I removed the comment "It has been alleged that a Greenpeace ship rammed a whaling vessel resulting in the severe injury to a crew member. The Greenpeace activists cheered their success while the crewman died below decks. " because there seems to be no support for this. There have been collisions, but I don't see evidence of a collision in which someone died and a Greenpeace ship was found to be in the wrong. --Ask me about your mother 15:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I guess that's why it's alleged. If there were a citation to who alleged this & it's not just random conjecture on a blog or forum or something, maybe it could go back in. But a Google search shows up only various ramming incidents where nobody was hurt, & statements by GP that nobody has ever been injured or killed in their activities. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 More ugly
 Such as? Citations or examples needed. Calling all green issue editors!
"In general, Greenpeace's modus operandi can be characterized as "act first, do the science later". While they are often right, and their actions are well-intentioned, this is not always the best approach. It has caused the organization to remain committed to a few positions of very dubious scientific credibility."
- Such... as? I'm not involved with and I have little opinion on greenpeace, but we need to detail some of them here, else this statement is empty words. ±KnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 23:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)