Jump to content

Talk:Greenpeace Arctic Sunrise ship case

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

I'm removing "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[edit]

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)[reply]

Greenpeace was concered of the climate change concequenses of drilling oil from the Arctic waters. I estimate to have a 50 % risk to die in the climate change consequenses after year 2050. Extreme weather is critical for old persons. The emissions today have full climate effect after 30 years - in 2044. In this respect everyone has the right the protection of his interests mean's demonstation in time to prevent loss of lives, maybe your own. Watti Renew (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the destruction of the world climate system is an act against humanity an in conflict with the human rights. The international experts have sent the same warnings messages since 1970's and Russia has mainly ignored warnings. Who is responsible? Watti Renew (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality concerns

[edit]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It seems heavily slanted in favor of Greenpeace. For example:

(1) the article states that they activists "attempted to board," but not "trespassed."
(2) "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.
(3) "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"?
(4) "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.
(5) "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.
(6) "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?
(7) 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.
(8) 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?
(9) 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.
(10) 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)[reply]

Re (1) I don't see the difference as a boarding attempt without invitation = trespass
Re (2) The Russians accused GP of possession of illegal drugs, but did not say where they found them. So GP argument seems relevant.
Re (3) This can be indeed phrased better and more neutral
Re (4) For most civilized countries this is not at all normal. In international context this may vilify the Russians somewhat indeed and should be reconsidered if it is indeed normal for Russian police to operate like this.
Re (5) Yes - According to the law of the sea this is needed (otherwise Danish government could board ALL ships coming from Petersburg; the Fins and Norwegians between them could board almost all traffic out of Murmansk and Greece would be allowed to board ALL ships coming out of the Black Sea).
Re (6) Alleged is weird indeed. Combative on the other hand is highly anti GP pov as no weapons were found and the coast guards were heavily armed.
Re (7) Arctic 30 has been extensively used in media
Re (8)/(10) I agree international response should be summarized with the exception of the Dutch flag state response.
Re (9) You have a point, GP response should be brief and factual if at all.
All in all most of it seems fairly minor and could/should be solvable with some copyediting. Best Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns of oil and Arctic

[edit]

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]

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

Stopping the work or showing banners?

[edit]

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)[reply]

English please

[edit]

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 Blurwho?, Damon Albarnwho? Showsright now? capitalization? a poster of Frank Hewetsonwho? Duringcapitalization? the concertwhat concert? in Santiago of Chileliteral translation from Spanish to English inon? 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)[reply]

The Ship

[edit]

It is good to hear the activists are being freed. I came to this article wondering what has happened to the Arctic Sunrise ship itself. Will Russia keep the ship or release it back to Greenpeace? DonPMitchell (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering that myself as well. I have not seen any report on the ship. If the charges are dropped, as far as I know this also means Russia should give back the ship. If Russia claims that the charges are not dropped, but that amnesty was given to the shipmates but not the ship making any further legal action irrelevant Greenpeace and the Netherlands (flag state) probably have to demand that some Russian or international authority makes a ruling.
The Russians do have a bit of a problem with the ship, because as far as I know a captured ships that has to be returned should be returned in the state of repair at the moment of boarding (according to my understanding of law of the sea (which is limited to be honest) This would mean that Russia should repair any damages made during the boarding, and any damages caused afterward (and by lack of maintenance in Murmansk port). Greenpeace had an official audit in Norway shortly before going to the arctic so the state of the ship is on record). As far as I know Greenpeace estimates the damage due to lack of maintenance for several months in an arctic port substantial.
But this is all speculation backed by some comments from Greenpeace lawyers (see Dutch online newspaper (sorry cant find this in English) [[3]]) I suggest we wait until was have more reliable sources reporting on the ship. I guess Greenpeace will come back to it once all people are back home safely. Arnoutf (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Risk

[edit]
See also: 2013 China–Russia floods

Russia claimed that two Greenpeace activists aboard were a life dangering risk for Russian workers. Please explain. For me this wake questions of Russian construction capabilities while in the Europe the strategic buildings are constructed airplane crash safe. During the event the consequenses of the climate change caused extreme weather in the border of the Russia and China and maný people died. Both Russia and China were in my opinion responsible. The external costs should be paid by the responsible companies. Watti Renew (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No oil rig is plane crash safe. Oil rigs are dangerous industrial operations and it can be argued that any disturbances outside normal operational protocol are potentially life threatening to the crew. But where do you want to go with this as the talk pages are about improving the article not about how the world should be. Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greenpeace Arctic Sunrise ship case. 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) 16:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenpeace_Arctic_Sunrise_ship_case&oldid=1201466931"