Talk:Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject France (Rated Start-Class) France Portal Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.) WikiProject Shipwrecks     (Rated Start-Class) This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page. NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: To Do Shipwrecks Clean up typos Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Discuss desired additions Cattewater Wreck Needs expansion Done Shipwrecks Re-wrote the first paragraph Cleaned up Types of Shipwrecks it felt a bit jumbled Cattewater Wreck Started the article WikiProject Terrorism (Rated Start-Class) This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call. WikiProject New Zealand (Rated Start-Class) Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Effects of nuclear testing on Muroroa 2 Info removal 3 Rainbow Warrior 4 Thanks 5 French naval Victories 6 "dive wreck" link 7 Some minor POV wording 8 WikiProject class rating 9 Citation needed

[edit] Effects of nuclear testing on Muroroa

The IAEA tests found no evidence for increased rates of cancer that could not be attributable to other lifestyle changes in the area. I'm removing the paragraph about justification for Greenpeace's claims. Enough with the tired New Zealand anti-nuclear crusade. Let's present some facts for a change. Iamaelephant 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info removal

Rebrane has done some good work, but removed information about the police enquiry which captured the agents/spies. The effect is to present the matter as if the French owned up to poor judgement, rather than commited a crime and were caught by cops. The result is, intentionally or not, a generally French slant (e.g. changing 'murder' investigation to 'homocide', when New Zealand law has no crime of homocide). I note, at the risk of provoking a re-write on another page, there was discussion on the DGSE site, where 'murder' was settled on as a reasonable description. I do not think there is any need to go as far as referring to the bombing as terrorism (which New Zealanders routinely did long before Bush made the term popular). I do think the article needs some balancing, if not the restoration of the deleted material. Will leave this a while for any comments before stepping in.

The only text I removed was one paragraph about a female agent who was never captured, which I found had been copied verbatim from a Greenpeace site, while doing research on the subject. I don't believe I removed any more information, and any French slant I added to the article was purely coincidental. Anyway, if you have any changes to make, by all means make them. I am not protective of articles I edit. Eliot 15:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not completely certain that I understand what the anonymous author is saying, but I'd like to leave a small comment: the sabotage of the Rainbow Warrior was never intended to kill anyone; the death of the photograph was an accident, so it is somewhat natural that things which might tend to suggest that this journalist was deliberately assassinated, or that the whole crew was targeted, be nuanced. "murder", as "deliberate killing of a human being", is probably not a fair description of what actually happened.

On the other hand, it is indeed blatant that the whole thing was made unilaterally, in complete disregard for international law, that its implementation was flawed and that the following political seek-and-hide party was utterly ridiculous, and in this context, the aggravating circumstances for "accidental death of a human being" are such that "murder" comes back as rather appropriate.

Just some idle though... Rama 17:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, such is my ignorance of this system I'm not quite sure how to become unanonymous and get a name instead of a number after :-). In NZ law, a forseeable death in the course of commiting a crime is murder, thus if you carry a loaded gun into a robbery, not intending to use it, but a bystander attempts to take the gun from you and it discharges, killing him, you are guilty of murder. Blowing up the Rainbow Warrior was clearly such a crime and in my opinion had the actual bombers been caught, (rather then two members of their support team), they would have been found guilty of murder. Items other than the Cabon peice were lost, and note, I'm not the person who introduced the Cabon peice, so did not know it came from another site.

To create an account, just go to Special:Userlogin - it only takes seconds. Rd232 17:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow Warrior

Question: is it really worth having a separate article for the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior? I think it would be better to make it a subsection of Rainbow Warrior. Rd232 17:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we want to go into the details, like I tend to think we are heading to, it might well be legitimate to use a whole article specifically about this; the enquiry which followed was rather theatrical, and caused changes in the government; also, the political consequences of the event are still not completely over in France. A precise record of the event would probably take the Rainbow Warrior article very much off balance, taking it into international and French politics.

Originally, the information featured here was in the DGSE article. Rama 17:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the incident and the ship each have a fairly robust article without very much overlap at all, I see no reason to merge the two. There is quite a lot of precedent for keeping famous attack and their targets in separate articles, especially if the target is notable of its own accord. (Rather unimaginable to merge World Trade Center and September 11, 2001 attacks, for instance). I have also taken the time to go through Special:Whatlinkshere/Rainbow Warrior and link the appropriate articles to this one. Eliot 21:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, keep these articles separate. Great read and fine example of stupidity of military driven goverments. Not all know about Greenpeace and what they do, so more articles the better. IEEE 12:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the advice about how to make myself more than a number. I've ammended the offending scentence to the some what more cumbersome but accurate; "An unintended result was a photographer drowned on the sinking ship; two of the French agents were subsequently arrested by the New Zealand police and charged with murder", Is that okay?, (& yes I know they effectively plea bargined guilty to manslaughter just befoer the trail began :-).

Sunds very reasonable, and if I might add, I don't see why the bargain plea should not belong in the article as well. Rama 06:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well comment about it might, but I'm afraid that was really speculation on my part - as far as I know it's never been admitted that a plea bargin occured - they're frowned about by NZ courts, although I am aware of them happening in more minor district court matters (e.g. driving offences).

Marfart and Prieur were originally cahrged with arson, conspiring to commit arson and murder. They eventually pled guilty to manslaughter and arson. See this rather good Police page on the bombings. http://www.police.govt.nz/operation/wharf/ It also has photos of the Ouvea crew.Lisiate 03:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately not as wanted posters :-). I'll add that to the links on the actual page.

[edit] French naval Victories

The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was not the first French naval victory in 200 years - The Vichy government bet up the a few small boats of the Thai navy in the Battle of Koh Chang, 1941.

You might want to read Battle of Dakar for what happens when largely superior British forces attack an anchored French fleet, but not an unsuspecting one like in Oran. Rama 08:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "dive wreck" link

the term 'dive wreck', used to describe the final disposition of the Rainbow Warrior, could/should link to artificial reef: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_reef#Notable_artificial_reefs

that's what an ex-diver thinks, anyhow. 71.112.156.5 05:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Jeremy

[edit] Some minor POV wording

Three other agents, Chief Petty Officer Roland Verge, Petty Officer Bartelo and Petty Officer Gérard Andries, who sailed to New Zealand onboard the yacht Ouvéa, were also captured, but had to be released as New Zealand law did not allow them to be held for sufficient time until the results of forensic tests came back. Knowing the tests would show they had transported the bombs to New Zealand, the crew rendezvoused with the French submarine Rubis and sank the Ouvéa. <They were never punished.>

They were never charged there for couldn't be "punished" but my understanding of NZ law is... um non-existant, so if they were proven guilty then I can understand the statement, but until then I don't believe the statement is needed. Drew1369 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Assume the intention is they committed a crime and suffered no punishment for it. New Zealand law set a maximum amount of time you can hold anyone on suspicion, and also aminimum standard of evidence required to charge someone - in other words, police search the Ouvea, find traces of suspected explosives, detain the crew. Forensic evidence showed Ouvea had carried the mines that sank the Rainbow Warrior was found, but by the time the samples had been flown to new Zealand and anyalised, the Ouvea crew had been realised - and sailed beyond territorial waters. I understand the Ouvea was monitored by a RNZAF P3 Orion, which could explain the switch to a submarine. (Yes, if you are British or American you may now roll round laughing at New Zealand's concerns about your post 9/11 anti-terrorism extended detention without trial laws :-). Winstonwolfe 02:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(Hmmm, on the other hand, I am not under the impression that the arbitrary detention provisions are targetted at members of allied intelligence services scoring hits on pacifist organisations. Rama 08:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC) )

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd rather let the odd DGSE murderer escape than have Guantanamo, I just thought I'd better point out the irony before someone else did :-).Winstonwolfe 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that point... thanks Winston Drew1369 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But is the POV issue 'minor'? How exactly did the French justify this to themselves (insight, not ex-post justification)? Would it be classed as 'terrorism', given current models, to direct a proportionate demolition of assets in sovereign interests, perhaps too careless of the risks to human life of involved journalists et al? Hindsight is a wonderful thing but the current text risks being partisan. 86.129.159.172 13:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

I think that this matter is sufficiently sensitive for the record of event to necessitate both extremely careful and accurate writing, and pertinent citation of the best kind available.

Agents had boarded and carefully examined the ship while she was open to public viewing. Explosions were calculated that would be sufficient to cripple the ship, but, they hoped, precise and small enough not to take life. Two limpet mines attached to the hull of the ship detonated 10 minutes apart, at around 11:45 p.m., and the ship sank in four minutes. The agents failed to allow for the less rigorous safety procedures on the Greenpeace vessel.[citation needed] Some people below decks did not evacuate the ship but returned below decks to salvage belongings and make a film record of events. A Portuguese-Dutch photographer, Fernando Pereira, drowned in the flooding that followed the second blast while attempting to fetch his equipment. The other ten crewmembers evacuated on the order of Captain Peter Willcox, or were thrown into the water by the force of the explosion.

How do we know this stuff? Has it come from a record of a trial, a news report, or a movie?

• "Agents had boarded and carefully examined the ship while she was open to public viewing."

How do we know?

• "Explosions were calculated that would be sufficient to cripple the ship, but, they hoped, precise and small enough not to take life."

How can we possibly know what they hoped? If this information is based on what they said while on trial, then it needs to be written as "Such and such a person stated that they hoped ........"

• "The agents failed to allow for the less rigorous safety procedures on the Greenpeace vessel."

How do we know that they failed to allow for this? Did they say so? If so, then it needs to be stated that they made this assertion.

• "The agents failed to allow for the less rigorous safety procedures on the Greenpeace vessel."

"less rigourous" than what? "less" is a comparative term. It must have a reference point.

• "Some people below decks did not evacuate the ship but returned below decks to salvage belongings and make a film record of events."

Does this mean that they did not evacuate the ship after the first explosion? If this is what is meant, then it needs to be stated, because it is not clear.

• "The other ten crewmembers evacuated on the order of Captain Peter Willcox,"

Is ten the total number, the number that was still aboard at the time of the second explosion, referred to previously as "some people", or what? Do we know how many people were on board at the time of the first explosion? Do we know how many were on board at the time of the second explosion?

Amandajm (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)