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 Asfd666 (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 10 November 2014 (→‎Can Greenpeace clean the Pacific garbage patch?). 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]

Can Greenpeace clean the Pacific garbage patch?

I was wondering if they were to use the Great Pacific garbage patch through your tax payers dollars instead of something ridiculous like roads under tunnels with drilling machines that look like they come straight out of star wars burring under your cities of seattle and london whilst creating tunnels to boot. Maybe you should not concentrate on helping the economic production of gas cars as a main source of transport so much but more on cleaning up your planet. You haven't even mastered electromagnetism, or infinite energy and propulsion in these vehicles, you're going to look ridiculous if ww3 or some catastrophic event wipes you out like the dinosaurs. Technically, you are still polluting the ozone by using gas. I would concetrate on cleaning up your earth. Does greenpeace have any funding for these types of mass scale projects? If so why not mention it in their article? Maybe greenpeace should take advantage of the [barge] by obtaining their own instead of pirating or what not.

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,.. (etc., commented out) —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]
I tried recently to expand the article on the Tokyo Two matter in Japan, but I got reverted on grounds it was too Greenpeace leaning (or perhaps what he really meant was too allegatory against the research whaling). Anyways I came up with a toned down rewrite sourced closely to online newspaper {{cite news}}, but this also got rolled back, without, any substantive arguments on why the things I wrote based on news coverage was not allowable. I'm not really seeking any gut-reaction pro or con based on your views, but specific arguments on my specific use of source, language, suggestions on what other sources to use to balance it. I linked my two revisions at Talk:Tokyo Two. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2012 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.40.129 (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think criticism is lacking, find sources and add criticism. I'm suprised that Greenpeace would be a terrorist organisation under EU definitions, as the organisation has several offices in EU and even one in the capital of EU[7] focusing solely on monitoring and lobbying of EU institutions. If Gp would be defined as you say, I think they would have been kicked out of EU countries, especially from Brussels. And Wikipedia is not about writing articles about "what is true" because people have different views on what is true. What matters is what verifiable reliable sources say. See this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability 89.27.57.41 (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of a "Terrorist organisation" in the EU is so broad that almost every pressure group could be described as one. So, although technically GP could be called a "terrorist organisation" they are not really considered to be one; They wouldn't be allowed to opperate if they were. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politically Charged Assumption

"Even though the crew of the Confidence personally supported the cause of Greenpeace ..."

This line is an unproven assumption that supports a political Point of View. This reads like the author was fantasizing after a viewing of Battleship Potemkin. Even if there was evidence that some member or members of the crew was sympathetic that would not justify an intimation that the crew of a US Navy or Coast Guard vessel was potentially mutinous. In addition the article is in error in referring to the Confidence as a US Navy vessel. It is a Coast Guard Medium Endurance Cutter and has its own wiki page. Lifeofthemind (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources, which does indeed also say that the ship was a coast guard ship and fixed that. The source also has this on it:
"Behind the commander's back, the crew of the Confidence handed the prostesters a cablegram. Signed by 17 sailors, it read:
DUE TO THE SITUATION WE ARE IN, THE CREW OF THE CONFIDENCE FEEL THAT WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS FOR THE GOOD OF ALL MANKIND. IF OUR HANDS WEREN'T TIED BY THESE MILITARY BONDS, WE WOULD BE IN THE SAME POSITION YOU ARE IN IF IT WAS AT ALL POSSIBLE. GOOD LUCK. WE ARE BEHIND YOU ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.
It was a remarkable gesture of support, for such an action almost amounted to mutiny."89.27.57.41 (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Founders

The origins section currently says with several sources that there are several differing views even within Greenpeace and the early members about who are the founders, and several parties, like researchers and Greenpeace itself has said that the origins were loose and unclear. So I think that it is futile to try an list founders to the infobox as the actual situation seems to be very complex and messy.89.27.57.41 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the founders section from the infobox as there are so many differing views on who are the actual founders.Shubi (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the article ?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpeace → Greenpeace Environmental Trust – Appearantly, "Greenpeace" isn't the full name of the organisation; the full name is "Greenpeace Environmental Trust", and it seems to be a registered charity, which has several branches. See http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/greenpeace-environmental-trust

91.182.230.113 (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Greenpeace Environmental Trust is a registered charity, and is a separate legal entity from Greenpeace Ltd; crudely speaking, the two together form 'Greenpeace UK', although the Trust also makes grants to other organisations. It'd be incorrect to relable the main article, and even a redirect could be misleading. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/get-test QuakerActivist (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference

A Greenpeace report for this event (2011) was: Who is Holding Us Back, How carbon-intensive industry is preventing effective climate legislation November 2011. I put here since I do not know how to fit the page. According to report: We have the technology today to ensure a transition to a greener, safer and more equitable economy. In Durban, it’s time for governments to listen to the people, not the polluting corporations. Carbon-intensive industry is preventing effective climate legislation. The Dirty Dozen represent those corporate polluters that are holding us back from a global deal to limit and reverse GHG emissions worldwide.
1. Jorma Ollila Royal Dutch Shell, 2. Lorraine Mitchell,, toimitusjohtaja, Shell, Canada, 3. David Collyer Canadian Association of Petroleum, 4. Thomas Donohue US Chamber of Commerce, 5. Lakshmi Mittal ArcelorMittal, 6. Jürgen R. Thumann BusinessEurope, 7. David Koch and Charles Koch Koch Industries, 8. Marius Kloppers BHP Billiton, 9. Dr. Kurt Bock BASF, 10. Jean-Guy Carrier International Chamber of Commerce, 11. Jack N. Gerard American Petroleum Institute and 12. Brian Dames, Eskom.

Watti Renew (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probable WP:BLP violation, even here on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see criticism presented by Greenpeace about the political and corporate role of those persons as a violation of that policy. The criticism is a viewpoint on how they have worked on public roles, not on their personal lives or sensitive private information. 212.149.200.128 (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BLP; it doesn't have to be about their "personal lives", just be controversial and unsourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greenpeace is a reliable source for its own viewpoints, so I see no problem writing that "Greenpeace has criticized XX of this and that", as Greenpeace is a notable environmental organisation. Controversial criticism can be included when the tone is neutral and sources are reliable and notable, as Greenpeace is by Wikipedia standards.212.149.200.128 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYT resource

Greenpeace Leader Visits Boardroom, Without Forsaking Social Activism by John M. Broder New York Times (Dec 7, page A9 in print) published December 6, 2011, excerpt ...

The bearded South African in the blood-red dashiki took a seat in the front row amid a sea of dark-suited executives on Monday morning at a side meeting of the United Nations climate change conference here. “Kumi, it’s good to see you here,” the host of the meeting at a seaside hotel, Bjorn Stigson, president of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, told Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International. “I’d much rather have you inside the room here than outside protesting.”

"Since he was named the head of Greenpeace two years ago, Mr. Naidoo, 46, who cut his teeth as a teenager in the antiapartheid movement in his native Durban, ... Mr. Naidoo fled South Africa as a young man after repeated arrests and beatings for antigovernment actions. He won a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford University, earning a doctorate in political sociology and forming a lasting friendship with Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s envoy to the United Nations and a former assistant secretary of state for African affairs."

Some article keywords Cop17, Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd, Amnesty International, Red Cross, social justice, economic justice, adaptation to global warming, effects of global warming (effects of climate change on humans), solar power, wind power, wave power, geothermal energy, Bill McKibben, Keystone XL pipeline, tar sands

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/greenpeace/index.html

99.181.136.158 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section still needs reworking

I wasn't involved with the complicated decisions about the Criticism section. I came looking for comments vis-à-vis Sea Shepherd, found none, and was instead confused.

A) Paul Watson, ex-Greenpeace board member, and Sea Shepherd founder is an outspoken opponent of Greenpeace. His views appear regularly in a TV series, and in a documentary. Yet his position is not articulated.

B) The section reads like a blow/counterblow battlefield. It left me confused about what version of the truth one is intended to believe. And some of it is just irrelevant and scrapping detail. (What difference does it make to the Criticism that Watson may or may not have been a founder?)

C) Assuming the "Main article" Criticism of Greenpeace would clear everything up, and present points in an orderly way, I was surprised that it doesn't even address the same issues! (It does however have similar bickering.)

Someone needs to rewrite the Criticism section so that it identifies the major issues clearly and briefly. And this needs to be in harmony with the Main article.

Leptus Froggi (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On section A), if you know the opinions of Watson Be bold and add them!
On section B), the verifiability policy of Wikipedia says "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view", so it's up to the reader to decide which one you want to believe. Wikipedia must be neutral and can't take a side. I agree that the founder issue has no place in criticism section, and the issue is already handled in the history section, so I'll remove it.
If you know some major issues that should be addressed in the criticism section, again Be bold and add them!
Shubi (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that in my opinion criticism about the general activities and the nature of the organization should go under the criticism section, and criticism about certain campaigns should go to the campaign sections, so that the campaigns section is not the place for only opinions of Greenpeace on the campaigns, but all verifiable viewpoints on the campaigns. Also, separating specific (negative) criticism from the main article to a separate article or section is discouraged in content forking policy: "If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead)."Shubi (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

The number one threat is not climate change, it´s overpopulation and through that incremental demands on agricultural & energy resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.18.169 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short Essay On Greenpeace

GreenPeace Greenpeace is a nonprofit international organization that focuses on preserving endangered species and protecting the environment. It refuses donations from governments, political parties, corporations and multinational organizations. Greenpeace depends on its millions of supporters around the world to volunteer their time and donate money. Bill Darnell coined the name when someone flashed him a peace sign and he said "let's make that a green peace!" Bob Hunter created the concept of the "Media Mind Bomb" -reaching the public consciousness through dramatic, camera-ready opposition to environmental crimes. Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Irving Stowe were the founders of the "Don't Make a Wave Committee," which organised the first Greenpeace action: a voyage to Amchitka Island in the Aleutians to try to stop a nuclear weapons test. David Mc. Taggart convinced a half dozen loosely connected early groups to put aside their differences and join in a single worldwide organisation, creating Greenpeace International in 1979. The Greenpeace organisation consists of Greenpeace International (Stichting Greenpeace Council) in Amsterdam and Greenpeace offices around the world. Greenpeace currently has a presence in 41 countries. Greenpeace national or regional offices are licensed to use the name Greenpeace. Each office is governed by a board which appoints a representative (called a trustee). Trustees meet once a year to agree on the long-term strategy of the organisation, to make necessary changes to governance structure, to set a ceiling on spending for Greenpeace International's budget and to elect the International Board of four members and a chairperson. Greenpeace International monitors the organisational development of Greenpeace offices, oversees the development and maintenance of the fleet of ships, coordinates planning and implementation of global campaigns, and monitors compliance with core policies. The International Board approves the annual budget of Greenpeace International and its audited accounts. It also appoints and supervises the International Executive Director who, together with senior managers, and consulting widely with national office staff, leads the organisation. Greenpeace help stop global warming to promting substainable agriculture. Saving The Arctic is an example of global warming. The sea ice in the Arctic regulates our global climate by reflecting sunlight. That ice is melting at a rapid rate meaning the ocean absorbs the sunlight resulting in a warmer earth. This of course causes more sea ice to melt. Not only does the Arctic work to regulate the global climate, it's also home to a rich ecosystem and indigenous people who depend on that ecosystem. Polar bears, seals, walruses and whales are just some of the species that call the Arctic home. And it's all in danger due to oil companies. In the seven years of the campaign Greenpeace went from being perceived as almost a despised outsider in the affairs of the Antarctica Treaty Nations to a respected player in negotiations for the future of the continent. In 1989 the "Exxon Valdez" oil spill in Alaska severely undermined the oil company's argument that drilling in ecologically sensitive areas could be conducted in a safe environmentally friendly manner. Greenpeace offices worldwide lobbied their governments to take a responsible position on protecting the Antarctic, joining forces with other non-governmental organisations and eliciting support from global personalities including Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, Jacques Cousteau, and Ted Turner. Gradually more and more of the Treaty signatories were persuaded of the merits of making Antarctica a World Park. In 1991 the members of the Antarctic Treaty agreed to adopt a new Environmental Protocol, including a 50-year minimum prohibition on all mineral exploitation. Seven years later the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty came into force. Antarctica had been saved from a deadly threat. Greenpeace challenges the systems of power and privilege that destroy the environment and place disproportionate, burdens on vulnerable communities. As Greenpeace, they know from nature that diversity is essential to life on the planet and success in their organization. They welcome, value and rely on a diversity of people, cultural experiences and perspectives. They learn from one another. Through campaigning, they create solutions that promote environmental sustainability rooted in social justice.

Kieran Mulvaney and Mark Warford (1996): Witness: Twenty-Five Years on the Environmental Front Line, Andre Deutsch. John McCormick, The Global Environmental Movement (John Wiley, 1995) Michael Brown and John May, The Greenpeace Story (1989; London and New York: Dorling Kindersley, Inc., 1991)


(~~ANA LOVOS~~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.67.121 (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  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/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenpeace&oldid=633238948"