Talk:Greenpeace Arctic Sunrise ship case

I'm removing "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

The section was stating: "According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights everybody has freedom of expression. This include everyone has the right the protection of his interests. Protection of own interests means the need for the peaceful demonstration to rise public awareness.: "all humans are equal and have inalienable rights to freedom, justice and peace, give everybody right to live. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Everyone has the right the protection of his interests. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." IOW: it was not mentioning this court case in any way. Pasting UDHR in every article related to a dispute/arrest would be ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.132.186.34 (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

This is not a neutral article.

That is not a proper motivation. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, this article is still heavily in favour of greenpeace. A lot of facts are not shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.44.108 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I read today in Dutch newspaper or yesterday's paper that Greenpeace violated safe space of platform. This can lead to a prison term in UK of upto two years. Andries (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems heavily slanted in favor of Greenpeace. For example:

- the article states that they activists "attempted to board," but not "trespassed."
- "Certain pharmaceutical drugs are kept in a safe. The Russian authorities broke the safe after they took the vessel.[36]" Sounds like it was written by GP. Relies on a GP source.
- "Two activists managed to attach themselves to the platform and attempted to climb despite being blasted with water, whilst another activist was unable to attach themself to the platform." Aside from the poor style, the poor construction, and the awkward attempt to make it gender neutral, it reads like the person that wrote the sentence wants the reader to cheer for the GP activists. What does it mean "to attach oneself to a platform"?
- "Russian authorities forcibly took control of the Arctic Sunrise, which was boarded from a helicopter by fifteen Federal Security Service officers in balaclavas, armed with guns and knives." Is it unusual that the Federal Service would wear balaclavas or arm themselves with guns and knives? Given the task that they were performing, such a uniform seems routine.
- "At the time of the boarding, the Arctic Sunrise was in Russia's EEZ but not within the safety zone around the oil rig, and permission was not sought to board it from the Arctic Sunrise's flag state, the Netherlands." Does Russia need permission from NL to board a ship that is clearly dedicated to enabling activists to trespass on a Russian oil rig? It's implied. If it's true, it should be noted. If not, it should be removed.
- "It is alleged that crew members and activists were punched and kicked during the forced boarding." Alleged by whom? Why were they punched and kicked? Were the guards using more than the necessary amount of force to subdue non-cooperative and/or combative arrestees?
- The use of the monicker "Arctic 30" implies a sympathetic viewpoint. Just because certain media have used the term, doesn't mean that WP should also. Just because certain media organizations are sympathetic doesn't mean WP should be also. It becomes a biased article when it uses such monickers that are intended to create sympathy for those arrested.
- Nearly the entire "Responses" section is irrelevant except for the responses and requests from the Gov't of NL. Seriously, does anyone really consider it WP worthy that a reporter wrote something on Facebook?
- The "Greenpeace Announcements" section seems like a thinly veiled medium for advocating GP's position. Perhaps a "Russian Government Announcements" would balance the article a bit, but the idea of such a section seems silly.
- International Reaction section. Again, seems like a thinly veiled medium for listing anyone and any no one that supports GP. I don't see the relevance. Additionally, how is this section different from the "Responses" section?
--191.193.4.225 (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

"better suited" = better hidden. --89.0.246.83 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Stopping the work or showing banners?

The article states - with links to The Guardian - that activists intended to stop the work of the rig. Same does state GreenPeace itself at bottom of http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/From-peaceful-action-to-dramatic-seizure-a-timeline-of-events-since-the-Arctic-Sunrise-took-action-September-18-CET/#a8 However how can should it be interpreted ? Does shouting "stop it" conform that publicly stated goal of boarding? Or does that really mean the goal of boarding was interrupting the dangerous industrial process ? 85.90.120.180 (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

English please

I realize that many non-native English speakers might know a lot about the subject of this article. I would like to thank them for their contributions, however, it is painful to read the article with all of its style issues and its grammar, punctuation, spelling, and syntax errors. For example:

- "Angela Merkel expressed Vladimir Putin concerns over the arrest"

- The article uses present tense to describe past events.
- The use of passive voice abounds.
- "On the 23rd of October the charge of piracy has been dropped"
- The article uses the word detainee awkwardly. Perhaps "suspects" or "arrestees" would be appropriate. "Detainee" sounds like they were held without charge.
- "According to Dutch Greenpeace member the condition of the Greenpeace ship is worsening, as the Russian officials pose risk by is not taking properly care of the vessel."
- The Singer of Blur^who?, Damon Albarn^who? Shows^{right now? capitalization?} a poster of Frank Hewetson^who? During^{capitalization?} the concert^{what concert?} in Santiago of Chile^{literal translation from Spanish to English} in^on? November 7, asking for his freedom.
- "the reaction of the Russian coast guard and courts were the "stiffest response that Greenpeace has encountered from a government since the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985." I realize it's a quote, however, without some context it isn't clear whether GP bombed someone or someone bombed GP.--191.193.4.225 (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)