Talk:Greenpeace/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article clean up is desperatly needed

Can I get some help cleaning this article up? --Lincoln F. Stern 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest the same. Buffadren 11:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in! (And I'm moving this section to the top of the Talk page.)

I propose we redesign this article along the lines of the Sierra Club page:

* 0 Intro text, InfoBox and logo

* 1 Mission statement

* 2 Organization

* 3 Priorities and campaigns

* (sub sections for each priority/issue, linking to other articles for each campaign)

* 9 Nonviolent direct action

* 10 History

* 11 References

* 12 See also

* 13 External links

--Slackr 11:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done it! I edited the article today to fit into a layout similar to that of other NGOs. I've tried to remove all POV-suspect text--but please feel free to go over it again and edit as needed. In particular, I've removed the "criticisms" heading, because I think that section was likely to keep this article in a constant state of messiness. Anyone who feels strongly about this can of course undo my work, or could just re-insert the criticisms section if they wanted to. I should hope however that they (you) would start a new article about your criticisms, so that this one stays short and tidy. Thanks, Slackr 16:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just created a new article called Criticism of Greenpeace and linked to it from the "delllll section of this article. It's only a copy+paste of what was in the "Criticisms" section of the article earlier--and it needs some work.. Slackr 17:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks much cleaner now. --Lincoln F. Stern 09:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Focus

Why is its focus listed as Communism? That is completely inaccurate. Its focus is environmentalism. A suggestion that its focus is communism is POV, as that goes against Greenpeace's stated focus/goals and its actions. --Greenday121 (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Arctic Sunrise

I heard something about it breaking through security to get close to a submarine or something. Can anyone that heard all of this verify it and should include it in the article? 82.38.55.11 13:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Big donations and Greenpeace

I'm finding conflicting information about the following claim on one of Greenpeace's web sites:

Greenpeace has a strong policy against donations from companies, governments and political parties, and big donations from single sources. The organisation claims this policy permit them the bigger freedom of movement in their action, and the ability to be supported from people from any political background.

From their staff profiles at http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/inside/profilestext.htm:

Penelope Winkler, Director of Special Contributors

Penelope directs Greenpeace's Special Contributors Program, overseeing some very talented Major Gifts, Foundations, Planned Giving, and Annual Giving staff. Penelope joined Greenpeace in 1999 after 16 years at World Wildlife Fund in the Development Office. In her life before WWF, she taught college English and edited a scholarly journal.

That would suggest that they do solicit "major gifts" and gifts from foundations as well as individuals, and have a number of staff members hired full time to solicit such gifts. In addition, their employee matching program explicitly accepts gifts from employers, i.e. corporations, that are matches of individual employee gifts. Wesley

Most organisations that rely on or prefer public donations usually have some sort of "major gifts" program. What defines a major gift is usually a one off donation of a signifigant amount, usually around USD10,000 though that's not a hard and fast figure. This usually involves soliciting funding for a specific project, such as a campaign against X or Y. If the organisation pretends to indpendence than these projects are first designed then budgeted for separately to fundraising who then goes out and finds someone to fund it. If you need clarification, you could always contact someone from Greenpeace and ask them to explain it, the organisation may lack transperancy but it's not as opaque as some would like to imply.

Maybe there needs to be a Wikipedia article on fundraising to explain exactly what it means and that in todays modern world, there are virtually no organisations who don't have large teams of full time professional fundraisers soliciting donations, from the Red Cross to the Humane Society. I know that here in Oz, like in many other countries, people are often shocked to find this out, prefering to believe that the fundraisers who secure the many millions of dollars required to keep their favourite charity afloat are actually earning a living from it and not existing on good vibes or the love of it. LutherBlissett

Open campaign

I Removed the section below because it seems to be fairly off topic from Greenpeace SimonP 20:12 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

--- Viewed this way, Wikipedia is arguably an open campaign to create an online encyclopedia and Meta-Wikipedia is arguably an open campaign to govern an online encyclopedia. ---

I put it back. This was discussed and agreed on vfd. If not kept here, it will go back to open campaign, which is also fine by me.

I think it would probably be fine in open campaign, but I can't fathom what it would be doing in Greenpeace. - Hephaestos 12:22 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Because of this perhaps.

But putting it back over there is ok.

Ecoterrorism?

"Nevertheless, some people also consider Greenpeace an ecoterrorist organisation."

"Which people?"

"These people!"

"What, them? You can't be serious!"

"Well, how about this guy Dan S. Borne"

"He's the head of the Louisiana Chemical Association!"

"Umm ... how about the Institute for Cetacean Research?"

"You do realise that's the Japanese whaling industry you're talking about there, don't you?"

"Oh ... guess you've got a point."

"Ta."

Google finds about 600 pages explaining that Greenpeace is an ecoterrorist organization, and I just find it totally unacceptable to censor this important interpretation. The American Enterprise Institute in particular is a more serious and more influential institution than Greenpeace itself, and it is not justifiable to humiliate their classification. --Lumidek 16:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-- addition-- 1/1/2005 TM Lutas ecoterrorism/ecoterrorist google search As of writing, it's 2000 pages though some of that is Greenpeace denying the charge.

My own opinion is that Greenpeace is one of the Sinn Feins of the environmental movement, a nice political front with overlapping memberships with violent groups. How the money flows in all this is unclear.

--end addition--

Lumidek, if you'd like to improve the article, why don't you contribute a well-researched, balanced section summarising the major criticisms of Greenpeace? Inserting claims about 'ecoterrorism' in the opening paragraphs does nothing for the neutrality of the article, and cloaking these claims in NPOV language such as "Some people believe" doesn't quite cut it either. The implicit claim that lies in the usage of the term terrorism (eco or otherwise) is that Greenpeace is an organisation that engages in violence against civilians to achieve political ends. Given that the mission statement explicitly commits the organisation to nonviolent means, this is not a credible claim to make.

Some people believe that the international finance system is controlled by lizards from outer space, but that doesn't mean the claim should be included in the Wikipedia entry on banking. Dirtbiscuit

American Enterprise Institute, for example, is not "some people" like those who believe by "control by lizards from outer space". AEI is a very influential think tank with $30 million of funding. This intitute is more valuable than Greenpeace, you, Connolley, and all other ecoterrorists in the world altogether, and if you want to continue in your outrageous insults, try to realize that there are courts that can punish such a behavior. --Lumidek 14:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the American Enterprise Institute, as influential as it may or may not be, doesn't appear to have accused Greenpeace of 'eco-terrorism'. They merely published a piece - in the daily, web-only 'Hot Flashes' column, mind you - by Marc Levin, of the 'American Freedom Center', which claimed that America was experiencing an "epidemic of eco-terror". The article then went on to detail the alleged activities of the so-called Earth Liberation Front in committing various acts of arson, vandalism and graffiti.

Levin's article is propaganda at its crudest. Despite liberal usage throughout the article, he makes no attempt to define eco-terrorism, a loaded term which, especially in the current political climate, invokes images of suicide bombing, aircraft hijacking and the horror of the September 11 attacks. In using it to describe the activities of ELF, Levin deliberately collapses the legal and moral gulf between vandalism and the politically motivated murder of civilians.

But he doesn't stop there. Levin goes on the invoke a third implied definition of eco-terrorism when he uses it to describe Greenpeace protests. Leaving aside his choice of pejorative verbs ("broken into", "overrun" etc) and the bizarre claim about a French sailboat being rammed during the 2003 America's Cup, Levin attempts to tar Greenpeace with the terrorist brush by gradually expanding the definition of terror from an act of political violence directed at civilians, to a politically motivated act of damage to property, to acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, including this!

But I suppose that's the nature of words like 'eco-terrorist'. Like 'communist' or 'fascist', they are at their most insidious when their definition is loosest. That way, they can be cast at anyone one happens to disagree with - which, Lumidek, you appear to have done not only in your edits to this article, but in your comments above. Dirtbiscuit

I apologize but the movements and ideologies called fascism, communism, and ecoterrorism are much more dangerous and insidious than the usage of the same words communism, fascism, and ecoterrorism. In fact, I am not aware of a single case of using these three words that would be comparably dangerous as these movements themselves. Therefore, your argument does not have any value in my eyes - the only value is that I think that your comparison of ecoterrorism with communism and fascism is apt, although exaggerated. Greenpeace and other ecoterrorists are not just disagreeing with me (or someone else). They are destroying the property, damaging the profit and doing other harm to individuals, companies and whole societies who usually don't violate the law, unlike Greenpeace. Yes, anyone who is doing such things (as Greenpeace) should be known. Finally, you should note that the definitions on the pages ecoterrorism and Greenpeace are virtually identical, and 30 percent of people immediately think of the other word if someone says one of them. From this point of view, censorship of the link between these two words is an unjustifiable act of censorship. --Lumidek 10:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 11:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)) How about addressing the point made above that the AEI doesn't actually accuse GP of ecot? Can you point us to some utterance (of the AEI) that supports your POV? (ps: even if you do this is still not appropriate for the intro: see dirtbiscuits suggestion above).

You can't expect that it is easy to find an official document saying "Greenpeace are ecoterrorists" because this is just terminology, and documents of AEI have some contents. Nevertheless, you can read [1], you can search for "Greenpeace" at [2] to see what AEI thinks about it, and you may also see the page about Public Interest Watch [3], where the ecoterrorist tag for Greenpeace was used by the president of the American Freedom Center. See also [4]. Read also this article [5] about the ultimate eco-terrorist, Paul Watson who founded Greenpeace. See other articles about environmentalism at [6].

(William M. Connolley 12:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)) This is good. Instead of just making claims, you have backed them up. I am now happy to accept that the AEI *has* called GP ecot's (the language is explicit; the document is copyright AEI). But the comments about positioning still stand.

Last night, Greenpeace tried to seize a giant cargo ship. 12 ecoterrorists (call them simply criminals, if you don't want to be specific) were arrested.[7]

Actually, of all of the sources cited by Lumidek above, only one - the article by Levin - uses the term "eco-terrorist" to describe Greenpeace. The others may use "ecoterrorist" interchangeably with "environmentalist", or refer to Greenpeace in passing, but if you're just looking at material published on the internet, direct accusations of "eco-terrorism" are suprisingly rare. Levin's article and a 2001 media release issued by the Institute of Cetacean Research (ie the Japanese whaling industry) are the most prominent, but you've got to look pretty hard to find much more than that.

I'm no lawyer, but perhaps the reason why it is difficult to find "official document[s]" which make this claim is that it could be considered libelous. If you use the word "terrorist" to describe an individual or an organisation, you are effectively accusing them of engaging in politically motivated murder of civilians, and its a not an accusation that one should make lightly.

Incidentally, do you think the article would be more balanced if the second paragraph included the sentence "Many people and influential organisations describe Greenpeace as sailormongerers"? Dirtbiscuit

I think one of the key issues to consider in the use of the term eco-terrorist is whether it can be used without being a pejorative term. Not surprisingly there's been a similar discussion going on at Talk:Eco-terrorism. Here's two perspectives from that discussion that I found useful:

"OK. I'm trying to work on the article towards NPOV - I think calling non-violent action "terrorism" is too strong. Maybe the article should only mention actual destructive, dangerous or threatening acts, and note that there is a contrast between these and non-violent acts..."

and the response from RK:

"The FBI's definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social goals". So ecoterrorism does seem to be a valid term."

It seems to me that at some point you have to discuss which definition of terrorism to use when thinking about eco-terrorism. Two different definitions are offered in the two quotes above. Wikipedia offers two other definitions:

-Bush is the antichrist, comes up 500,000 on a google search. Therefore I demand that since such a sizeable proportion of the population acknowledges this statement, it deserves its equal mention in the appropriate article.... And seriously, some of you were acting like civil disobedience was the great satan of terror.-

1. Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population.
2. "Terrorism" is also used as a pejorative characterisation of an enemy's attacks as conforming to an immoral philosophy of violence, in a manner outside of warfare, or prohibited in the laws of war.

I think the critical difference among these four definitions as it relates to this discussion is whether or not they include the use of violence or the "unlawful use of force" against property under their definition of terrorism. For even more definitions see Google's Definitions of Terrorism on the Web. mennonot 16:32, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head there - can "unlawful use of force" against property reasonably be described as terrorism? And if so, should we therefore be revising the entry on the Boston Tea Party to reflect this? Talk:Eco-terrorism is probably the best place to try and work that one out. Quick! To the wikimobile! Dirtbiscuit

Danish convict Greenpeace activists under anti-terror law. Also, if you consider the American embargos on nations like Cuba and Iraq to have been 'violent' (some describe it as such) then there is an argument for considering this as a subnational organisation using violence to promote a political (and environmental) agenda. AnonCoward

Note that the conviction of the organisation in Denmark was for trespass (individuals entered a building of a farming association to unfold a banner from the roof). No violence involved whatsoever. The new law made it possible to prosecute organisations, even if no financial gain was intended. This case has stirred interest from other non-governmental organisations, such as Amnesty International and trade unions, who fear that it may have a chilling effect on organisations exercising civil rights in protests.

Here's an idea. How about trying out some terms that are more specific and less confusing than "terrorist". There have been several phrases used in this discussion that almost everybody agrees on the meaning. "Ecoterrorism" is about as useful and specific as "direct action". Both are terms intended to confuse rather than elucidate. Terms like "illegal" and "destructive" are fairly clear when used in the discussion and could probably be used in a proplerly constructed paragraph to convey the criticism against Greenpeace tactics. Here's a sample sentence "Many people (including whoever you want to cite if you think it adds) have criticized Greenpeace for staging illegal, dangerous, private- property destroying stunts to attract media attention to a cause."208.216.38.120 22:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Boffur

What is the source of the statement in the article that Greenpeace is on the lists of named terrorist organisations of a number of countries, among which the US? This is new to me and I doubt the veracity of this statement.

• I have a problem with the current edit, especially this sentence: Greenpeace is listed on several counter-terrorism organizations lists of known terrorist organizations, or organizations known to conduct and collaborate in terrorist activity, among them... [] ...Federal Bureau of Investigation (which removed Greenpeace from their list several years ago). If the FBI took them out of their list, they can hardly be cited as listing them, can it? Mentioning the FBI used to list them, but the listing was revoked, and for what reason, is the "correct" presentation of the situation. --Agamemnon2 09:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Go for it. -Will Beback 09:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

---So what are you suggesting? That it be changed to now say something to the effect of "They were once listed by the FBI, but have since been removed??" It seems clear enough to me as is. Swatjester 10:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

TDC's criticisms

(William M. Connolley 20:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I removed quite a bit. Firstly the AEI para: well they would say that wouldn't they?

Secondly the far-north stuff. What destroyed the native-way-of-life wasn't environmentalists embargoes, it was contact with the industrialised world.

First of all, thats not really for you to decide now is it? Secondly, Although the native way of life was drasticly changed centuries ago, thanks to greenpeace, they now have nearly no ability to support themselves financialy. TDC 20:40, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Well its not for you to decide either, is it? Selling fur to industrialised countries hardly represents a traditional way of life.

Its for neither one of us to decide. Its up to the reader. We present facts, readers decide on what those mean. TDC 20:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

AEI is hardly an industry front group as you would have the entry read. TDC 20:43, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

To the contrary, its entry makes it pretty clear thats exactly what it is.

So, the AEI is nothing more than a front group for industry? I think they might dispute that. TDC 20:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Why do you fear the inclusion of this information? Does it embarrass you? Does it make you feel bad about GP? Are you afraid others will read it and come away with an unfavorable impression of it?

(William M. Connolley 21:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Your additions are 100% misleading.

Misleading how? Misleading in that there are: no criticims against greenpeace (false) or no credible criticsm against greenpeace (POV).

My recent additions are 100% factually accurate, and completely relevant. Either show me they are otherwise, propose a reasonable compromise, or shut the fuck up.

(William M. Connolley 21:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Tut tut. Personal abuse. Back off.

I don’t lose edit wars. TDC 20:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Now there's a rational sane wiki contributor...

Lets walt through whats wrong with your revisions:

Greenpeace supporters however point out that this is not surprising, since the AEI represents precisely those organisations against which Greenpeace campaigns against.

1. AEI does not "represent" any one specific group. AEI is a thinktank, not a front group.

I agree the AEI doesn't rep any one group. It represents a whole pile of groups and attitudes, all/most of could be guessed a priori to be anti-greenpeace.

2. I dont see why you continue to remove the information about ELF. Do you dispute that Greenpeace has no ties to the ELF, or do you dispute that AEI claims there are no ties between the ELF and Greenpeace?

(William M. Connolley 20:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)) You can't just stuff in crit without some indication of validity. Just because organisation X wants to make vaguely defined claims of eco-terr isn't good enough.

Well then, I will provide a link to AEI's article's. TDC 21:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

It (presumably) fails to point out that the (moral?) decline of the indigenous population was not caused by environmental organisations but by contact with industrial society. Greenpeace doesn't hand out welfare: governments do.

3. The point of the documentary was/is not to make the point that the general decline of indigenous populations is because of the ban on seal products, but it is making the point that the indigenous populations economy has been destroyed by environmental activists. An economy based on a centuries old practice, seal hunting, and while once they could support themselves through hunting seals, they now have to rely on handouts.

(William M. Connolley 20:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Which is nonsense. They are still able to do what they have done for centuries. What they can't do it hunt on a larger scale and sell it to industrialised countries.

Indigenous peoples have been selling fur to western nations for at least 400 years. And in several nations, the hunting of seals, by all people, has been banned. TDC 21:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

4. And the last line, really has no place in this or any article. Readers are not supposed to be given conclusions, only provided the information to come to those conclusions on their own.

You mean, readers are to be given the info you want. Your pet documentary complaints that the poor indigenes are reduced to welfare dep - and presumably this is a bad thing. Who provides this welfare dep is then important.

First, have you even seen the documentary? If not then I can't see how you personaly can dispute anything it says. Secondly, its not about natives bieng on welfare, it about why they are on welfare, namely the destruction of a centuries old industry. TDC 21:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

5. Why do you insist on removing the injunction and lawsuit filed against Gudmundsson by Greenpeace? Seems relevant to me.

Seems designed to make GP seem litigous without adding anything useful. Why is it in a "crit of GP" section? Presumably, because its intended as a snide crit.

Well, please explain why greenpeace filed the suit? Seems to me the only reason they did it was to stop information critical of them to be widely publicized. TDC 21:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Here are some good links on the seal hunting issue.

http://www.newgrounds.com/seals/index.html TDC 21:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

But this is all just a start, my next addition will be on Greenpeace's idiotic opposition to GM foods. TDC 20:31, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Have you actualy read your revesion? It makes no sense. Please at least try and revise it into a more coherent though. It looks like a 4th grader wrote it. TDC 21:39, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

The AEI, Marc Levin and accusations of eco-terrorism

This isn't the first time that accusations of "eco-terrorism" have been inserted in this article (see previous discussion on this Talk page and at Talk:Eco-terrorism). TDC doesn't appear to have considered this discussion very closely - it is also a great shame that this editor is prepared to offensively abuse those who disagree with their particular point of view.

Even if you treat Google as the fount of all knowledge, it should be clear that it wasn't the AEI that applied the eco-terrorism label to Greenpeace, it was Marc Levin, a one-time contributor to their journal's web-only "Hot Flashes" column. Anyone can submit an article, and they publish a new one every day, which might explain how a piece as flimsy and poorly argued as Levin's ended up there.

We're all familiar with the standard disclaimers found in magazines and journals which distinguish between the opinions of the editors and those of contributors. I don't have a print copy of The American Enterprise to hand, but I'm sure that this universal disclaimer would be found there, as it is in any publication of reasonable standing (or at least, any publication worth suing).

The AEI is hardly a bastion of neutrality [8], and any claims that they may make about environmental NGOs should be regarded with this in mind. However, as far as I can see, the older and larger right-wing think thanks have been cautious about directly applying the "eco-terrorism" label to Greenpeace, perhaps because they have more to lose than unfunded amateurs such as Levin.

Levin is a former right-wing student activist at the University of Texas' Austin campus. Since graduating, he has been a prolific producer of conservative commentary and has had his writing published across a variety of conservative websites. His writing tends towards inflammatory, and it appears that he has at least some tendency to disown or dismiss his own expressed opinions when challenged [9]. Considering this alongside the numerous logical flaws and factual errors contained within his piece on eco-terrorism, Levin's credibility as a source is about as close to zero as you can get, despite the thin gloss of respectability provided by the AEI's decision to publish his piece on their site. The eco-terrorism claim should be removed.

More reading from Disinfopedia:

• Marc Levin
• American Enterprise Institute
• Eco-terrorism

Dirtbiscuit 00:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How in God’s name can you criticize the AEI for not being a “bastion of neutrality” while at the same time provide me link to Disinfopedia? Do you not see any contradiction?

Anyways it’s a moot point. The AEI info is no longer in the article. TDC June 29, 2005 18:56 (UTC)

NPOV over sailormongering charge

The article describes the Greenpeace activists who illegally boarded a ship at sea to protest illegal logging as "peaceful protestors". While this is the description used by Greenpeace and its supporters, I don't see how Rd232 (author of that section) can reconcile describing the act of boarding a ship at sea as "peaceful" with the NPOV policy. "Non-violent protestors" might be more appropriate. Would anybody care to comment? (I want to give supporters of the wording an opportunity to reply before I change the article.) -- DPJ, 31 Aug 2005 02:15 UTC

• How about "extremely stupid"? Approaching another ship, particularly in small boarts, is likely to get one shot as a pirate because that is generally how pirates operate. Flying a Greenpeace banner merely indicates they are politically savvy pirates camouflaging themselves. (SEWilco 04:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC))

"Non-violent" sounds appropriate. One can be aggressive in a non-violent way. -Willmcw 08:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody defended the old wording, I have made the change. Was the NPOV flag at the start supposed to be in response to this point? (The history logs don't make it clear.) If so, it should be removed. -- DPJ, 5 Sep 2005 20:34 UTC

---

Oh dear... This is all I need! A POV tag on a great page! Some people do not really udnerstand environmentalism. Oh well..! --Kilo-Lima 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That statement proves that, like many eco-liberals, you take the general statement, and not the details involved, as fact. The POV tag is perfectly justified, because Wikipedia is NOT a place to advertise beliefs and political/social positions. Just a place to state facts. ThePacMan 20:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the POV tag is wholley justified. Wikipedia must come under the strictest scrutiny to maintain high standards, especially with POV. This should be done regardless to personal beliefs. It is very wrong to say that the people who added the tag "does not understand environmentalism". Just because an article is on a subject which is supported by a reader does not mean that the reader should regard any critisicm as "they don't really understand X" or "they don't really care about Y". --Ukdragon37 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what you do, do something, currently sailormongering links here... to a nonexistent section. 68.39.174.238 03:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable Critiicsm

I am by far not an expert on Greenpeace, but I notice a disturbing lack of criticsm against the organization. I am certain that there are notable, however legitimate, claims that Greenpeace is not merely a nonviolent organization, but a criminal one. The implied defence of asking for money of their supports is rhetoric that I am unsure should belong here. While the article reads well, it is written in a sympathetic tone, without balancing criticsm. Specificly, I note that there is no explanation of 'why the french bombed the rainbow warrior, implying that it was simple caprice. Someone who knows the subject better than I would do well to vette this article.--Tznkai 18:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the link in the article to sinking of the Rainbow Warrior? --129.173.105.28 22:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A criminal organisation? Sure, sometimes Non Violent Direct Action requires breaking the law, but nobody implies that the founding fathers of the US of A were a criminal organisation because they chose to break unjust laws. Suggesting that Greenpeace is a "criminal" organisation and putting it into the same basket as the Mafia or Texas Republican Party is blatant POV

Oh get over it. If you break the law, you are a criminal. You just admitted yourself that they broke the law. The Founding Fathers were criminals because they chose to berak unjust laws. Sure they were patriots, but they were criminals to the British. Suggesting that they're NOT criminal because you agree with their cause is FLAGRANTLY POV. BTW, nice jab against the Texas Republican Party.....you have no right to be calling anyone out on POV with remarks like that. Swatjester 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

By that definition, everybody is a criminal, because nobody is faultless. --KimvdLinde 01:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I surrender! I have cross the street even when there have been red light on! Seriously, after working 4 years on GP I haven't founded anything suspicios. Believe me, I have kept my eyes open! But still, it's good that people are careful with their donations. But please, be ready have evidence on your accusation before firing them. Thank you!

Four years working for GP and nothing suspicious? Does not GP protest oil companies? Does not GP protest loggers and paper companies? How much money does anyone want to bet that while a GP member is out there protesting Kleenex for making toilet paper from trees, this same man is wiping his own butt from the same paper from the same company, made from the same trees. And while GP is surrouning the oil company's drilling platform, he's going to drive his little speed boat home, hop into his car for the nearest gas station, and get products for both boat and car from the same people he's protesting. That's isn't criminal activity...it's a refusal to practice what they preach! It's called HYPOCRISY! Carajou 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look into how many air miles GP campaigners, etc. rack up. It boggles the mind! Everytime I bump into someone from GP they're off to the other side of the world or just getting back from it. But I guess they reckon their work is important enough to justify pumping all that carbon into the atmosphere. And they offset, of course.

OK - there's some good debate in there but I don't want to get bogged down in the detail. However, i agree wholeheartedly with the point that there is a woeful lack of criticism for GP. The wikipedia site shouldn't be the home page for GP or any other organisation. I'd go so far as to say that, if GP hasn't faced further criticism than described in the time it has existed, then it hasn't been working hard enough. Criticism has included playing fast and loose with the truth in order to sensationalise issues eg massively over-representing hydrocarbon content of Brent Spar at the time of their campaign. They apologised afterwards and said they made a mistake but it remains a criticism. There's more .. any energy for making this a more objective and therefore credible representation?--Okram999 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Terrorism

Only definitions from politically neutral sources of information should be cited when discussing the terrorist status of Greenpeace. The FBI is not pollitcally neutral, nor are other national counter-terrorism organizations.

According to certain neutral definitions, Greenpeace IS a terrorist organization; however, according to others, it IS NOT. To achieve neutrality, try stating this in your article, and include links to the definitions.

Since the definition of terrorism varies among sources, it is OK to include accusations that refer to Greenpeace as a terrorist organization. However, also include opinions from organizations that assert the peacefulness of Greenpeace. Also, maybe somebody could include a section in the article that discusses the opposing views.

It seems to be like this would make the article as neutral as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.198.222.59 (talk • contribs) .

Nonsense. You don't get to just say "Oh I don't think the FBI is politically neutral, therefore their definition doesn't count. Neutrality doesn't mean that for every pro there is an opposite con. It means neutral and without bias. The FBI and other counter-terrorism intelligence agencies do not want additional work, and if GP was just a regular activist organization that did not raise any alarms, they'd be more than happy. Swatjester 03:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The FBI is politcally biased because its Director is nominated directly by the president. The president has no reason not to use this nomination to further his politcal goals. Greenpeace actively opposes the ideals of the Bush administration; therefore, it is advantageous for Bush to nominate a candidate who will try to silence the organization. The FBI doesn't want more work? Please! The FBI is an integral part of America's law enforcement system and was not created to do as little work as possible. If the FBI does not want more work, as you claim, it would ignore the mere civil disobedience of Greenpeace and focus on fighting the terrorism that has resulted in the deaths of tousands of American citizens! When a government charges an organization with an 1872 law against sailormongering, you can bet it has some politcal goals. The FBI's definition of terrorism is essentially Mr. Bush's. Why don't we all just use the PRC's definition of democracy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.198.222.59 (talk • contribs) .

¨

I agree with some of the statements above, but not the conclusions and the tasteless remarks. Indeed, there is bound to be some quantity of bias in the Bureau's politics, but how that bias affects day-to-day operations is impossible to quantify. Stating GP is the target of a deliberate politically-motivated attack is impossible to verify. --Agamemnon2 06:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, more nonsense. The director is nominated directly by the president, but he is still a law enforcement agent, sworn to uphold and protect the constitution, as is ALL OF THE PAID EMPLOYEES BENEATH HIM. Are you seriously implying that every single FBI agent is "out to get them greenpeace hippies?" And don't even START with the FBI not fighting terrorism. When I was in Iraq I did several raids with the FBI, and we had one unfortunate agent who was stuck as a liasion officer for a full year! Your comments show bias and ignorance to the realities of federal law enforcement. A sit in is civil disobedience. A march, or a planned protest is civil disobedience. Obstructing commerce and boarding private vessels to hinder their operation is terrorism. Swatjester 06:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is difficult to quantify the level of partiality within the FBI. However, I never once said that the FBI doesn't fight terrorism. I said that instead of FOCUSSING solely on terrorism (and other equally important matters), the FBI is busy charging Greenpeace members with civil disobedience. I'd like you to explain to me how Greenpeace is terrorizing the general public by obstructing commerce and boarding private vessels. Even according to the FBI these are not acts of terrorism: "A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." How are these acts violent? How do they endanger human life? Moreover, just because someone is sworn to uphold the constitution, it does not mean that he/she is unbiased (the constitution is open to interpretation you know, hence the existence of supreme court judges). Also, I did not mean to imply that every FBI employee is out to get Greenpeace. It is George Bush, who essentially directs FBI policy, who is "out to get" Greenpeace, if you will. (Refer to the accusations of sailormongering for evidence).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.198.222.59 (talk • contribs) .

I'm curious about why a definition of terrorism needs to involve a mention of "the United States". If we replace that part with just "... in violation of the criminal laws of the state in which the act takes place, to intimidate..." then it seems as though the war in Iraq (or any other war) is also an act of terrorism. - James Foster 17:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Again, I say nonsense. You ask me "I'd like you to explain to me how Greenpeace is terrorizing the general public by obstructing commerce and boarding private vessels.". How simple is this. If Greenpeace tried to board my boat I'd shoot them right off in fear of my life and my family's lives. Greenpeaces acts are intended to intimidate or coerce the government and civilians in furtherance of their own extremist political and social objectives. I'm very sorry for you that you cannot or will not accept that the federal government is correct. I'm also sorry that you cannot get over the whole "George Bush" thing. You are sounding like a radical left-winger, so let me make this clear to you: George Bush cannot unilaterally change the policy of the FBI. The FBI has ALWAYS been investigating extremist organizations, and they've had their eyes on Greenpeace long before Bush came to power. You really think that Greenpeace was off the terrorism radar before Bush? Incorrect, and in fact before Bush they were on the FBI's list of terrorist organizations, and were only removed UNDER Bush. Your insinuations that Bush is out to get Greenpeace sound frankly paranoid. If greenpeace would stop taking radical actions to further their extremist goals, the FBI would not need to spend their time investigating them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swatjester (talk • contribs) .

• In my first comment, I simply intended to use the FBI as an example of a politically biased counter-terrorism agency that is incorrectly referring to Greenpeace as a terrorist organization. Obviously the FBI was a bad example. There are still other national security agencies in the US and elsewhere that incorrectly declare Greenpeace an organization of terrorism. The "radical actions" of Greenpeace do not equate to terrorism. There are many people who are frightened by a stranger knocking on their door at night. Does that mean that these strangers should be charged with terrorism? Of course not. Terrorism involves violence and the endagerment of life, not just the infliction of fear. You still haven't explained to me how Greenpeace's stunts involve the two. Until somebody finds an international/neutral definition suggesting otherwise, Greenpeace should not be referred to as terrorist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.198.222.59 (talk • contribs) .

Terrorism paragraph

The claim that greenpeace is listed as a terrorist organisation is unsubstantiated, and can not be proven. The court procedures in which they try to use anti-terrorist laws does not equal to be a terrosist organisation, nor does the fact that the FBI keeps information about greenpeace indicate that it is considered an terrorist organisation. The linked sources do not provide proof that it has been listed as a terrorist organisation:

• "While it is quite true that ELF and ALF use "violent" tactics -- it is for this very reason that they do not belong in same category as Reclaim Streets, Global Justice, Greenpeace, et al -- these groups strike against property, not people." No mention of being listed as a terrorist organisation (http://www.notbored.org/army-statement.html)
• greenpeace is only mentioned in passing, no claim "The ACLU said it received 2,357 pages of files on PETA, Greenpeace, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the ACLU itself." same original source as above (http://www.aaiusa.org/must_read_news/2005/must_read12_20_05.htm)
• most articles showing up at google are either this page, or the few articles and thier mirror already listed here.

Consequently, I think the paragraph needs to be rewritten to the Danish using anti-terrorist laws to prosecute greenpeace (outcome still unknown?), and nothing beyond that. --KimvdLinde 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The current paragraph on terrorism does not - even by its own sources - prove that Greenpeace is considered a "terrorist" organisation by any government. being investigated - or even prosecuted - on charges labelled as terrorism does not make an individual or group terrorist in nature. unless there are particular cites - e.g. a list of prohibited organisations including Greenpeace under the category of "terrorism" - the current paragraph should be scrapped, as it does not claim the group to be terrorist, but rather, claims that it is on such a list for several countries. Groups such as ActivistCash, the American Enterprise Institute, and so on are openly lobbying organisations which represent the interests of their particular industries and component companies. Not a credible source. Would prefer to have an overview of ActivistCash.com that isn't from SourceWatch as that just degenerates the whole thing to a left vs right lobbyist slagging match. --Black Butterfly 23:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The folowing is the terrosism paragraph as I have removed. It shpuld not be reinbserted untill convincing EVIDENCE is provided that greenpeasce is actually listed as a terrorist organisation.

Greenpeace is listed on several counter-terrorism organizations lists of known terrorist organizations, or organizations known to conduct and collaborate in terrorist activity, among them including the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and the maritime counter-terrorism agencies of the UK, Germany, the European Union and Australia. It was also listed on a similar list by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but has since been removed. [10] [11][12] [13]

-KimvdLinde 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

removed POV tag. Was added by anonymious contributer, without talk information. The only contribution for the IP-number 198.139.171.3 was the POV tag in greenpeace article at 13:22, 18 November 2005. --KimvdLinde 01:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

They are protesting everything. Even if we won't call them terrorist, they can cause neagtive effects on situations. Because of Greenpeace, I started to hate this kind of organizations. With respect, Deliogul 12:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Forbes article link

To --KimvdLinde

You removed a link that I added with the comment of " removed link that is largly unsubstantiated ". The link is to an article first published in Forbes Magazine in 1991. Many of the details in the article have been substantiated from varíous sources. I will repost the link and cite some of the sources here. If you can show that any of the details in the article are false, then by all means, feel free to cite any opposing views/sources here SammytheSeal 22:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The article in question starts with:

The SECRET to David McTaggart's success is the secret to Greenpeace's success: It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true…You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine.

The cynical description of the organization Greenpeace comes not from some right-winger annoyed at the excesses of the environmentalist movement but from Paul Watson, cofounder of Greenpeace and now director of a rival ecology group, the Sea Shepherd Society.

Basically, it takes a quote of someone who left Greenpeace because he had other ideas about how to do environmental activism. The article goes on to document many opinions etc primarily over McTaggart and his contribution to Greenpeace, which ended 15 years ago. Not a example of the current status. In that way, thousants of articles can be added that all have a small piece to add. But I do not think it is really helpful. --KimvdLinde 03:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely that the article does not reflect current status. Greenpeace continually criticises Japanese " vote buying " at the IWC even to this day. It is a documented fact that Francisco Palacio was installed as the IWC commissioner for St. Lucia, Paul Gouin was installed as the IWC commissioner for Panama and Richard Baron was installed as the IWC commissioner for Antigua. All of this is relevant, especially in view of the continued Moratorium today.

In what way do you believe that the article is not "really helpful"? The history of Greenpeace is littered with such morally and legally questionable incidents, even to this day. Surely Wikipedia should present ( or at least provide links ) to material which questions motives or shows another view?

Not an example of Current status? Lets look at the Greenpeace Stunt in Germany a few weeks ago...

" A dead fin whale washed up on the German coast - it was extremely thin and at least a minimum of two weeks dead. The whale was to be transferred to Stralsund marine museum for a Necropsy to determine the cause of death and then have the skeleton removed for eventual display.

Greenpeace contacted Dr Harald Benke, of the German Oceanographic Museum in Stralsund and offered to take over the cost and arrangements of transporting the fin whale to Stralsund. He agreed ....

Did they do this however? No, not right away - what they did was hire cranes and a truck and load the whale onto the low loader,and then drive the whale to Berlin, Germany and park the stinking rotting Fin whale for approximately 18 hours in front of the Japanese embassy in Berlin. Never mind the stink, never mind the leaking blood and bodily fluids of the whale which leaked during the transport onto open roads and in front of the embassy, and never mind the health of the few thousand members of the public who came to see the whale in front of the embassy - Greenpeace showed a complete disregard for amongst other things - the public health of the people who came to see the whale - a complete disregard for Dr Harald Benke, who, upon finding out what had happened, said " If I had realised what they were going to do, I would NEVER have agreed to it" by embarrassing the scientist both personally and professionally, Greenpeace have most probably lost the support of a respected scientist, who will never trust them again. "

As I wrote earlier, feel free to Cite sources refuting the claims in the deleted article, I´ll present sources backing it up shortly SammytheSeal 09:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the scientist was so angry after all:

The director of the museum, Harald Benke, said he was initially angry to learn that Greenpeace had "kidnapped" the whale by taking it on a detour to Berlin, but later realised that the protest had served a purpose.

This whale in Berlin spoke more loudly against whale hunting than many words," he said. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19012006/323/greenpeace-dumps-dead-whale-japanese-embassy-berlin.html

It would be nice if you would provide a link to your quote, as I could not find it back at google.--KimvdLinde 14:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/berlin/518839.html ( German ) Any comment on the public health risk?

We could also discuss Greenpeace and Brent Spar for example, or even how Greenpeace anti-whaling actions effect or prolong the death of minke whales during hunts -I suggest you google Senet or Cato. We could even discuss why Greenpeace are protesting whaling by the Japanese and not by the Norwegians, even though Norway will hunt more whales than the Japanese in 2006 in an open commercial hunt. The Greenpeace anti whaling campaigns ( amongst other campaigns ) are littered with instances where Greenpeace has either blatantly lied or deliberately misinformed the public. Greenpeace are/ may not be the squeaky clean organisation they make themselves out to be - linking to a critical article as in the case of the Forbes article is simply presenting an opposing view of Greenpeace and attempts to balance the mostly blatant Pro Greenpeace links at the end of the article. SammytheSeal 15:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no public health risk mentioned in the article, and they do mention that the body of the whale was covered with sheets. The quote that you provided is not backed up by anything yet.

I think the article already discusses the Brent Spar, on which greenpeace admits to have misjudged the amount of toxic waste. About the effect of anti-whaling on the prloging of the death of mink whales, you could also argue that there wouldn's be any prologation if they were not hunted; it are two sides of the same coin. Furthermore, the article has a whole section on Criticism on greenpeace. I think it is more than fiar to have links to critical websites, but I do not think it is ok to have a bunch of links to opinion articles in which people are not providing backup for their accusations. As you can see, I have left the other link in, as I agree with the content, and it is clearly showing the stody from two sides, so that people can make up thier own mind. It is also clear to me that you have a strong POV about greenpeace, which is perfectly ok, but the purpose of wikipedia is to present information from a NPOV. --KimvdLinde 16:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of IWC delegates for the 1982 IWC meeting http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_dele82.html .. Note the delegates for St. Lucia and Antigua. Regarding the prolonging of death of Minke whales, Norway, Japan and Iceland Legally hunt minke whales under the auspices of the IWC - by conducting their actions, Greenpeace prolongs the suffering of these animals. Saying that " you could also argue that there wouldn's be any prologation if they were not hunted; " is Disingenious - the hunting of these whales is legal, despite Greenpeace´s claims to the contrary. Regarding my personal POV of Greenpeace, I actually believe they do a lot of good on various campaigns, however, that does not mean that I blindly believe every press release they issue - neither should anyone else - in order to provide a NPOV, it is neccessary to examine possible criticism of the subject and to determine the validity of the criticism. Which accusations in particular would you like to see backup / cites of? If you can list them here, it will save me time SammytheSeal 16:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So, greenpeace is using legal ways to get a say at places. What is different than saying hunting is legal (which is actually only legal for scientific reasons, a otivation that is questioned by whale researchers (including the many I know) in most countries), and getting a vote is legal. And on the critisms, I agree with you, but the forbes article is about McTaggart (who left GP 15 years ago) and is not backed up by sources. Nor was the later claim of you about health risks of the german whale, or the angry scientist. So, I for the moment do not see anything new to what is alredy in the article, which indicates the critism as well. --KimvdLinde 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

" So, greenpeace is using legal ways to get a say at places " ? Can you explain? Regarding "What is different than saying hunting is legal (which is actually only legal for scientific reasons, a otivation that is questioned by whale researchers (including the many I know) in most countries), and getting a vote is legal " Norway conducts an open commercial hunt, there is nothing scientific about it other than they collect DNA samples from each animal for a DNA register. The majority of the IWC scientific committee do not question the validity of Japanese scientific research and I quote from the IWC " "The results of the JARPA programme, while not required for management under the RMP, have the potential to improve it in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to he developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results of analyses of JARPA data could be used in this way perhaps to increase the allowed catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, without increasing the depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing Implementation Simulation Trials of the RMP for these minke whales." http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm

Regarding the German Fin whale, it was two to three weeks dead, stunk to high heaven and leaked bodily fluids despite the below freezing temperatures; it was not wrapped in plastic sheets, it lay on a plastic sheet on a low loader trailer. I personally witnessed many members of the public touching the whale with their bare hands as well as observing bodily fluids from the whale on the ground. I don´t need to be a micro biologist to realise that a three week dead stinking whale cadaver is a health hazard. I would also note that most of the greenpeace personell present had appropriate clothing and were gloved, unlike a lot of the public.

Regarding the angry scientist " Hätte ich von der Aktion in Berlin gewusst, hätte ich dem Transport durch Greenpeace nicht zugestimmt", sagte Museumschef Harald Benke." Seems pretty clear to me, he says that he would not have allowed it if he knew about it in advance - it seems he has now changed his mind or calmed down about the incident, but the point is that Greenpeace went behind his back and used him, without regard to possible personal and professional embarassment.

I disagree that the Forbes article is just about McTaggart, if you require sources, then please list the criticisms that you find objectionableSammytheSeal 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to add an opinion piece to an article, (s)he has to provide the backing up of that article. So, I would like to see that the picture of Greenpeace as provided by the article is substantiated by other sources and is still accurate nowadays. If not, is is just an opinion piece of 15 years old that might have more or less acurately pictured the organisation at that time.

On that basis, it could just as easily be stated that Greenpeace´s position on whaling is based on what happened with whaling over 30 years ago and no longer has any relevance on todays whaling!. Once again, which particular ´facts ´ from the Forbes article would you like to see sources/ cited?SammytheSeal 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The first reaction of the scientist is pretty clear, but the second as well. Yes, they went behind his back, but he seems not to mind it anymore. I argee, it would have been more professional if they had informed him beforehand.

The health issue is your observation. In the link you provided to me: "Der Wal lag derweil unter Plastikplanen vor der Botschaft. Als die Plane vom Körper entfernt wurde, roch es stark nach Verwesung." We can argue long about the personal responsibilities of the individuals touching it, the role of greenpeace in it, the actuall health risks, etc etc etc, but that does not seem right to me. You provided that to me as an actuall quote from a source that I have not yet seen backed up.--KimvdLinde 17:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Quote I think you are referring to is this one ? " A dead fin whale washed up on the German coast - it was extremely thin and at least a minimum of two weeks dead. The whale was to be transferred to Stralsund marine museum for a Necropsy to determine the cause of death and then have the skeleton removed for eventual display. Greenpeace contacted Dr Harald Benke, of the German Oceanographic Museum in Stralsund etc etc etc ?

If so, it´s from a small regional newspaper, not online.

Regarding the health issue, a three week old rotting corpse is a health hazard, I find it hard to believe that anyone could question that ;O). As to personal responsibilities, well, if Greenpeace had´nt dumped it there in the first place, we would not be having this disussion would we? .. Point is, it was a simple stunt, Greenpeace used the carcass to make a political point without regard of any public health consequenses - have a look here, http://www.greenpeace.de/themen/meere/nachrichten/artikel/wal_vor_japanischer_botschaft_wird_zur_pilgerstaette/ansicht/bild/ it shows the fin whale sitting on a plastic sheet uncovered - there are similar images all over the internet

Either way, none of this is really relevant to the deletion of the Forbes article link - if you have specific objections to any of the ´facts´ of the Forbes article, then please list them,I will quite happily research specific cites/sources, otherwise I will repost the link SammytheSeal 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, I have added the most obvious aspects in the article. My comments are in bolded parentheses:

Thankyou, I will add sources piece by piece SammytheSeal 22:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

detailed article discussion

I suggest you have also a look at this page: http://www.teenja.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_n6_v6/ai_17847913 and match that with this page. --KimvdLinde 02:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Not So Peaceful World of Greenpeace

By Leslie Spencer with Jan Bollwerk and Richard C. Morais

“The SECRET to David McTaggart's success is the secret to Greenpeace's success: (O, is that true? he as a failed busniness man... (your own link later indicates he was successful until a fire that bankrupted him.--KimvdLinde 15:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)). It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true…You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine."

The cynical description of the organization Greenpeace comes not from some right-winger annoyed at the excesses of the environmentalist movement but from Paul Watson, cofounder of Greenpeace and now director of a rival ecology group, the Sea Shepherd Society.

(Beyond watson, are there others who

have not left the organisation because they did not want to becme violent that substantiate the claim of Watson?)

Watson, who left Greenpeace in 1977, was talking about how the organization grew from a ragtag band of hippies to the largest environmental organization in the world, with a membership of 5 million and offices in 24 countries. Not the least ingredient in this success was a clever myth creation referred to by Watson.

Under its recently departed guru, David McTaggart, 59, the $157 million (1990 revenues) Greenpeace became a skillfully managed business, mastering the tools of direct mail and image manipulation (sources?)--and indulging in forms of lobbying that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit corporation.(sources?) Ironical, this, considering that McTaggart marketed Greenpeace as very much the nemesis of the powerful multinational corporation.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/080700-01.htm ( Direct mail ) Greenpeace U.S.A.'s membership is about 300,000, down from the million members it reported several years ago. It has a budget of about $20 million a year, raised mostly by costly direct mail. Its staff numbers about five dozen, after reductions under its former director, Kristen Engberg.

But the groups share something important, Mr. Passacantando said: an appreciation for attention-grabbing theatrics, on the streets or on the high seas, in support of their policy objectives

http://www.sellery.com/positions/gpusa/ ( Direct Mail )(Job Advertisment for Greenpeace ) Staff continues to move forward on the objectives for 2000, which include a new identity program to heighten the image and presence of Greenpeace, an expanded website, a major direct mail membership acquisition program, and relocation to new offices in a showcase ‘green’ building in Chinatown, D.C. Computer information systems and staff are in place supporting operations and finances throughout the organization. GPUSA currently has 292,000 supporters and an operating budget of $24.7 million. Sources of revenue include direct mail marketing, major gifts, foundations, planned giving, licensing, and newer initiatives utilizing direct tv and the internet.

http://www.alternet.org/story/5016/ ( skillfully managed business? )( Restructuring of GreenpeaceUSA ) RESTRUCTURING AT THE TOP

The upheaval at Greenpeace included the May resignation of Executive Director Barbara Dudley, who served five difficult years at the helm. And in August, in the wake of the layoffs, legendary Greenpeace activist, Earth First founder and Dudley antagonist Mike Roselle angrily resigned from the Greenpeace board of directors.

Dudley said she resigned exhausted from years of crisis management. "A week didn't go by without personnel problems, international political problems, fundraising problems. I'm just worn out and want to be an activist again instead of an administrator of a huge organization." Nevertheless, in major ways, the restructuring underway undermines much of what Dudley worked for. As one former high ranking insider put it, "There's been a fight for Greenpeace's USA's soul -- and the soul lost."

More tomorrow ;) SammytheSeal 22:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the number of contributers are going down, GP USA has worked/is working on their image, (what about greenpeace international, and the other 28 greenpeace country offices?) and what has that to do with condemnation of lobbying practises? --KimvdLinde 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You asked for sources regarding direct mail and image manipulation - above you have a small number from one of Greenpeace´s largest offices ( I can post many more all day but what´s the point? ) Lobbying sources to followSammytheSeal 08:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Greenpeace USA is due to how the country functions rather different from the rest. I remember only crossing out "image MANIPULATION", within the negative context of the whole article by me (and others) read as image distortion--KimvdLinde

http://www.tierramerica.net/english/2005/0604/idialogos.shtml ( interview with Gerd Leipold, International Executive Director ) Your predecessor Thilo Bode thought it was urgent to develop new fundraising methods, that the door-to-door approach was insufficient. Have you promoted new strategies?

- We have diversified. Internet fundraising plays a bigger role, other means through advertisement are being tested, but our major tool is still door-to-door fundraising, what we call direct dialogue (speaking to people in public places).

Are you are talking about image Distortion BY Greenpeace or AGAINST Greenpeace? Even you must admit that Greenpeace have been very effective at both image Manipulation + Distortion ( They are not too bad at manipulation and distortion of facts either when it suits them )but I digress ;)SammytheSeal 15:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The claim is that Greenpeace maniputaed the image of itself, with the general tone in the article as being deceptive. I still have to see examples of distortion of the image. --KimvdLinde 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I´ll start with the Whaling issue SammytheSeal 15:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The mythic image is of a band of young daredevils hanging off a refinery smoke stack or thrusting themselves in the path of the whaler's harpoon. This image has made a mighty impression. Greenpeace Germany, for instance, second largest branch operation after Greenpeace U.S.A., had revenues in 1990 of$36 million and 700,000 members, of whom 320,000 permit Greenpeace to automatically debit their bank accounts annually for the dues of 50 deutsche marks ($30).

But all is not peaceful in the inner workings of Greenpeace these days. The myth is fraying a little around the edges. Beginning in the spring of 1991, German publications have carried revelations of million of marks of donations being funneled into Greenpeace savings accounts rather than used to fight pollution. (Is it wrong to have a long term strategy?)

By no means is it wrong to have a long term strategy, and if you can cite sources that the funds / savings accounts were indeed intended for future "long term strategy", I´ll concede the pointSammytheSeal 12:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Greenpeace underwent a major shake-up on Sept. 2, 1991 with the announcement by its international headquarters in Amsterdam that David McTaggart had resigned as chairman after 12 years in the post. Replacing him was Helsinki civil rights lawyer Matti Wuori, 46; McTaggart became honorary chairman and says he will spend his time, among other things, on helping the Soviet Union clean up its environment. The timing was interesting, to say the least. There is some reason to believe that Wuori was brought in as a Mr. Clean to scrub Greenpeace's now somewhat bespattered image.

(Unsubstantiated)

Who is this somewhat mysterious David McTaggart regarded by many as a near saintly figure? McTaggart's skillful image manipulation begins with his own life story. There is the official version, as told in the 1989 book, The Greenpeace Story, and repeated over the years in many newspaper and magazine stories about the organization. According to this official version, McTaggart was once a successful real estate executive who saw the light at age 39 and decided to save the planet.

This version is myth. People who knew McTaggart in his earlier life say he was a failed real estate promoter who left investors and relatives in the lurch and departed before his projects failed (see page X). (If he was so failed, how did he make Greenpeace a sucess?)

http://www.obituary.com/mctaggartdavid.html Quote " As head of the California based Bear Valley Development Corporation, McTaggart was an unlikely candidate for the leadership of a radical environmental movement. The core of McTagget's million-dollar enterprise was deforesting huge tracts of California mountain land to establish ski slopes and tourist real estate, which he did successfully for nearly a decade. A self-made (and several times married) millionaire, McTaggart's life (and the course of the environmental movement) was forever changed in 1969. A gas leak at one of McTaggart's Bear Valley construction sites caused an explosion and devastating fire. Workers were injured and in the course of the resultant libel, damage and punitive suits McTaggart lost most of his fortune as well as his business clients. After the dust had settled in 1970, McTaggart allegedly purchased a 38-foot ketch named the Vega, left his wife and children behind and disappeared.SammytheSeal 12:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And the outcome of the libel, damage and punitive suits was? Was he convicted? Again, lose end --KimvdLinde 15:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Gertrude Huberty, mother of the third of McTaggart's wives, and one of several people who lost money with him(Other?) remembers him as a ruthless businessman. "David once told me that when you want something badly enough, you have to be willing to do anything to get it," she says, " Anything."

(Interpretation, did he mean that?)

Assuming he said that, then it would be logcal to assume that he meant it - of course, he could have been lying ;) more to follow SammytheSeal 12:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Many people say somethng along the line of :I do anything to get such or so", meaning that they do anything reaonably and legal to get it, not outside the law. The implication in the article is that he goes outside the law, and that needs to be proven. --KimvdLinde 15:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing he wanted badly was the leadership of Greenpeace. In 1979 a fierce fight broke out between the Vancouver operation and loosely affiliated rivals in the U.S. over the use of the Greenpeace name. By then McTaggart was active in Greenpeace's European operation, and he was famous for having been beaten by French agents when he tried to interfere, with a French nuclear test. The Vancouver founders filed a lawsuit to win control of the name. Many say it was an open battle between David McTaggart and cofounder and president Patrick Moore. Moore had the support of the Canadians, but the U.S. and European affiliates were squarely in McTaggart's camp. McTaggart emerged in 1980 with the chairmanship of Greenpeace International. Moore remained head of the Greenpeace Canada affiliate.

(Suggests that the motivation was

personal, not for the organisation, so what are the fact to substantiate that McTaggert did ths for his own power)

Of course, the millions of people who gave money and allegiance to the myth knew little of this internecine battling. There's a paradox here. Outfits like Greenpeace attack big business as being faceless and responsible to no one. In fact, that description better fits Greenpeace than it does modern corporations that are regulated, patrolled and heavily taxed by governments, reported on by an adversarial press an carefully watched by their own shareholders. There's little accountability for outfits like Greenpeace. (Maybe then, now: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/annual-report-2005.pdf) The media treat them with kid gloves. Press Greenpeace and it will reveal that McTaggart's salary was $60,000, but it won't say anything about other forms of compensation something a U.S. corporation would be compelled to reveal in its proxy statements.

While affiliates like Greenpeace U.S.A. and Germany have their own boards, the real power and much of the money belong to the international organization, (o, is this so?) which until his resignation was ruled by McTaggart from his olive farm in Perugia, Italy and or the Greenpeace office in Rome.

Amsterdam has the power because of all the cash up streamed from the 12 most prosperous national organizations, which must pay a kind of royalty for use of the name. The royalty is set at 24% of their net take from fund-raising. (So 76% is at the branch level, that is not MUCH of the money)Power is further consolidated at the center as no national office can start a campaign without the approval of the international council. (Factual incorrect)

How has Greenpeace used this power? Ruthlessly. There is a kind of ends-justify- the-means mentality at work here. Greenpeace pressured the University of Florida into firing marine biologist Richard Lambertsen in 1986. Lambertsen's offense: doing research that required tissue sample from whale organs, research that Greenpeace had decided wasn't scientifically useful. Greenpeace made the preposterous claim that Lambertsen was just a front for commercial whalers. Lambertsen, now at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, says his research was aimed at identifying whale diseases. Greenpeace's tactics, he says, included trucking protesters to the campus and flying over football games with banners that said "U of F stop killing whale."

While the media were enthusiastically recording Greenpeace staffers dodging harpoons from Zodiac inflatable dinghies, McTaggart was helping to pack the International Whaling Commission.

The commission was formed in 1946 in a treaty among the whaling nations to prevent the over-hunting of whales. The most closely affected nations were Japan, Iceland, the Soviet Union and Norway, but membership was open to any country that was willing to pay an annual fee of roughly $20,000 to $30,000 plus the cost of sending its representative to meetings. According to Francisco Palacio, a former Greenpeace consultant on marine mammals, he and McTaggart, working with their friends, came up with a way to bend the commission to the Greenpeace view that there should be an outright ban on whaling.

The whale savers targeted poor nations plus some small, newly independent ones Like Antigua and St. Lucia. They drafted the required membership documents for submission to the U.S. State Department. They assigned themselves or their friends as the scientists and commissioners to represent these nations at the whaling commission. For instance, Palacio, a Colombian citizen based in Miami, arranged to be the commissioner from St. Lucia. The commissioner from Antigua was Palacio's friend and lawyer, Richard Baron, also from Miami. McTaggart's friend Paul Gouin, a Moroccan-born French expatriate Jiving in Nassau, Bahamas, served as commissioner from Panama. According to Palacio, the Greenpeace-inspired commissioners enjoyed an annual all-expenses-paid ten-day trip with a $300-per-diem perk to attend commission meetings. Palacio says the group paid to fly a U.N. ambassador home to talk to his government into going along with the plan.

Between 1978 and 1982, Palacio says, the operation added at least half a dozen new member countries to the commission's membership to achieve the three-fourths majority necessary for a moratorium on commercial whaling, which it passed in 1982.

This project cost millions, says Palacio, including the commission membership payments picked up on behalf of cooperating members. "In membership fees the payments amounted to about $150,000 [a year], and then we had all the grease money throughout the years," says Palacio. The Frenchman Gouin, then in his 30's was the angel, funneling the funds through a Miami-based "foundation" called Sea Life Resources Institute. Where did Gouin get that kind of money? From trading investments, he says.

Greenpeace campaigns, like the save-the-whale one, (Refuted by Danish court --KimvdLinde 15:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)) often seem open and almost spontaneous. But they are carefully orchestrated, beginning with a network of investigators who collect tips from government officials, truck drivers and sympathetic employees at corporate targets of Greenpeace anti-pollution campaigns. One insider says that intelligence gathering includes a clandestine operation in Zurich (Coorborating sources?), a point that Matti Wuori denies. This much is clear. With its network of contacts, Greenpeace has turned itself into a vigilante group--vigilant in enforcing anti-pollution laws, but acting as judge and jury whenever it decides that government enforcers aren't forceful enough. That little of this is widely understood is not surprising. A sympathetic press has always been a Greenpeace ally.

Greenpeace's biggest fund-raiser was a tragic event that Greenpeace didn't plan at all. In 1985 French government agents, attempting to thwart a Greenpeace obstruction of nuclear testing, blew up Greenpeace's ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland New Zealand. Photographer Fernando Pereira, who was on board at the time, was killed. The incident brought instant martyr status to the organization.

Greenpeace was not slow to exploit the publicity. Between 1985 and 1987 Greenpeace U.S.A. revenues tripled to $25 million.

But the martyrdom was somewhat sullied by the allegations that Pereira was allied with terrorists. A German intelligence official says that German and Dutch intelligence agencies had file on Pereira describing him as a "contact" of a political front man for the terrorist Second of June Movement gang, and as a contact with the Soviet KGB in planning anti-nuclear missile protests in Western Europe.

(Coorborating sources?)

Greenpeace denies these allegations, and says that the stories of the terrorist connections are fabrications planted by a French foreign security agency trying to take the sting out of the ugly event in Auckland.

The truth on that score may never be known (o, impossible to coorborate), but Greenpeace reaped huge publicity dividends from the tragedy while the police allegations got scant attention in the media. When unfavorable publicity does surface, Greenpeace frequently takes to the courts. In the last year Greenpeace has filed suit against three German publications that have said things about Greenpeace it didn't like. Feeling free to criticize others, Greenpeace does not seem to feel others have the right to criticize it.

(Did the judge agree with the publisers? Otherwise, undecided whether critisism or untruths.)

Reykjavik, Iceland-based independent filmmaker Magnus Gudmundsson can testify to this. Gudmundsson's 1989 documentary Survival in the High North shows the struggle between hunting peoples of the far north and environmentalists. It paints a dismal picture of welfare dependency and rising suicide rates among the hunting populations of Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, where the seal hunting business was devastated after a successful campaign by Greenpeace and animal rights groups to ban sealskin imports to Europe.

Gudmundsson's film re-examines evidence produced in 1986 by award winning journalist Leif Blaedel, which shows that one propaganda film used by Greenpeace was faked by using paid animal torturers. Blaedel cites gruesome scenes in the film Goodbye Joey, which Dirranbandi, Australia court records, confirmed were faked by its producers. (Did greenpeace know of the mistreatement for the movie, or were they dubed?) These scenes, he reports, were staged by paid kangaroo shooters who were later fined for torturing kangaroos for the film. Court documents confirm that the film's fraudulence was a matter of public record in 1983, three years before the last known time Greenpeace Denmark sent it out on request --to Blaedel himself. Greenpeace media director Peter Dykstra says Greenpeace stopped distributing the film in 1983, when it discovered the film's "integrity problems."

(So, did they send it out to Blaedel as a special occasion, for documentary purposes, or where they regularly sending this out to people?)

Greenpeace has tried to silence Gudmundsson, with demands for injunctions and/or damages in the courts of Iceland, the U.K. and Norway. Gudmundsson has spent about $40,000 in legal fees so far.

(To silence or to set untruths straight?)

If Greenpeace's ends justify such means, what are these noble ends? It's impossible to say precisely, though unmistakable is a hatred of business and free markets. (o?) Greenpeace U.S.A. Executive Director Peter Bahouth told the newspaper In These Times in April 1990: "I don't believe in the market approach… When companies have a bottom line of profit you won't have them thinking about the environment."

(See market oriented approach in cooperation with Shell solar)

German environmental consultant Joseph Huber, talking about militant elements in Greenpeace Germany, sums up an informed outsiders view: "These Greenpeacers do not know what they are longing for. But they do feel the strong need to protest the perceived destruction of the earth by industrialism and capitalism. The Marxist elements are interspersed with a new kind of romanticism and anarchism."

(nice opinion, might be the motivation of some participants, but is hat also the organisations )

There is nothing in environmentalism that says it has to be statist and anti market to work. The Bozeman, Mont.-based Political Economy Research Center, for instance, endorsed a property rights approach to solving environmental problems, and even the mainstream Environmental Defense Fund favors marketable pollution permits. But Greenpeace, at least the pre-Wuori Greenpeace, would have no truck with the free market. Its philosophy is that pollution is a sin, not a cost, and should be outlawed, not taxed--even if that means shutting down industry.

(Build on the notion it is anti-market, which has not been substantiated)

Robert Hunter was a co-founder of Greenpeace and to some it’s spiritual leader. He is now an environmental filmmaker based in Toronto. In 1979 he wrote a chronicle of Greenpeace, Warriors of the Rainbow. It says: "Machiavellianism and mysticism alike played their parts in the shaping of the consciousness [that Greenpeace] expressed. It embodied at times a religious fervor, at other times a ruthlessness that bordered on savagery… Corruption and greatness both played their part and both took their tolls."

(so, this is about the early days (published 28 years ago),

does that still hold today? He actually talks about the very first travels to stop nuclear testing in Alaska)

Ruthlessness and religion are a combustible mixture, the more so when combined with an absolutist certainty. Greenpeace gives research grants but doesn't fund research on cleaning up toxic or nuclear wastes. Why? Greenpeace says its role is to prevent pollution rather than cleaning it up. It seems that finding solutions to the safe disposal of such wastes undermine the Greenpeace objective of eliminating the industrial processes that create the waste.

(Opinion about what GP should do)

Greenpeace U.S.A. recently commissioned a report from forestry expert Randall O'Toole on the economics of the U.S. timber industry. O'Toole concluded that eliminating government subsidies to the U.S. Forest Service and allowing it to charge recreation fees would reduce the Forest Service's incentives to over cut trees. According to O'Toole, Greenpeace didn't allow publication of the study's recommendations under its name. Says O'Toole, "I had the feeling that someone up higher in Greenpeace didn't like my conclusions."

(Why did they not like it? It would fit perfect in thier objectives. So substantiation that they did not like it would have been nice. One sided comment)

In its money raising literature, Greenpeace often invokes its allegiance to the nonviolent rhetoric of Mahatma Gandhi and the Quaker notion of "bearing witness." But Gandhi believed passionately that good ends do not justify evil means; Greenpeace's devotion to this ideal is questionable.

(Maybe based on the opinions presented in this article, but beyond that?)

Take for example, its support for Earth First, an eco-terrorist group whose methods would have horrified Gandhi--and whose co-founder, Michelle Roselle, is now on Greenpeace's payroll. It is famous for driving spikes into trees, which can injure sawmill workers. (Roselle says Earth First now discourages tree spiking.) When a car bomb explosion led in 1990 to the arrest of two Earth First members injured in the blast, Greenpeace formed an alliance of environmental groups that paid their bail and private investigation fees. Roselle, still an Earth First member, offers the theory that the Earth Firsters were innocent victims of attempted murder by anti-environmentalists. No charges were filed.

(Speaks for itself, see also http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Eco-terrorism_hoaxes)

It seems clear that Greenpeace's benign image and name, so redolent of goodness, is a cover for a disdain for capitalism. (see for example cooperation with Shell solar) Not surprisingly, international board member Susan George and military expert William Arkin used to work at the notoriously leftist Institute for Policy Studies.

(So, some individuals have left leaning ideas, does that make GP a anti-capitalist group? )

In many of its utterances, Greenpeace is less an institution dedicated to saving endangered species than it is an advocate of a Big Brother who would run the world the way Greenpeace insiders would like it to be run. (sources for big brother ideal?) This is clearly spelled out in an editorial in the March/April 1990 issue of Greenpeace magazine. The editorial compares Eastern Europe's command economies to the West's "savage capitalism." Mindless of the environmental devastation caused by socialism, the editorial concludes: "From a purely ecological perspective, the two competing ideologies were barely distinguishable." That outrageous statement (Indeed incorrect as suggested?) would hardly sell in the newly freed countries of Eastern Europe, although Greenpeace has recently opened two offices there, but in the pampered West it apparently finds believers.

(Can not see how this substantiates the claim of a big brother.)

Can Greenpeace's new chairman check this anti capitalistic fervor and bring Greenpeace into the mainstream of environmentalism? (did he fail?) Matti Wuori seems to be serious about infusing his more moderate views into the organization--and he plans to create an internal audit unit. But to the extent that he curbs Greenpeace's worst tendencies, Wuori risks damaging the reputation for militance that has done so much to build Greenpeace's myth.

--KimvdLinde 21:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Greenpeace Communications, June 1994

This links to many of the sources underpining my rejection of the link. --KimvdLinde 03:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Magnus Gudmundsson

The Icelandic film maker Magnus Gudmundsson has been a zealous anti-Greenpeace activist since 1989, when he made his first pro-whaling documentary "Survival in the High North".

In a libel action in 1992, a Norwegian court ordered Magnus Gudmundsson to pay Greenpeace 30,000 Norwegian Kroner and demanded that parts of his film "Survival in the High North", including the part where he alleged that Greenpeace faked footage of the killing of a seal pup, be struck out as libellous to the organisation. Magnus Gudmundsson appealed the court's position, but this appeal was denied. It was not until 1996 that Gudmundsson actually paid the 30,000 Kroner to Greenpeace.[1]

In 1991, the Irish Sunday Business Post, which published a story which included a number of Magnus Gudmundsson's allegations, apologised to Greenpeace and unconditionally withdrew the claims made in its article. In addition, as compensation for re peating the unfounded claims, the Post made a voluntary contribution to the trust for the family of Fernando Pereira, the Greenpeace photographer killed in the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by the French secret service in New Zealand in 1985.[2]

In 1993, some of the false claims Magnus Gudmundsson makes in "Survival in the High North" were repeated in a Television New Zealand program. After learning the facts about these claims, the station formally apologised to Greenpeace for statements made in the program. Magnus Gudmundsson himself refused to retract his false claims and is presently being sued by Greenpeace New Zealand. His trip to New Zealand, during which he attacked Greenpeace, was sponsored by the New Zealand Fishing Industry Ass ociation.[3]

Magnus Gudmundsson was also a consultant to the Danish TV2 documentary "The Rainbow Man", a misleading attack on Greenpeace, and a personal attack against David McTaggart, Greenpeace's long-time Chairman and present Honorary Chair. In a selectivel y and deceptively edited interview with Dr. Francisco Palacio, the man presented as the main 'witness' against Greenpeace, the programme falsely alleges that Greenpeace bribed IWC delegates to vote for the ban on commercial whaling which came into force i n 1982.[4]

Two other persons interviewed in "The Rainbow Man" who attempted to discredit Greenpeace, were Ron Arnold, one of the leaders of the US Wise Use movement (see below) and Paul Watson. Watson is the leader of the militant conservation group The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which has on several occasions rammed and sunk Icelandic and Norwegian whaling ships. Watson left Greenpeace in 1977 because of his disagreement with Greenpeace's policy of non-violence and overall direction.[5] In the TV2 d ocumentary, Watson is introduced as an ex-Greenpeace employee, but his leadership of The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is conveniently omitted.

In July 1994, German courts issued four preliminary injunctions prohibiting the television station Norddeutsche Rundfunk (NDR) from showing parts of "The Rainbow Man" which included the deceptively edited interview with Francisco Palacio, as well as many false allegations and material that violated Greenpeace copyright.[6]

Magnus Gudmundsson's films and promotional tours have been funded by the Icelandic government, West-Nordic (Faroe Islands, Greenland and Iceland) Governmental funds, and whaling and fishing industry interests.[7] Recently, Magnus Gudmundsson has ad ded the nuclear industry to the list of his sponsors. He has been invited to speak to nuclear industry organisations in South Korea, Canada, and Brazil. Nuclear industry groups have arranged special showings of his films in Canada and Belgium.[8]

In April of 1994, Magnus Gudmundsson was ordered by the Icelandic court to pay his ex-production partner Edna Sverrisdottir 1.4 million ISK (approx. $20,000 US) for breach of contract and violating her copyright to "Survival in the High North".[9] This was the second time that Magnus Gudmundsson was found to be in breach of copyright. In 1989, the English High Court ordered Magnus Gudmundsson and Edna Sverrisdottir to stop using Greenpeace material in "Survival in the High North" and ordered them t o return all copies of the film to Greenpeace. They have not done so.[10]

In May 1994, Magnus Gudmundsson made a high profile publicity visit to Brazil, endorsing nuclear and logging interests, and issuing increasingly misleading claims about Greenpeace.[11]

Also in May 1994, an article in Verdens Gang, one of the leading Norwegian newspapers, revealed the connections that pro-whaling advocates Magnus Gudmundsson and Steinar Bastesen have with the anti-environmental Wise Use movement, and Lyndon LaRo uche [see below].[12] Ron Arnold, one of the leaders of the Wise Use movement, is a registered agent for the American Freedom Coalition, a political organisation of the Unification Church of Reverend Sun Myung Moon, an extreme right wing religious sect.[1 3][14]

Both Magnus Gudmundsson and Steinar Bastesen of the Norwegian pro-whaling lobby have attended several Wise Use conferences in the past years.[19]

Magnus Gudmundsson attended the annual Alliance for America "Fly-In For Freedom", an annual gathering of 'anti-environmental' groups in Washington, DC held at the end of September 1994. At the "Fly-In For Freedom", he showed "The Rainbow Man" and s old copies of it, as well as copies of his two earlier anti- Greenpeace films.[20] Some of the other participants in this conference are the Moonie-funded American Freedom Coalition, Kathleen Marquard of Putting People First, Ron Arnold and other prominen t players in the US Wise Use movement. Magnus Gudmundsson attended the Alliance for America gathering again in 1995.[21]

Greenpeace Communications, June 1994

Sources:

[1] Greenpeace Norge v. Magnus Gudmundsson and Anor, Oslo, March 17-21, 1992

[2] Sunday Business Post, November 24, 1991

[3] 2ZB Radio, Auckland, New Zealand, 5 April 1993 - Bill Ralston interviewing Magnus Gudmundsson (text by Transcript Services Auckland) Christchurch Press, 26 April 1993; The Independent (New Zealand) 8 April 1994

[4] TV2, Denmark, 15 November 1993

[5] Robert Hunter, "The Greenpeace Chronicle" Pg 384-385 [6] Greenpeace e.V and Greenpeace Communications Ltd v.

Norddeutscher Rundfunk; 7 July 1994, Landgericht Hamburg; Francisco J. Palacio v. Norddeutscher Rundfunk; 7 July 1994, Landgericht Hamburg;

David McTaggart v. Norddeutscher Rundfunk; 7 July 1994, Landgericht Hamburg;

Greenpeace e.V. v. Norddeutscher Rundfunk; 12 July 1994, Landgericht Hamburg

[7] Letter from Soili Aintila, Nordic Council of Ministers, to Janus HillGaard, Greenpeace Denmark, May 24, 1989 (confirming funding from Vestnorden Fund).

Transcript of hearing in Icelandic Parliament, May 8- 12, 1989, (confirming funding from Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries).

[8] Invitation for a showing of "The Rainbow Man" on 15 April 1994 by Belgonucleaire, the Belgian nuclear company, dated 5 April 1994

Korean advertisement: Greenpeace Press Release, April 15, 1994 [9] Edna Sverrisdottir v. Magnus Gudmundsson, Rejkjavik City Court, April 11, 1993

[10] Greenpeace Communications Ltd, Greenpeace Ltd, The Greenpeace Foundation of Canada, Greenpeace Australia Inc. and Michael Chechik v. Magned Film, Edna Sverrisdottir and Magnus Gudmundsson, High Court of Justice, UK, 3 October 1989

[11] Folha de Sao Paolo, May 3, 1994 and O Estado de Sao Paulo, May 3, 1994 (Brazil)

[12] Verdens Gang (Norway), May 11, 1994

[13] "Share Groups in British Columbia" - Claude Emery, Library of Parliament, British Columbia, Canada, 10 December 1991

[14] See: "The Things You Need To Know About Ron Arnold and the Wise Use Movement", Greenpeace Communications, July 1994

[15] Dennis King -"Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism", Doubleday 1989, 21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 1993-1994 - "Greenpeace's Financial Misconduct Exposed In Danish Documentary" by Poul Rasmussen, Pg 56

[16] Invoice from National Press Club, Washington for 21st Century dated 8 June 1989.

[17] Statement by Thilo Bode, Executive Director, Greenpeace Germany, 20 July 1994

[18] The New York Times -"Fund-Raisers Tap Anti- Environmentalism", 19 Dec 1991; see also "The Greenpeace Guide to Anti-Environmental Organisations", Carl Deal, 1993 Pgs 67-68, 87-88

[19] Fiskaren, 4 Aug 1993; Klassekampen, 23 Feb 1994; Verdens Gang, 11 May 1994

[20] Eyewitness account, The Alliance For America "Fly-In For Freedom" September 17-21, 1994.

Unsubstantiated

[21] Eyewitness account, The Alliance For America "Fly-In For Freedom" September 17-21, 1994.

Unsubstantiated

You are citing a Greenpeace communication to back up Greepeace itself? Not exactly an independant source(s) is it? Whatever, I ´ll get to that eventually SammytheSeal 11:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I cited it fr the sources, such as court rulings etc that they cite. I am curious where you are going to find proof that the Icelandic filmmaker did not get fined and did not have to change it film. Or where you are going to find where the manipulated interview indeed provided the truth and did not distort it as the danish court has ruled. --KimvdLinde 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You may be dissapointed, by no means do I accept the whole Forbes article as Gospel, However, a good deal of it is verifable ;) more to followSammytheSeal 15:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Greenpeace Aotearoa New Zealand

I have created a page for the New Zealand chapter of Greenpeace as it is a large New Zealand organisation with a long history and high public profile.

My question is; where should I put the wiki-link to it on the general Greenpeace page? See also? Or in the part of the article where national Greenpeace organisations are mentioned? Or both?

There also seems to be a need for other national organisation pages too... but since GPNZ is the only one I have any real knowledge of I'll leave that to others.

Whoops - that last unsigned comment belonged to me! And the New Zealand page can be found here Greenpeace Aotearoa New ZealandMostlyharmless 06:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I might have messed the article in same manner by trying to put the GP Nordic on the list of countries. In same manner should GP Mediterranean noted on that section. Vould somebody make paragraph (picture) to there, eg. ASIA -> New Zealand, EUROPE -> Nordic -> Denmark, Finland... and so on? And maybe to do a map where this areas are colored! Thanks!

Category:Organizations accused of Terrorism

The Japanese, as well as some Scandanavian countries, have accused Greenpeace of ecoterrorism e.g. [14] [15]. Is this sufficient evidence to replace the category? Rockpocke[[User_talk: Rockpocket|t]] 19:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Eco terrorism , now thats a new word, A terrorist has to target non combatants with a vuew to taking life. I suggest that this word not be used Buffadren 11:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism :

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Fits a number of GP actions SammytheSeal 13:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel terrorism should only apply to terrorist organisations, So we nned to decide if Greenpeace is a terrorist organisation or not, Under the definition above anyone who has waved a fist in anger at a local politician can be deemed a terrorist. Look at their name Green PEACE. Now if they were Green WAR I'd see where you were going here/ Buffadren 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

" I feel " is your POV of course. Various GP actions would fit under the definition ( take your pick which dictionary ) of terrorism or terrorising. If your name was Saddam peaceful Hussein would it make a difference?;) look at the actions rather than the rheotoric SammytheSeal 15:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Using 'I feel' is a polite way of presenting a position. Calling a charity 'Terrorist' is also very strong POV to the extent it is astonishing that such a view could be held. I am against the use of the word , as it is a word Wiki discourages in its use. That word shhould be kept for the really serious Terrorists that are flying planes into skyscapers....Greenpeace are not Terrorists, . Buffadren 17:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguments on the word "terrorist" as it applies to this article

• All this arguing about the connotation of the word "terrorist" accomplishes nothing, even if you made up a new term to represent the intended idea factually with little emotional bias, people would eventually claim the new term was also offensive. Ultimately their actions either fit or do not fit definitions of terrorism. Argue the definition, NOT the "feeling" attached to the word. Once a definition or group of definitions are agreed upon, then compare the actions to that rubric and argue over whether they fit.

• Innocent people would certainly deny inaccurate accusations of bad behavior. Also, most bullies will deny being bullies, and most criminals will deny being criminals. People naturally deny negative labels, and such denials do not prove that they are guilty or that they are innocent. Only evidence can do that. But arguing about the negative connotations of the words "bully" and "criminal" would not get you any closer to determining whether the accused actually fit those labels.

The following comments are related to character as represented by the reported behavior of members of greenpeace, and are not final proof for/against terrorist behavior, but instead go to character of the organization

I saw the movie by Leif Blaedel, and I have to say that his word choice was poor as it showed that he was biased against Greenpeace, but he also admits this at the beginning of the video and provides a rather weak, but understandable explanation as to why he did not remain entirely objective. At the same time, it does appear that at least some members of Greenpeace are willing to use misleading material and do not appear to care about the cultures their efforts are affecting.

I have not followed up this video with any research yet, but I can say that I think Greenpeace representatives should actually talk with the affected people about a real solution. Moratoriums and bans are only going to harm these people and are unlikely to make any of them want to have any kind of real discussion on the issue. Causing a large global opinion shift and financial loss by an entire industry may not be "violence" in the strictest sense, but it probably is causing many people a large amount of hardship and maybe even suffering if the financial loss was great enough. --This should be looked into as I do not know it for certain.

• If someone has the time they should elaborate on this and provide some links to relevant information.

As to the information about a dead whale being displayed and used for their own ends from one of the previous sections. Using that dead whale as a weapon against whaling is a bit dishonest as the whale most likely didn't die from an attack by a whaling vessel. I think it was in bad taste to use the death of that animal for a cause when its death had nothing to do with that cause.

(comments added by webmaster of kotoro dot com who does not currently have a Wikipedia user account24.187.25.75 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

My Edits

I made some minor edits, grammar, punctuation, etc. I hope you all enjoy how complete and open minded the article now is. AnommasPooter4LyfeMuFuka

Royal Society of Chemistry criticism

(Disclosure: I work for Greenpeace)

I've deleted the following paragraph from the Criticisms section, because correcting the multiple errors would have made a nonsense of the original post:

"Some what Greenpeace say/publish has been accused of being riddled with the results of either a poor understanding of the scientific princibles behind the issues or evidence of a misrepresentation of the situation. For instance greenpeace made a point of stating that 'outdated, crumbling power stations' power stations are bad because they only convert only some of the heat to energy, Richard Pike, chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry pointed out that the Carnot cycle limits the efficency to about 50%."

1. "greenpeace made a point of stating that 'outdated, crumbling power stations' power stations are bad becuase they only convert only some of the heat to energy"

Greenpeace did not state the above. In the relevant Times article (referred to in the Royal Society of Chemistry's press release mentioned above), Greenpeace is correctly quoted as saying: "This plant will lock us into another 50 years of wasted energy. Like all our outdated, crumbling power stations, this proposed plant will waste two thirds of the energy it generates as thrown away heat." This comment was made in the context of Greenpeace UK's well established campaign for decentralised energy, in which "waste" heat is captured from the electricity generation process and redestributed to provide heating for buildings.

2. "Richard Pike, chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry pointed out that the Carnot cycle limits the efficency to about 50%."

The RSC's press release quoting Richard Pike, chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, did not mention the Carnot cycle; the poster seems to have missed the point. Pike stated that even the most modern power stations can convert only 45-50% of the available energy into electricity. "This is not because of old, inefficient design, but rather the laws of thermodynamics that require that energy must be lost in the generation of power, for there to be any power at all!"

This was exactly Greenpeace’s point – and that this "waste" heat should be captured and redistributed through a decentralised energy model. Greenpeace's Chief Scientist, Doug Parr, has since responded to the RSC press release and asked for a justification or withdrawal of the RSC's comments. Doug Parr says:

"CHP stations which are well over 80% efficient (Copenhagen reaches 95%) are well-established. The “thermodynamic limits” of 45-50% are only thermodynamic limits if you cannot use the low-grade heat, which CHP stations allow. Carbon capture and storage stations, if built, would no doubt be much more efficient than the old stations we have now. But they would take a considerable efficiency hit from the need to include CCS as an extra process. I notice in the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee (Feb 2006) report that this efficiency hit is put at 30% (see para 125). Using your own figure of 45-50% efficiency of new power stations means that CCS stations would be 31-35% efficient. The difference between this and wasting two thirds of energy is rather lost on me."

(Boxxen 10:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

---

Uh? What is this paragraph all about???

Greenpeace's official mission statement describes the organization and its aims thus: Greenpeace are againist gm foods and as a result of this millions of people in the third world have died of starvation because greenpeace scared certain africian country leaders that gm foods contain posion etc.greenpeace is dominated by white middle class people in the first world.People who mill never have to worry where their next meal is.

Criticisms

The criticism section of this article is swamped. The refutations of each criticism are far longer and more clearly defined then the actual criticism- as such, the criticisms are effectively muted, the page portrays a bias, and the article does not hold to Wikipedia standards. Rudy Breteler 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I am reading this article. I came to Wikipedia specifically looking for information about what criticisms exist regarding Greenpeace. I came to the same conclusions you have regarding the information presented. This section of the article appears to be inadequate; I feel I need to look elsewhere to get a balanced perspective on Greenpeace. Mael-Num 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the criticism section? This article appears to be a commercial for Greenpeace now. So much for NPOV. I was looking for a link to information on Patrick Moore, and this article doesn't even mention that he left Greenpeace and is a major critic of it.

Removed Criticism of Stolen Tree Stock

In June 1995, Greenpeace stole a stock of a tree from the forests of Metsähallitus in Ilomantsi, Finland. Greenpeace activists moved it to exhibitions held in Austria and Germany. They claimed in a press conference that the tree was originally logged by local people from an ancient forest. That was misinformation. The truth is that the tree had crashed on a road some weeks ago during a storm and was not from either an endangered forest or a protected area. It was from a normal forestry area which was to be harvested in a commonly accepted way. The incident received much publicity in Finland [14], [15].

Of the two sources cited, one directs to a root webpage that is not in english http://www.iltasanomat.fi/ and the other is a blog with no references or sources http://www.formaths.com/sivu1english.htm. --Lincoln F. Stern 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted back, Large swathes of the article are not cited - I will search for an english cite - or are you disputing that the tree was not stolen by GP activists / that it never happened?SammytheSeal 10:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete, links do not open Buffadren 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole article needs clean up. This was the part that I first focused on. The two sources cited did not meet citation standards. The only information I could find is someone's blog. Please find a reliable source and then we can include it. --Lincoln F. Stern 15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

1st of August 1995 also well respected Helsingin Sanomat wrote about this in it's economics section (but unfortunately following only in Finnish and most of story is behind login and password) [16]

Joko Metsähallitus on saanut kantorahansa Greenpeacelta?

Suomen Greenpeace otti keväällä metsähallituksen mailta omin lupineen kannon, jota on sittemmin kierrätetty pitkin Keski-Eurooppaa. Kannolla yritetään todistaa, että Suomessa tuhotaan vanhoja metsiä. Metsähallitus lähetti Greenpeacelle laskun, jossa kannon arvoksi oli merkitty 30 markkaa. Käsittelykuluja metsähallitus perii yli tuhat markkaa. Metsähallituksen Ilomantsin alueen metsätalouden päällikkö Arto Kammonen, joko Greenpeace on lasku...

Short translation:

Has Metsähallitus got payment (comment: I could translate this to "the stockmoney" = kantoraha) from Greenpeace?

During spring Finnish Greenpeace took without any permission a stock of a tree, which now has been travelling with them all around Central Europe. They try to proof (comment of translator: or "give image") that Finland is destroying it's old forests. Forest Administration (Metsähallitus, state owned enterprise) send a bill to Greenpeace, where price of a stock was set to 30 marks ("around 5 dollars") and additional billing costs over 1000 finnish marks ("appr 167 dollars"). Manager of forests in Ilomantsi area of Metsähallitus, mr Arto Kammonen, has Greenpeace paid...

After that story continues but unfortunately requires subscription.

Facts are that: 1) stock was taken without permission from Metsähallitus 2) owner of tree send a bill total 1030 Finnish Marks (at least, slightly over) to Greenpeace. But did Greenpeace pay it? There was no police investigations and this incident was not in court. So if that's a measure of fact, then maybe this can not be in Wikipedia article until more sources appears.

Some questions to be verified: 3) stock was not logged down but a result of a storm? So Greenpeace lied to press and public in Central Europe? 4) tree didn't grow in protected area? 5) how Greenpeace reacted, there is always two sides? Only reference to 3, 4 and 5 is blog with images taken from pages of newspaper Iltasanomat. I will try to contact newspapers and ask about this.

Greenpeace refuses to discuss this incident and prefers it to be edited off from the Wikipedia article, successfully it appears. The entire issue of Finnish "ancient forests" has been dropped from Greenpeace agenda after the organization learned that the whole debate was based on misinformation. Another Brent Spar but this time successfully removed from Wikipedia by Greenpeace. In Finland, there has been widespread publicity and amusement regarding the initiative of Greenpeace Germany of touring the alleged stomp from an ancient forest around Europe.

Did Greenpeace know beforehand that the tree was blown down by a storm? If they did not, I don't think it could be said that they lied about the tree having been cut, because they may have believed that is what had happened.

Also, did Greenpeace claim that the tree was from a protected area, or just that it was from an ancient forest? Nowdays one of the major issues of Greenpeace in Finland is to get unprotected forests proteced in Lapland. Greenpeace is worried that there are a lot of ancient forests that are not protected. Not that trees are being cut in protected areas. And the article of Iltasanomat says that the tree stump was 290 years old, so while the forest where it came from may not have been "aarniometsä" as they claimed, but the forest nevertheless had a tree that was almost three hundred years old.Shubi 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions - read on " They claimed in a press conference that the tree was originally logged by local people from an ancient forest. That was misinformation. The truth is that the tree had crashed on a road some weeks ago during a storm and was not from either an endangered forest or a protected area. It was from a normal forestry area which was to be harvested in a commonly accepted way."

They claimed it was logged at a press conference - ergo, they lied - they also claimed it was from a protected area - it was not - Ergo, they lied. Ignorance is no excuse. SammytheSeal 06:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Greenpeace refuses to discuss this incident and prefers it to be edited off from the Wikipedia article" .. Yes, Greenpeace seems to be succesful when censoring Wikipedia . The "stolen tree stock" incident was most probably orchestrated by persons named Matti Ikonen, Sari Kuvajo and Greenpeace Germany. Later Greenpeace Finland got some problems after that and so 2 years later they closed their office in Finland (actually combined to other offices to set up a Greenpeace Nordic).

They didn't got really good publicity in Finland, it was just common amusement during whole summer of 1995. But there is also other side: some were wondering what was the real idea behind this, did Greenpeace got support from companies X and Y from country **** to give bad image about Finnish forest companies and "Forest Administration". In Finland, forests are mostly owned by private people and for example by farmers, so they were really worried about this. Of course that was not true because Greenpeace "is so open organisation and we know how they get their support and money", but anyway some speculation existed.

One could say that one good result came after that, certification of forests, like PEFC which is the leading cert scheme in world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.156.21.176 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Bombing of rainbow warrior

Buffadren, please provide english cites for the allegations. ( I´m being very reasonable ;)SammytheSeal 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I will Sammy, but in fairness thats well documented. Buffadren 09:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Buffadren, sure, its common knowledge - but that does not help wikipedia does it? its also common knowledge about the finnish tree ;)It´s getting the relevant english cites that is difficult ( it was also widely covered in the German speaking countries ). You don´t speak finnish, I don´t speak french - we can be pedantic together ;O) SammytheSeal 09:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand , I can translate if you need it anytime, here is a link from The Times [17]. Buffadren 09:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Rainbow Warrior 2 Citations requests

Citations are been requested for many lines on the Rainbow Warrior section. some of these are very odd because there is some much documentation on the internet. It seems like someone is just demanding citations to make extra work for editors. I will find the links requested but citations should only be sought by editors that have at least a basic knowledge of the subject matter and be sought on issues that documentational evidence is hard to source.Buffadren 18:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Buffadren, permit me to give an opinion - particularly this comment -

but citations should only be sought by editors that have at least a basic knowledge of the subject matter and be sought on issues that documentational evidence is hard to source

Case in point - the deleted finnish tree - hard to find english sources on the web for a 1995 incident in Finland / Germany/ Austria .. I have a good knowledge of the incident - I know what happened, the newspaper article ( in finnish ) is evidence enough but ( so far ) cannot find english cites for it - but fair enough, I´ll keep looking and if I ever find an english cite, I will reinstate the paragraph - if not, I won´t.

Point is, you´re requesting one standard for a criticism of greenpeace and in reality another for the Rainbow Warrior paragraphs- I can understand why some editors see that as a bit unfair and biased - hence the cite requests. We should all be trying to cite well and to wiki standards - whether pro or anti greenpeace ;) SammytheSeal 23:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me that link again in Finnish please,and I'll have it translated? If it tallies with what you say, and i'm sure it will, I'll support you in reinserting it . At present I was unable to open the links provided for it, and that was my main objection not the subject matter. . In the Rainbow Warrior case editors are requesting citations for events that are international events with dozens of webpages for highly recognised sources.. But I agree on issues of dispute they should carry citations the whole Rainbow Warrior article needs a rewrite it is messy.. Buffadren 08:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Here´s whats on the Finnish Wikipedia - Viime vuosikymmennellä Suomessa herätti ihmetystä Greenpeacen Itävaltaan viemä puunkanto, joka oli varastettu Metsähallituksen mailta Ilomantsista. Silloisen Greenpeacen metsävastaavien johdolla viety kanto, jota esiteltiin Keski-Eurooppalaiselle medialle, oli heidän mukaansa suomalaisesta aarniometsästä hakattu puunkanto. Metsähallituksen mukaan puu oli kaatunut myrskyssä tielle eikä ollut aarniometsästä peräisin.

The link is here - [18]

I quite agree that links should be in English for the English version of Wikipedia and I will not put the paragraph back unless I find an english Cite eventually - I´m not bothered about the deletion per se - maintaining a balanced NPOV standard is more my concern ;) SammytheSeal 09:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The requests are for well established events and facts , thats my gripe Buffadren 09:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fully understand ;) ... but....SammytheSeal 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Sammy, getting busy not lasy, will get them for you. Buffadren 10:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there is no requirement that source material be in English. The relevant policy can be found here. Requiring that criticism of Greenpeace be in the English language is unfair and contrary to policy. Mael-Num 20:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Confidentiality agreement

Greenpeace Australia requires participants to sign a confidentiality agreement[19]. Do all branches of Greenpeace have such a lack of transparency? When did this become policy? —Pengo 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with transperency. An organisation like Greenpeace needs sensitive planning arrangements to be kept internal for operational success to be assured. Buffadren 09:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Roughly Drafted - Hardly NPOV

"Daniel Eran's own objectivity has also been called into question, as his website is supported by Apple advertising. In addition, Roughly Drafted has been called "the lunatic fringe of Mac fandom."[32]"

The statement above implies that Daniel's objectivity is in question stemming from monetary dealings with Apple, which is simply fictitious. The advertising in question are online iTunes ads, much like any other ordinary web banner. Additionally, the wiki entry has no citation or other support for the claim that Daniel's objectivity is questionable due to financial dealings.

The quote preceding it is taken completely out of context in an obvious and irresponsible fashion. The nature of that comment relates to a disagreement in how to compare the relative costs of Windows and Mac operating systems, a technical dispute on financial liabilities incurred in the operation and upkeep of computer operating software. Reasonable people can disagree on said subject. However, the reactionary comment is used here to discredit him and cast doubt upon his character, in what appears to be an attempt at neutralizing his allegations against Greenpeace. The quote was knee-jerk and inflammatory in nature at best. And at best, the use of it was nowhere near NPOV, IMHO. Gavin 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And your suggestion is ? Buffadren 09:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To remove or neutralize the offending sections outlined. Gavin 13:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything the latter suggestion , but treas carefully is the best way ti handle it Buffadren 14:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Greenpeace & GMO

Does Greenpeace indeed oppose all GMOs? http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering says this: "We believe: GMOs should not be released into the environment as there is not adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health."

I get the impression that Greenpeace does not oppose GMOs which are kept isolated from the natural enviroment, like GMOs that are kept only in laboratories. Greenpeace just opposes the use of GMOs out in the natural world.Shubi 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

GMO is a very broad term. For quite some time laboratories have used genetically modified bacteria to produce various antibiotics among other things. Greenpeace is in no way opposed to this because it is controlled and does not present a danger to the environment.

More recent (Beginning in 1997) companies started releasing GMO plants into the environment with insignificant testing. They strongly and rightfully, in my opinion, oppose this. More broadly Greenpeace also opposes the products because they do not offer much to civilization and they support more ecological solutions to our problems Harris77 (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd map

The map labeled "Greenpeace national offices" does not seem to match up with the list in the text of the article at all. What's going on there? Garrett Albright 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo of ice covered lake which was said to be a clear cut

I added to page Criticism of Greenpeace case "Kahlschlag am nordfinnischen Peurakairasee" (Greenpeace Magazin 6/2005). German Greenpeace magazine had a photo which was said to show clear cutting area, but which in reality was a snowy bog and ice covered lake , which has never been a forest (at least not in last 10000 years, maybe before latest ice age) That was disinformation and not true. [20], and in German: [21]. This was common amusement of local people in Northern Finland during year 2005, Greenpeace activists are unable to recognize what's forest and what's icy lake.

Rex Weyler

Rex Weyler needs more mentioning considering his history and involvement with Greenpeace... -Eep² 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Tubbataha Reef insident

The link gives wording "provided" instead of "given". Greenpeace agreed to pay the fine, but blamed the accident on outdated maps provided by the Philippines government.. The current wording shifts the blame more to the philippine's government than the source. Also, if the insident happened out of normal shipping lanes, doesn't the blame land entirely on ships captain?

Who is the head of the main office in australia?

The names for heads of offices arent usually displayed on the net so i was wondering if someone could tell me who they are? I am looking for the Head office in australia, so if anyone knows could they please write back within 24 hours? Thanks ~~Kathleen Jamieson~~

Where is the criticism

Just wondering where is the criticism of green peace?

I don't know, my edits seem to get deleted when they contain facts that make Greenpeace look bad. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is my official discussion

The section of notable blunders has been reverted on a number of occasions, only one time with an explanation. I have made my point clear as to why it belongs here, if there are any grounds that you object on, then you must use the talk page. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a single statement is worth it's own section (blunders shouldn't properly be plural as the section reads now) although I see no reason not to include the information. Perhaps some additional blunders could be included from the "criticism of greenpeace" page. Really, I think the pages should be merged entirely for both to be NPOV. AAMiller 17:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's fine if there's a more appropriate place for it. But it's definitely a unique, verifiable event. I agree with your position that the two articles should be merged. Right now, without even a section (including the {{main|...) is clearly POV, and exactly the tactics that companies are known to use to brush the things that don't look good for them under the carpet, which is FURTHER evidenced by hordes of random, unexplained reverts of individual edits that aren't favorable to the organization in hopes that it will just be forgotten about. Good faith edits will at least say Theanphibian is an retard, the event doesn't belong here at all, those not doing so are simply trying to manipulate Wikipedia for their own benefit. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a member of greenpeace, but I thought on scanning the page that the section was out of place. It seems amusing, but I don't see anything notable about it. It might be a blunder, but to be a notable blunder there must be the implication that there is something behind it (that there is a dishonest template?) which is, in my view, POV. I would say move it from this section and add it to the criticisms part for now, as if it belongs anywhere, it is there. BUT I agree that the criticisms should be merged with the main page, but this should be done with care to ensure continuity of style. Paul haynes 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with what you're saying here. Right now I want to say that it wouldn't classify as "criticism" because it's something they did as opposed to what someone else said, but that would be ignoring the fact that other such instances exist in the criticism article (i.e. accidentally polluting some place due to some crazy stunt). So yes, it should be taken over there for now, the criticism article should be shuffled around a bit, then it should all be brought here. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge criticism page

No doubt the idea of a separate page was to stop the claims and counter-claims from growing and distorting the point of a wikipedia page on Greenpeace, i.e. presenting neutral information on the organisation itself. However, the "Criticism" link is lost on the page, and having a section outlining some of the criticism, as exists on the wikipedia page for similar organisations, would give the page itself a more balanced feel to it. Highlighting the main criticisms in a non judgemental way, and retaining the link to a more detailed page of criticisms, might be a solution. If the goal of the page is to gain stability or be a featured article, as well as present useful reliable information, this change would help in reducing the need to constantly remove/add criticisms that do not quite fit the tone of the article. What do people think? Paul haynes 11:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, I already made my case on the other talk page. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge. This is a POV fork and is prohibited. If the article is too long, break it up into neutral sections. — Omegatron 01:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good policy link. I didn't know about that one. But this would be a pretty textbook case. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Breaking up a long article into smaller subarticles is fine, but "Controversy of" or "Criticism of" articles are not the way to do it. Wikipedia:Summary style is the way to do it. — Omegatron 03:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your statement above is a little misleading. Breaking off controversy articles is no different from breaking off any other section at all (see e.g. Criticism of Microsoft, Criticism of Noam Chomsky etc. It is also essential that if such articles are broken off, they remain in summary form, as you said. If the article is large enough to stand on its own it should be left and summarized, if not, merged. In this case it is both well referenced and longer than this article itself. A merge is not appropriate, it should simply be summarized with a {{Main}} link.

I've gone ahead and changed it to a new template recently added to deal with this sort of situation. Richard001 09:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think a merge would be better. This main article is lacking a decent number of external sources, the criticism page needs more eyes going over it to fit it into the overall context, and the length of either isn't enough to justify separating them on the basis of size. Furthermore, I was trying to reorganize the criticism article to distinguish between what people criticized and what Greenpeace did, I don't believe the latter even belongs in a criticism article, and I see no way that the rest of the content would be a decent stand alone article. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add the merge template back if you wish. There would have to be a lot of content cut from the criticism article to merge without undue weight though. In the mean time a summary is still needed. Richard001 00:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree and agree. The criticism page needs to be copy edited and cut down a lot just because much of it sucks at the moment. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

100 000 Million members?

Does anyone know the actual count of Greenpeace members. 100, 000 Million is more members then there are human beings on this planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondhi (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. This is referring to both you and the number. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was a member of Greenpeace. kızılsungur 09:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Friend there are approx. 6 billion humans on this planet..... Rk589 (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt there are 100.000.000 members of Greenpeace, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.151.156.60 (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For those of you that can't do math, to say there are 100000 million would mean 100000x1000000 which is equal to 100,000,000,000. Criticism of the commentator's math is not well-founded. 148.137.207.54 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Very Very Very Simple Question

Was there any Greenpeace action against Nuclear Station in the USA?

kızılsungur 09:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Several. 80.57.219.94 (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Campaign against consoles

Check out this site. [[22]] Greenpeaces newest campaign is agains console systems like the Xbox 360 and should be added to the article. I would do it but I dont have the time right now. Rk589 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mission Statement

Did anyone actually read the mission statement?

"Greenpeace is an independent, paramilitary organization which uses aggressive direct action and misleading communication to expose global environmental problems, and to force solutions for a strong and aryan future. Greenpeace's goal is to ensure the domination of the earth to control life in all its diversity."

While it is quite humourous, it is a blatant example of vandalism, as it is the opposite of the actual statement and compares Greenpeace to the Nazis.Jaker penguin (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Whaling Campaign

It won't be hard to track down citations for this, but as I'm biased and consider myself pro-Greenpeace given that I am a member of the organisation, I do not feel it my place to add the following. Issues have been raised, as far as criticism within the wider media of the world, that Greenpeace are becoming grand-standers when it comes to the whaling issue. Their refusal to provide Sea Shepherd with the coordinates of the Japanese whalers and instead letting an environmental group flounder around for days ineffectively drew a lot of criticism within and without of Greenpeace. In the end, someone onboard the Greenpeace ship broke rank and slipped Sea Shepherd the coordinates. Sea Shepherd were distracted from the pursuit because the Japanese captured and held two hostages who were attempting to deliver written correspondence when the whalers refused to respond via radio, the Japanese held these people and eventually turned them over to Australian Customs on the ground that AC only hand them over well over the horizon so Sea Shepherd effectively will fall out of the pursuit, which occured.

Instead of providing details to Sea Shepherd, and with tensions riding high on the Greenpeace vessel, they turned back to port to refuel. Their refusal to provide the coordinates of the whalers led to Sea Shepherd wasting a week to try and find them again, and cost our ecosystem many whales lives as the Japanese felt free to resume harpooning their catch. Proof perhaps that idealistic biggotry rather than unification and cooperation has cost our environment more yet again.

Further criticism has been raised with the fact that Greenpeace have an estimated $100m budget for their Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary endeavours, they arrived in the SOWS a month after Sea Shepherd, and left a week before Sea Shepherd, running only one vessel whereas Sea Shepherd had two ships, a helicopter, and various other smaller craft operating on an estimated $1m budget. After refuelling, Greenpeace actions seemed to fall of the radar, a week later Sea Shepherd had to return to refuell and immediately resumed their return to SOWS, still on their microbudget while Greenpeace were too busy hanging signs and waving in protest at Heathrow Airport.

The priorities illustrated show that whilst Greenpeace have done wonders for drawing media attention to the plight of the whales in the sanctuary, their inaction has for the most part cost more whales lives. This year they gave themselves a big pat on the back when the whalers turned and ran on seeing their ship, something that has never happened before. They neglected to aknowledge what the Australian, New Zealand and English media (and possibly many more) picked up on; the whalers knew if Greenpeace found them, Sea Shepherd were close behind. Waving banners and shouting through loud speakers has never made a whaling fleet run, but every year Sea Shepherd have.

Make of it what you will, but I think this material is integral to addition to the criticism sections, especially as it has high proximity and notability to the matter, including on the Greenpeace page proper. As I stated above, as a member of Greenpeace (and no, I'm not a member of Sea Shepherd, although if Greenpeaces' attitude doesn't change I think my time and funding would be better spent elsewhere) I believe I have less ability to retain NPOV. 122.107.65.2 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have syndicated the above to this main Greenpeace article, please direct comments to the Talk:Criticism_of_Greenpeace version. 122.107.65.2 (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Campaigns

I would like to break this up into a many subsections. What's everyone's opinion for that? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A political lobby group?

The opening said this:

Greenpeace is an international political lobby group and non-governmental organization for the protection and conservation of the environment and for promoting peace.

Greenpeace has no special interest in politics other than considering enviromental issues. Closer to the truth would be "Greenpeace is an international enviromental lobby group", but since lobbying is just one of many methods Greenpeace uses, it is misleading to call them a lobby group. Nonviolent direct action and research for example aren't lobbying. And lobbying in general is a quite common method that NGO's use to achieve their goals. Greenpeace also directs its lobbying towards companies.

So I edited the opening so that it briefly explains all the methods Greenpeace uses. (I also changed the focus on the info box from "Energy, Transport, Urbanism" to "Enviromentalism, Peace". Shubi (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

comment only; I have heard the old chestnut that Greenpeace is mearly a front for the CIA, a ridiculous charge that would be impossible to prove even if true . It seems no good deed goes unpunished. Sorry to bring weird cynicism to this discussion, it's a inevitable that reconstructing the way we think about the planet we live on is going to take humour, intelligence and optimism. These qualities are sadly lacking in the government organisation mentioned. 7th january , 2009 Ern malleyscrub (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Greenpeace works

Have never heard anything about this before and AFAIK the go green single was completely unaffiliated with Greenpeace. This may not be the case but since this section has no references or sources and provides no links then to other Wikipedia articles I have tagged it pending removal.80.57.219.94 (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)