Jump to content

Talk:Greenpeace Arctic Sunrise ship case

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.0.246.83 (talk) at 13:41, 7 November 2013 (→Neutrality concerns). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconRussia Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality concerns

This is not a neutral article.

That is not a proper motivation. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not a proper explanation. How is it not neutral? Is it biased in favour of Russia, or Greenpeace, or something else? If no further explanation is forthcoming, the {{POV}} template should be removed. Robofish (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is clearly biased in favor of Greenpeace. The Russian point-of-view is ignored. Material not pertinent is included (burglary of Greenpeace office in Murmansk), while assault and battery of Russian diplomat in the Netherlands in front of his children is not mentioned. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely ridiculous. In fact, the entire article frames the affair as nothing but a criminal case. So if anything, the article is 100% biased in favor of Russia's policies, and entirely against Greenpeace. Just saying. --89.0.246.83 (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the Murmansk break in sentence with {{relevance}}, it needs a reliable source to establish the connection, or else removed. Likewise for any material thought to be missing, find a source and add it. -84user (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns of oil and Arctic

User: 84.23.155.84 [1] in my opinion the background concern to the case is essential. Please continue this.

Satu Hassi points out that according to James Hansen the use of Arctic oil means “game over”. Greenpeace aims to protect not only the Arctic nature but also the future of mankind. Watti Renew (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Stern report limiting the average global surface temperature increase to 2°C over the pre-industrial average is much cheaper than the damages of the higher incease. Instead of fixed priceing of carbon we should price carbon in correlation to the annual extreme weather damages, needed inceased powerline investment costs and the human deaths and the extinction of animals and plants. Watti Renew (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


REMOVAL: [2] deserves place, since it discuss the backgroud of the protest. Other ref: Arctic Sunrice ja IPCC Voima 8/2013 page 11

I could add: The world ecosystem has limited buffering capacity e.g. by the ocean absorbing the carbon. When a certain threshold of carbon is over a large marine ecosystem may disrupt: corals may die, fish may die, content of plankton may dramatically decline … and there is no way to stop changes later on if the chemical and fysical balance is too far from the balance. Watti Renew (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Greenpeace's concerns are better suited here. Prirazlomnaya_platform#Environmental_issues. Andries (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenpeace_Arctic_Sunrise_ship_case&oldid=580598632"