim Bolger, washed his hands of the affair. After initially saying that it was a matter for the judicial process, he then said the matter was resolved, and the agent was released after a few days detention. the public swallowed this explanation, blaming the previous Labour government who made the agreement to release Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart, the two convicted agents. But the 1986 international agreement (which the French reneged on) only covered the convicted agents, hence there was still an out-standing warrant to arrest. The agreement Bolger referred to was the French President (or PM?) had visited and shook hands saying bygones are bygones so little things like an outstanding warrant for manslaughter were overlooked.

10:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

when the boat sank it was my

  1. ^ http://www.democracynow.org/2015/6/9/rainbow_warrior_30_years_later_will
  2. ^ http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/06/438036449/french-agent-apologizes-for-blowing-up-greenpeace-ship-in-1985
  3. ^ http://www.english.rfi.fr/asia-pacific/20150907-rainbow-warrior-bomb-apology-not-enough-captain
  4. ^ Ben Stewart, Captain Peter Willcox (June 9, 2015). "Rainbow Warrior: 30 Years Later, Will France Ever Apologize for Fatal Bombing of Greenpeace Ship?". Democracy Now!. Retrieved September 6, 2015.
  5. ^ Tom Lowe (September 7, 2015). "The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior: 30 years later, the first apology". Blogpost. Greenpeace International. Retrieved May 28, 2016.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.18.63 (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Opinion not a fact" tag

[edit]

Someone, also without a name, added the "Opinion" tag to the part about New Zeeland considering the act as terrorism, a part that has references. The reason for this tag was that "Greenpeace has previously committed acts of piracy. To call sinking their ships a terrorist act, while it may not be an incorrect statement, is subject to opinion" However, it is a fact that New Zeeland considered it a Terrorist act, and that it continues to be a terrorist act even if Greenpeace may have committed acts of piracy. Saying that fact is opinion based on the editors opinion is itself an opinion and not a fact. There is no international law about terrorism not being terrorism if the person targeted by terrorism has committed an illegal act before. 188.151.123.146 (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 November 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior → Bombing of the Rainbow Warrior – There is a question of whether "sinking" or "bombing" is the more suitable gerund for the French foreign intelligence service blowing up a ship docked in a New Zealand port during peacetime, causing death.

The "Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior" seems euphemistic, for this article is hardly a timeline of the ship sinking. I don't know if WP convention suggests "Sinking" (in cases such as the Titanic), but even if it does, I think that this case is sufficiently unusual to merit "Bombing". Egroeg5 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that "sinking" and "bombing" are both commonly used in sources for this topic, although "sinking" is more frequent than "bombing". However, on one of the five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, i.e. consistency, "bombing" is consistent with articles on similar topics, while "sinking" is not. So, I see a point either way, which leaves me without a strong preference for either Rainbow Warrior bombing or the current title. Nurg (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chronology Issues

[edit]

The article mentions the Treaty of Rarotonga as being part of the background of the event, yet the Treaty postdates the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior by about a month: the Rainbow Warrior sank on July 10 1985, whilst the Treaty was signed on August 6. More solid research might need to be done to establish how the sinking impacted the treaty, but undoubtedly it was not the other way around as the article currently suggests. 2405:6E00:68E:C6B9:B55A:DF2A:6040:B024 (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"State-sponsored terrorist bombing"

[edit]

Kia ora, I note that on the state terrorism article the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior is listed, however, on the article on state-sponsored terrorism it is not. Given the definitions on both of those aforementioned pages, I think it could be potentially more appropriate to use "a state terrorist bombing" in the lead paragraph of this article instead of "a state-sponsored terrorist bombing". Numerous sources reference it as an act of state terrorism instead of an act of state-sponsored terrorism. (Including but not limited to: [1] [2] [3] [4]) Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 15:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this here for about a week, if no one voices any issues with the change I'll go ahead and make it. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 07:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the change. The action was performed by a branch of the French state so "state terrorism" is the correct category. Burrobert (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for voicing your thoughts, I've made the change since. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 07:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior&oldid=1256561004"