Talk:Deep Ecology

This "article" appears to be one really long quote. How about a real article that describes what this is, instead of euphemistic self-promotion? --Magnus Manske 21:36 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Yes this needs to be deleted or at least extensively rewritten so that the original copyright is no longer valid. The article as is cannot be changed since it is one long quote (the fair use aspect of the length is also a factor to consider). Therefore there is no reason for us to have it. --mav

I disagree. 1. A mission statement of an organization is a valid part of the description of an organization. 2. the articles are stubs 3. the articles are linked together contrasting or complementing one another: Darwin, Social Darwinism, Peter Kerpotkin, Social Ecology, Deep Ecology 4. I would think that mission statements are reproducable. I will look a bit more at the copyright later. Karl

Should the "E" be capitalized? -- Zoe

Should this article still exist? It is completely at odds with the Deep ecology page (lowercase 'e'). This page claims 'Deep ecology' is a spinoff of 'Deep Ecology', yet that page claims (and is supported by external sites) that the term 'deep ecology' was was coined by 'Deep ecology' founder Arne Naess. (Yes, I'm confused, too) This (the 'Deep Ecology') page makes no reference to any proponents of 'Deep Ecology' who might help distinguis thee two. The individuals and groups mentions merely share some idels with 'Deep Ecology'. A quick (30 min) scan of the web revealed no double meaning of the label. (just Arne's 8 tenets) The sole external link points to a non existant site. (deep-ecology.org) This domain name is registered womenact.org (according to whois) whose website seems to be about relationships (particularly marriage) and contains neither 'deep' nor 'ecology' (according to google site search). I'm not confident I'm right yet, but if noone here objects and I don't find any new evidence tomorrow, I'm going to look into how to get this page removed (I'm new to wiki) and maybe merge the few useful points into the other page. Jmeppley 05:19, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and while I'm new here, too, I believe I can follow the instructions on how to merge the articles, which I'm now proceeding to do.

Sorry, forgot to timestamp & ID my comment above.--Sentience 02:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)