Talk:Rainbow Warrior (1955)

Photographer death
Discrepency: This article says the photographer drowned when he tried to retrieve his equipment. The article on the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior says he was killed in the second explosion.

There is no discrepancy. The first explosion was small and apparently intended to encourage the crew to leave. It did not sink the ship. After initially leaving with the others, he returned to try to rescue his equipment and was caught by the second much larger explosion which caused the ship to rapidly sink. The immediate cause of death was drowning.

The "drowned while attempting to retrieve his equipment" wording seems to be the spin put on these events by some members of the French media. To the extent that this choice of words suggests that he died in some kind of diving accident after the ship was sunk it is misleading and false. I have attempted to clarify the wording to remove the possibility of this interpretation. Hawthorn 03:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

See also:fr:Discuter:Rainbow_Warrior or Discuter:Rainbow_Warrior for an english commentary on the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior on the french Wikipedia. Text reproduced below:

Rainbow Warrior Bombing - 1985 On 7 July 1985 the Rainbow Warrior, flagship of the Greenpeace Organisation, an international body concerned with conservation and environmental issues, arrived in Auckland and tied up at Marsden Wharf. On the night of 10 July 1985 disaster struck. Shortly before midnight two high explosive devices, attached to the hull of the Rainbow Warrior some time previously, detonated within the space of a few minutes. The force of the explosions was such that a hole eight feet in size was opened below the waterline at the engine room. The vessel sank within minutes. Earlier that evening approximately 30 people had been on board the ship attending a birthday party and at the time of the explosion 12 people, including the captain, were still present. Only 11 made it to the safety of the wharf. Fernando Pereira, crew member and official photographer was drowned while attempting to retrieve photographic equipment from his cabin. The incident was immediately treated as a homicide enquiry and under the guidance of Detective Superintendent Allan Galbraith there began one of the most far reaching investigations this country has ever seen. As a major international scandal it was, ironically, to give Greenpeace far more publicity than would have occurred had the ill fated Rainbow Warrior completed her voyage to Muroroa Atoll. The discovery of an abandoned rubber Zodiac dinghy and an outboard motor and the sighting of a blue and white campervan, led to the interview of a French speaking couple two days later by the Police, and their subsequent arrest on 15 July. Although initially identified as Alain Jacques Turenge and his wife Sophie Frederique Clare Turenge, inquiries revealed their true identities to be Major Alain Mafart, aged 35 and Captain Dominique Prieur, aged 36. Serving as commissioned officers in the French Armed Forces, they had been detailed to assist members of the French Security Forces to ensure the much publicised voyage of the Rainbow Warrior to French territorial waters did not eventuate. To prevent the voyage occurring the vessel had to be so extensively damaged that repairs could not be completed in time for the voyage to begin. What the French had failed to take into account was the small population of New Zealand and the uniqueness of a bombing. Extensive media coverage brought out the best in New Zealanders. The public was horrified by the bombing and they flooded the Police with information. When linked with information obtained by New Zealand detectives in New Caledonia, Norfolk Island, Australia, Switzerland, France and England this proved without any doubt the major role played by the French Security Service in the bombing and the subsequent death of Fernando Pereira. Police investigations soon led to the yacht Ouvea, which had been hired from Noumea to transport the explosives and French agents to New Zealand. The yacht was never located and is thought to have been scuttled. The positioning and successful detonation of the explosives indicated those responsible were trained and expert in underwater warfare. A sighting of Mafart and Prieur in possession of the Zodiac dinghy led to their early apprehension by New Zealand Police. Initially arrested on charges relating to false passports, they were later charged with arson, conspiring to commit arson on the Rainbow Warrior and with the murder of Pereira. Inquiries were however to suggest their role had only been one of support for those who had placed the explosive devices and, as part of their support role, they had picked up and transported from the rendezvous point at Hobson Bay one of those responsible for the placement of the explosive. In the weeks leading up to the depositions hearing, media interest was fanned by conflicting statements from the French Government. On 27 August President Mitterrand of France had released a report which fully exonerated the French Secret Services. The correct names of the Ouvea crew, who presented themselves to the French police in Paris were contained in the report when it was published. The French Government refused a request for their extradition to New Zealand. The French Press was not satisfied and a number of prominent French papers continued to pressure the Government for the truth. Their persistent enquiries led to the inescapable conclusion that their own Government was responsible. Following a further round of official denials, Monsieur Hernu, the Defence Minister resigned and on 22 September Prime Minister Laurent Fabius admitted, in the face of indisputable evidence, that the French Secret Service had ordered the attack on the Rainbow Warrior.

Rainbow Warrior
Should the article be mainly about the original Rainbow Warrior, and include he new one at the bottom as an afterthought? Many more people will have heard about the original than the successor. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 5 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)

president François Mitterrand involvement
The sabotage of the Greenpeace flagship the Rainbow Warrior 20 years ago was carried out with the "personal authorization" of France's late president François Mitterrand, documents showed on Saturday. Le Monde newspaper published extracts in its Saturday edition of a 1986 account written by Pierre Lacoste, the former head of France's DGSE foreign intelligence service, giving the clearest demonstration yet of Mitterrand's direct involvement in the sinking of the campaign vessel. 

Rainbow warrior photo
Why was it deleted? It's important for the Russian Wikipedia (we have a copy of the photo there). --Yuriy Lapitskiy 14:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The photo was deemed a replacable fair use photo. I believe it was used with permission from Greenpeace but the permission was for non-commercial use only. Such a licence is not acceptable to Wikipedia if there is a possibility of getting a free photo. Because we now have no image, perhaps some Wikipedian will be prompted to go and take a photo and release it under a creative commons or GFDL licence.- gadfium 19:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just one question. Do you really think it's possible (and that we have such a Wikipedian here who can and/or will make a new photo of this ship)? --Yuriy Lapitskiy 00:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know where the ship is at present? If you do know, then posting a request to the appropriate national Wikipedians' notice board would probably get results. For example, I responded to such a request for photos of Yuanwang when it was in port in Auckland.- gadfium 00:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ...No comments... Cool! --Yuriy Lapitskiy 01:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't know about current location. But a Google search shows a Flickr photo and I also came across this blog . None of these are currently released under a suitable license but they appear to belong to an invidual so you could ask them if they'd be willing to contribute the photo Nil Einne 22:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Interviewed at length
Interviewed at length! Is that Kiwi for interrogated?

No, it's British. Used on account of being a British off-shoot.


 * In New Zealand we don't have 'suspects'. We have people who are "Helping police with their inquiries". It just wouldn't be right to interrogate such helpful fellows. Instead we interview them ... at length.

Legend
Which Native American tribe or tribes hold this belief? The Jade Knight 20:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * None, maybe. I revised that section to correctly attribute the well-documented origin of the name to a book by an Anglo publisher. The veracity of that book, and the origins of folklore it attributes to Native American sources would appropriately be the topic of another article, perhaps Legend of a Rainbow Warrior. That article should include the role Hunter played in spreading the myth and in attributing it to Hopi sources -- and if possible disclose whether he fairly attributed the publishing house that brought the legend to him. It should also address the fact that yet another non-enrolled member who claimed Native American heritage attributed a legend with virtually identical language to a Cree woman, who becomes her grandmother in numerous retellings of her version. For more on this, see mythical prophecies at the Rainbow gathering talk page. SeeMoreTruth 10:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Chronology
The chronology is a bit screwed up. I think editors are adding new stuff without regard to where it fits in with the rest. So for example, we reveal the 2006 Gérard Royal thing then talk about the 2005 revelation of alleged French Presidential approval and MI6 involvement Nil Einne 21:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Peacock term?
To say that Greenpeace is an enviromental protection organization is not a peacock term, but just stating the fact. It does not in any way promote Greenpeace, just briefly explains what Greenpeace is. And instead saying that Greenpeace is an enviromental pressure group hardly gives the most truthfull image of Greenpeace, since Greenpeace does do other things than just put pressure on those it sees harmful to the enviroment.Shubi (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying "environmental protection organization" is not stating a fact, it is a way to artificially bring the loaded terms "protection" into play. Greenpeace arguably carries out actions and campains which harm the environment.
 * Furthermore, what Greenpeace actually is belongs to Greenpeace. I have no objection to replacing "purchased by the environmental pressure group Greenpeace" with "purchased by Greenpeace"; but parroting Greenpeace's advertisement is out of the question. Rama (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see "protection" as a loaded term, and protection of the environment is the goal of Greenpeace and for example The UN grants Greenpeace with a consultative status. It's not advertising, it's an aknowledged fact. Or would you be willing to remove "protection" from this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations because it advertises these organizations. Of course you can criticize that GP harms the environment, but that personal view does not change what Greenpeace is and what it tries to achieve. However if you have a problem with that, I'm fine with just the article stating "environmental organization". I however think that articles should briefly explain things that might very well be unfamiliar to readers. For example "Edgar Allan Poe sold his house to his cousin John Whilbury" is better than "Edgar Allan Poe sold his house to John Whilbury". Then readers may decide wheter or not to read the article about John Whilbury. After all there's a lot of people who don't even know what Greenpeace is.Shubi (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1955???
The title of the page is wrong! I don't know how to edit that. Lunar ether (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)