Talk:Greenpeace

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. -- 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.   17:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

More ugly
link

Greenpeace campaigns against electronics manufacturers appear to be full of shit. --Tweenk (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR garrulous en guerre 23:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of the pages in the Nuclear power section show how much Greenpeace fanned the flames of radiation hysteria. --Revolverman (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is the "bad things" section longer than the good things section?
That would somehow imply they are mostly bad. And while they on occasion do stupid things, I don't disagree with all they do. And yes, appearances matter. If a certain section is longer, it appears to be more important... Pizzameister (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the writers likely anticipated Greenpeace fans coming in complain about the disagreements, which compelled them to write down why they disagree, making it inevitably longer.
 * Secondly, since RationalWiki is on the same page with the "good stuff" of Greenpeace, they aren't compelled to explain in length why they agree on these positions. Especially when RationalWiki has entire pages on things like climate change and environmentalism in general. Does explaining why climate change is real - AGAIN - in this section serve any purpose, besides being redundant? I don't think so.
 * But then again, there actually are a whole bunch of reasons why the organisation deserves to be criticised. Dogmatically holding onto positions that are immune to scientific evidence, the spreading of falsehoods, the amplification and subsequent feeding on public fear, being more concerned with publicity and attention seeking through (often bizarre) stunts rather than participating in informed reality-based discussions. (in my opinion) the good stuff seems to be a consequence of its ideology, instead of being based on a rational evaluation of the evidence. I am of course summarising. I don't want to make it seem more important. Nesslig20 (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Fossil fuel divestment
Something they're active in is calls for investment companies to divest from fossil fuels. This seems hypocritical to me, as it's not calling for people to stop using fossil fuels or even to abandon all air travel (things that might inconvenience Greenpeace members and supporters), and doesn't address the contradiction of where the airlines they ride on are supposed to get their jet fuel - it's just calling for other people to do things. This seems fairly typical of Greenpeace's policies which are based on maximum gesture, minimum effort, rather than science. I don't know if it's a serious enough hypocrisy to go under the "bad" section though. --Annanoon (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Vegan section
The vegan section seems to be contradictory. And I am not sure if The guardion is a reliable source.--Delibirda (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is a reputable newspaper and is generally considered a reliable source for most things on this website. It is better to reference scientific studies (at least if they're open-source and good-quality), but if the newspaper references studies or the article is by an expert then that's a reasonable alternative. Is there some particular problem you see with using it as a source here? Also I can't see a contradiction although it could be worded better; what seems contradictory? --Annanoon (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)