Talk:Eco-terrorism/Archives/01/2014

Carlos?
What does the final section ("On the 18 January 1982, in France, unidentifed attackers fired five rockets at the nuclear central Superphenix. Years later, Chaïm Nissim, former ecologist deputy from nearby Geneva, linked to the terrorist Carlos, admitted to the crime") have to do with eco-terrorism? What was the MOTIVE of that terrorist act? --Jamiem 14:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was in the process of rewording it, but I just took it out instead.  If someone feels the need to add it back, please provide more information and try to reword it a little. MrHen. 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove the bin Laden reference
Important note: Could someone please remove the reference to Osama bin Laden from this article? He is not an eco-terrorist. He is an Islamist terrorist. There is a BIG difference between those vastly different and completely unrelated ideologies. Let's keep the article focused on "eco-terrorism" and not distort the conversation by linking the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks (which killed innocent people and animals and caused enormous environmental damage) to people who support the use of property damage and sometimes violence as a means of ending the perceived exploitation of animals/the environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderson76 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV again
Because "eco-terrorism" is a loaded word, I NPOVed.

I think that this article should be about what people mean when they say "eco-terror," and that it should compare these meanings to "animal liberation," "state terror," "property destruction," "sabotage" and "direct action."

The use of "ecoterror" is by centrists, right-wingers, and the FBI. It is inherently POV. It can be discussed, but as a propaganda term. FBI and others monitor environmentalists for "ecoterror" acts that include banner hanging, consensus meetings, and nonviolent civil disobedience (traffic obstruction, blockading).

What is Rush Limbaugh doing here? If this were an article about neo-con radio hosts I would understand but as he has no expertise in any field pertaining to this article I cannot see a point in having such a large piece of it devoted to him.

Have made several changes through the article, including removing the Limbaugh section in its entirety - if content from it can be rescued and integrated into the rest of the article it may be of use but I felt devoting an entire section to it was rather over the top. I would propose that for eco-terrorism, rather than - as was the case - attempting to definitively say "X is eco-terrorism, Y is not eco-terrorism", we should simply report the use of these terms by appropriate sources. --Black Butterfly 00:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * According to my research, ecoterrorism might be a biased word, but it's also a movement:
 * A Profile on Ecoterrorism


 * Additionally, making an article NPOV based on the fact that the title is a "loaded word" is not a reason to blame the article. In a similar sense, should the word Anarchy be NPOV?  Your argument appears illegitimate, as this would create an infinitely regressive precedent as to what is and is not a "loaded" word.  Certainly your proposition is acceptable, but is this really addressed by the NPOV header?  I understand that there are various definitions of what ecoterrorism is, but the article certainly appears to be relying on the definitions provided to determine the differences.  Furthermore, I don't think NPOV is even the correct dispute regarding this article.  There does not seem to be any biased position stated in the article.  At best, there is incorrect information as to what is and what is not "ecoterrorism."  Oscabat 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia documents, and when a word by itself is POV, it still can be described in NPOV. As such, it does not violate the NPOV policy of wikipedia. Kim van der Linde at venus 06:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV is about self-identification. No one self-identifies as an eco-terrorist. It's a pejorative term used to leverage opinion against activists who employ a variety of strategies in their environmentalist work. Howecer, It is in use and whith greater frequency (like "reds" or "pinkos" during the Cold War) so it should of course be in Wikipedia. But maybe having it redirect to a page with a more NPOV title would be worth exploring. (Though "pinko" has its own page, as do a number of racial slurs...) – Morganfitzp 07:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Homophobia, Pseudo science, Racism, the pressent page is perfectly in line with similar articles on other words. J.Ring 01:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder: Eco-terrorism is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Domestic Terrorism Section as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." [is this about innocent property or is any property that destroys ecology considered innocent because it is property.12M$ and they need to invent a terrorism. screw wiki for liking to feauture the fassism.77.251.179.188 08:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflation of Earth First! and other groups
Could you all please not conflate my dear Earth First! with ELF? There are Elves who are EarthFirst!ers, but it is only the FBI that thinks that the generally legal activities of EarthFirst! are eco-terror, and there are many EarthFirst!ers who take explicit positions against property destruction/violence.

Also, to say "member" of ELF or ALF or EarthFirst! is inaccurate as none of these groups have membership. You can subscribe to the EarthFirst! journal, if you'd like, or you can burn down condominiums and spraypaint "ELF" all over the place, but in neither case is there an organization to join or dues to pay. If you want to be an EarthFirst!er, you just have to put the earth first in your life (i.e. adopt biocentrism), and if you want to be a ELF/ALF participant, you just have to have a good lawyer and disrespect for the law.

--Defenestrate 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't deny that EF! used to be a lot more radical though, and the ELF probably came about as an offshoot of the group when EF! began mainstreaming. The ELF are more militant than even the old EF! though. Anyways, just thought I would comment. And you're right, neither group has formal membership, and the ELF especially cannot be called and organization. The Ungovernable Force 08:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The article incorrectly paraphrased FBI assessment of ELF. I have corrected this and cited the actual FBI testimony from the FBI website to clarify. Previously, the article had stated that FBI said ELF was the "most dangerous". However, testimony by Jarboe in 2001 called ELF the "most active". In fact, it clearly states that, right wing domestic terrorist threats became the "most dangerous" during the 90's, and that now ELF and ALF emerging as a serious threat.

I also agree with the statements about how ecoterrorism is a propaganda term. It would be best to discuss most of the actual issues in the ALF and ELF articles themselves. It's difficult since the term is so widely used, yet tossed around so informally. There is certainly no consensus on even what the word "terrorism" means. The United Nations, US FBI, US State Department, and US Department of Defense all have different definitions.--Teej 07:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to find a less propganda term. If you call eco-terrorism a propoganda term, then the article is missing non-propoganda terms entirely. "eco-defender" is as much, if not more of a propoganda term PLUS it is less common. Personally, I feel eco-terroism is quite appropriate. No matter whose definition of terrorist you use, someone who illegally uses fear (terror), threats, violence, and damage to other's property in order to forward a political agenda, pretty much fits. "Eco-defender", the second most common word, glosses over all of that which makes it even worse propoganda and also implies that the "eco-defenders" are defending, or are on the defensive, when they are clearly on the offensive. IreverentReverend 13:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Depends on how you look at it. Just like most other "terrorist" groups. Most people say that Palestinian suicide bombers are the agressors, but when you consider that they are horribly repressed by the Israeli government (in what amounts to state terrorism, their actions seem more defensive in nature. Some disagree, and it all goes back to how you look at it. I personally consider the elf and alf to be defensive in their actions (not to say I support them fully) because I consider third-party self-defence valid, and the ELF and ALF are clearly third-party defenders of animals and the environment. The Ungovernable Force 08:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the palestinians are being repressed when a regular Israeli has stricter laws and far more red tape. Epl18 07:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The term ecoterrorism is a propaganda term, and only that. It is not legitimate under any frame of analysis to call someone who opposes ecological devastation with their own body a "terrorist" - nor someone who merely damages property - they may be a saboteur or arsonist but if they don't take life, they aren't a terrorist, period. Note even the CIA, only the FBI would disagree with that position, and we don't yet take an FBIPOV here. So this should be heavily moderated.


 * The idea that someone has to die for it to be terrorism reflects a poor understanding of terrorism and the efforts to define it. Many definitions require death, but far from all do.  Just as many definitions consider property damage to be terrorism, even if death was not intended.  See below.  --Xinoph 07:30, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Ecotage is a fair term. So is terrist. But no one calls themsELVES an Ecoterrorist, it's only others that do so. And the idea that the French government was in some way responding to "ecoterrorism" by blowing up the Greenpeace boat (which was on its way to disrupt a nuclear test) is mad, and was ruled madness by a French court.

This article must be a bit harsher on those who use the term "ecoterrorism", and effectively explain it only as a propaganda term which confuses both the idea of ecological protection, and of terrorism. EofT


 * Essentially "ecoterrorism" is what everyone else calls them and "terrist" is their own term for themselves. Calling it "only propaganda" is your own POV, and an attempt to discredit the term. "eco-terrorism' return 12,400 while "terrist" return 766  (with wikipedia as the top 2). M123 17:54, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Allowing the Wiki to reflect a blatant oxymoron such as "eco-terrorism" is ridiculous. There is no violence against any person whatsoever involved in ecotage and, therefore, there cannot be any violence against a subset of persons (namely, civillians). This entry is an oxymoron, at best, and a more accurate soci-political discussion must include the fact that it is also used as a propaganda tool by the multinational resource extraction and refining corporations against which most ecotage occurs. Bangarang

Violence against a person is not necessary for it to be considered terrorism. See my comment below. --Xinoph 03:58, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that it needs to be mentioned, regardless of the accuracy. There is no dispute that many people consider ecoterrorism to be a valid label for direct action in the name of the environment or animal liberation. Therefore, the term "ecoterrorist" needs to have an article and be explained. There also needs to be criticism of the term's use as well, and make no mistake, I would criticize it myself. The Ungovernable Force 08:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Truth be told, there is no univeral definition for terrorist. It's something like pornography. We can't define it but we know it when we see it. Some acceptable definitions include sentances such as "use or threatened use of force against non combatants designed to bring about political or social change." Burning down farms and blowing up university buildings certiantly fits into this category. To say that an organization is not a terrorist once simply based on the fact that they don't directly kill anyone or themselves is a farce. Slimdavey 00:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

American Heritage provides the following...

ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

RK, is there an example you have in mind when you say ecoterrorism has included actual murder? Evercat 21:54, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Suggested title: environmentalist direct action, with redirects from both ecoterrorism and ecotage. That would allow us to matter-of-factly describe all aspects of environmental direct action without falling victim to semantic disputes. Martin 23:13, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Probably a good idea. Evercat 23:15, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a good idea. eco-terrorism is a term that is used often in mainstream press and culture, and for Wikipedia to redirect it to another term is to ignore the term at the behest of those who disagree with it, and this is not NPOV.  Perhaps having environmentalist direct action and ecotage in the "See Also" section would be more appropriate.--Xinoph 04:01, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, who considers Greenpeace a terrorist organisation? --snoyes 03:23, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any mainstream groups in the US that hold such a position. Perhaps some non US government? For the life of me, I know of no Greenpeace actions that intended to hurt humans, so unless someone can provide some details, I think that this particular claim can be removed. RK 23:52, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

-

The following has been copied here from my talk page: (RK)

OK. I'm trying to work on the article towards NPOV - I think calling non-violent action "terrorism" is too strong. Maybe the article should only mention actual destructive, dangerous or threatening acts, and note that there is a contrast between these and non-violent acts...


 * The FBI's definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social goals". So ecoterrorism does seem to be a valid term. RK

Also, do you have an example of an ecoterrorist murder? The page you gave says no deaths due to ecoterrorism in the U.S. - is there an example abroad? Evercat 22:11, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * So far there has been only two actual killings by ecoterrorists. (See the end of the second link, and the middle of the third link.) However, there was an attempt to mass-murder researchers by the so-called "Justice Department", which sent out letters to scientists... containing razor blades dipped in poison. Enclosed letters stated that the intent was to wound and kill. A few other extremist groups are now openly preaching arson and killing, and giving instructions on how to make molotov #########. RK 02:47, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Eco-terrorism-A New Kind of Sabotage - National Conference of State Legislatures


 * Eco-Terrorism?


 * Acts of ecoterrorism testimony before Congress
 * ACTS OF ECOTERRORISM BY RADICAL ENVIROMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS. SECOND SESSION JUNE 9, 1998
 * Excerpt from the above website: Another group, espousing some sort of tie to Earth First!, spiked a tree. When the tree was milled at a now-defunct sawmill in Cloverdale, California, also in my congressional district, the spike actually killed a mill worker when the saw made contact with the spike.
 * Earth First has been lumped in with eco-terrorism. The FBI accused members (later cleared) and they are often discussed with the formation of the movement. The article needs to be clear but I see no problem making mention of it.Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

PETA does not give money to ALF or ELF
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals does not give any financial support to ALF or ELF. I removed the false information about PETA. Also, the ALF and ELF do not engage in violence. Destroying property is not considered violence.

You are absolutely crazy. You don't have to kill or injure somebody to be considered a terrorist. And yeah, PETA has given money to ALF and ELF. That is a fact. This article is pure garbage seeming to endorse acts of violence.--1 March 2007 SN

Um, yeah it is. If you blow up my car, that's violent. I'm putting PETA back in because there is a source that links them, at least financially to the ALF. --Bonus Onus 18:38, May 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * "We did it, we did it. We gave $1,500 to the ELF for a specific program," said PETA President Lisa Lange. [] plain_regular_ham 15:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The President of PETA is Ingrid Newkirk Stancel 01:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, excuse me...I see her now also referred to as, "vice president of communications". Her title aside, do you claim that she did not say it?  Otherwise, help me to prevent the above section title from being made into a false statement. plain_regular_ham 20:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe "fox news", and I especially don't trust a "news" organization that can't even get PETA's President right. And why would PETA give money to the ELF and not the ALF? ELF is the Earth Liberation Front, while the ALF is the Animal Liberation Front. It would make more sense if PETA donated to ALF. So I do claim that she never said such a thing unless you can bring up a reliable source that is not the original article from fox news. Stancel 18:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And another thing, I think it was cowardly of you to change what I said. That is called censorship. Stancel 18:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Try here. or here .  One would have to stretch every philosophical imagining in the book to state that PETA "does not give money to ALF or ELF".  You should look gratefully upon my edits before as proofreading.  In any case, though, I stated below that "I stand corrected".  I will let your lie stand as long as it is not in the article itself.
 * And another thing, I see your 'cowardly' comment as a weak provocation. We are talking about a section title, not a sneaky attempt to misrepresent you.  I already provided my 'mea culpa', so let's not get carried away with feigned indignance. plain_regular_ham 20:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Just had to fix the header for this section. It was simply untrue and should not be stated anywhere. plain_regular_ham 13:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Still I see no cause to amend the title of this section into a lie. plain_regular_ham 20:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter. Whether or not a statement is true, it is inappropriate for one person to edit the remarks of another on this discussion board.  If you disagree, then say so, but the only remarks we each may edit are our own.  Personally, I think it is pretty clear that PETA supports eco-terrorism but I absolutely support the right of other people to say different (even though it isn't true).  --JonGwynne 20:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I stand corrected. I absolutely support the right of other people to say different (even though it isn't true){in discussion}.plain_regular_ham 19:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

wait one second... PETA doesnt even deny giving money to alf and elf. take a look at their tax forms sometime, they donate TONS of money to ecoterrorists, and admit it. IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on the subject but I wanted to link a Testimony before the Senate that clearly ties PETA to some interesting group financially. Read it how you want.Senate Testimony

Reason for NPOV header
Spleeman inserted the NPOV header on the page for the following reason:

"Many environmentalists view the use of the term eco-terrorism as a propaganda-driven attempt to associate the widespread use of nonviolent civil disobedience by environmentalists with the more contentious acts of property damage or vandalism, and to link acts of vandalism with notions of terrorism." That's why, Bill. -- Spleeman 11:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 11:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)) Thank you. Please use my user name, William, or WMC. You appear to be asserting that the very page name itself is NPOV. Is that so? After all, the reason you've put in is a disclaimer right in the intro text of the page. Incidentally (to avoid confusion) I agree with the text above - I just don't think it makes the page N-NPOV.

Yes, what I meant was that the eco-terrorism title is itself controversial, and I was trying to use the quote to support that. I agree with the quote as well. Come to think of it, perhaps a "controversial" warning would be more appropriate than a NPOV warning. Spleeman


 * I copied that particular paragraph from the entry on eco-terrorism at Disinfopedia (I hope that's OK under the GNU FDL). Seems to me to be quite a big deal to put up an NPOV warning, although I agree that the article does need some work. There have been some good suggestions made in the discussion above about how it could be improved - perhaps you should have a go at editing the article towards neutrality.? See propaganda, doublespeak and neologism for some food for thought. Dirtbiscuit 12:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, having looked at Controversial_issue, even a "controversial" warning seems a bit heavy handed - this page hasn't exactly been a hotbed of debate (yet). And that's kind of nice if you want to quietly work away at an article without getting drawn some ideologically driven edit war! Dirtbiscuit 12:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The text below refers to a previous draft, still available by google but not currently a live entry in the Wikipedia.

This article should be deleted, period. It's POV by nature; the term "eco-terrorism" is straight from FBI propaganda. Why don't we just have the FBI article moved to State Terrorism to even the score? I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss the term "eco-terrorism" somewhere, but this doesn't seem the right way to do it... --Tothebarricades.tk 22:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have edited the paragraph that Spleeman quoted above to trim it down a bit to make it easier to read and combined it with the paragraph that was immediately below it. I think this version is a little more NPOV and do not consider it to have lost any meaning.  It just sounds more technical.  ;) MrHen. 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove Greenpeace from this entry, please
I work for Greenpeace and I'm astounded that the Wikipedia is being used to promote the right wing fringe suggestion that we're a terrorist organisation.


 * "right wing fringe suggestion" - Can you back that assertion up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.73.127 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Greenpeace was founded on the principle of non-violence and 'bearing witness' of environmental destruction.

Non-violence is a part of our mission statement:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/extra/?item_id=4265&language_id=en

We always have been and always will remain strictly non-violent in all our endeavours. Our reputation of non-violence and peaceful direct action is widely known, and this is one aspect of Greenpeace our supporters value most. We believe violence is counter productive to the cause of stopping environmental destruction, and we believe violence is morally wrong. This sort of accusation is particularly offensive when you consider that we ourselves have been the victims of officially sanctioned terrorism, such as when the Rainbow Warrior was blown up by French secret agents, murdering one of our crew members.

To say "Some groups believe Greenpeace to be a terrorist organisation" may be technically true: we've heard that from the High North Alliance and Ron Arnold, (both of whom have a political agenda behind the accusation) but including such a statement in the Wikipedia is the journalistic equivalent of insisting that the phrase "Some groups believe that Henry Kissenger and Queen Elizabeth are responsible for the world's ###### trade" in an entry on opium simply because Lyndon Larouche says so. Same level of credibility.

Unless somebody can document a case of Greenpeace using terrorism, please remove our name from this entry.

--brian fitzgerald bfitzgerald [at!] int.greenpeace.org


 * From


 * "On September 22, the charitable oversight group Public Interest Watch filed a complaint with the IRS charging Greenpeace with making such illegal transfers. In a report entitled &#8220;Green-Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits,&#8221; Public Interest Watch found that Greenpeace Fund, a 501(c)(3) transferred over $10 million in exempt funds to non-exempt Greenpeace organizations such as Greenpeace, Inc., between 1998 and 2000. The Canadian equivalent of the IRS recently denied Greenpeace tax-exempt status because it determined its activities were not wholly charitable.


 * Greenpeace, Inc. and other non-exempt Greenpeace entities benefitting from these transfers have committed numerous acts of eco-terrorism. They have blockaded a U.S. naval base, broken into the central control building of a nuclear power station in England, overrun the Exxon Mobil corporate headquarters in Texas, and rammed a ship into the French sailboat competing in the 2003 America&#8217;s Cup, permanently damaging the vessel.


 * In April 2002, Greenpeace activists forcibly boarded a cargo ship in Florida carrying Brazilian wood. In connection with this incident, federal prosecutors obtained an indictment against Greenpeace this July for violating an 1872 law prohibiting the unauthorized boarding of &#8220;any vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination.&#8221; The trial in this case is scheduled for December in Miami."


 * I'd be interested, Brian, in how you would respond to this. Your claim is countered by other claims.  Why should we believe you? plain_regular_ham 14:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, how do you stretch the definition of eco-terrorism to include the blocade of a naval base? What was the nature of the blocade that involved violence or intimidation?  Breaking into a nuclear power plant may be illegal, dangerous and stupid but I also don't immediately see the threat or intimidation that this action represented...  what did they do after they broke in?  I'm not saying that Greenpeace is squeaky-clean, but some of these accusations do seem to be a bit thin.  --JonGwynne 20:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hard to say. I wasn't there.  Admittedly they aren't all super-aggressive examples, but ramming boats or overrunning headquarters of companies are not exactly passive either.  This was entered to have Brian reconsider the notion of removing Greenpeace entirely from the page.  If they engaged in one act of eco-terrorism, they are right at home here. plain_regular_ham 20:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, but there is a grey area here which would include certain illegal but not violently aggressive behavior that at least some of the examples fit better than "eco-terrorism". I mean "overrunning corporate headquarters", that could be something as innocuous as staging a quiet "sit in" in the company's lobby.  I doubt anyone would consider that a "terrorist act".   I'm not categorically opposed to mentioning any group here but I think you've got your work cut out for you if you want Greenpeace to stay...  can you come up with some examples of violent behavior designed to intimidate and coerce people?  --JonGwynne 00:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ham is quoting from an article by Marc Levin of the "American Freedom Center". Levin's article happens to be the first link to appear if you Google for "Greenpeace" and "eco-terrorism". There has already been a fairly exhaustive (or at least exhausting!) debate about this topic at Talk:Greenpeace. To recap what I've said there, Levin's article simply assembles a collection of dubious, poorly evidenced claims from various industry front groups, conservative think-tanks and PR professionals; these include the Center for Consumer Freedom (food, alcohol and tobacco industry funded), Public Interest Watch (industry funded, but refuse to disclose specifics) and Nick Nichols (formerly of Nichols-Dezenhall, now Dezenhall Resources).


 * Not only that, Levin's article is out of date. You don't need to look any further than the Wikipedia article on Greenpeace to find that the 2003 indictment was thrown out of court. In fact, Google "greenpeace" and "indictment", and guess what comes up as the first link? That same Wikipedia article! For more background to the case, see and.


 * Anyone editing this article would do well to look at who it is that is applying the "eco-terrorist" label to particular groups, who their sources are and who is funding them before repeating their claims. See, for starters. Dirtbiscuit 09:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence and acts of war." from Terrorism

Are any of Greenpeace's acts consistent with the above definition? I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to find evidence for "acts that are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack)", unlawful acts, acts that disregard the safety of civilians, and acts that are intended to create fear. That said I doubt that it will be consistent with all the elements of Wikipedia's definition of eco-terrorism.

Who claims that Greenpeace is eco-terrorist organisation? If numerous credible sources do, it might be valuable to mention this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.73.127 (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. And the the best of my knowledge NO reliable expert sources consider greepeace terrorists. They are definitively non-violent and non-destructive. That kind of negates the possibillity of being labeled a terrorist. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wise Use movement
The entry on the Wise Use movement describes it as "a loose affiliation of activists opposed to the environmental movement". "Anti-environmentalist" is probably a more neutral adjective than "anti-environmental". Dirtbiscuit 05:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I object to "anti-environmentalist" too, since environmentalist is a loaded and misused term. I would merely provide a link, and let the readers decide for themselves. --H. C HENEY 15:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, H. Are you sure it isn't the 'anti' prefix that suggests 'loaded' to you?. After all, declaring someone anti-this or that often implies that they are opposed to a fundamental societal value (Anti-American, for instance).


 * I would suggest that using 'anti-environmentalist' to describe Ron Arnold & Wise Use is not too far removed from using 'anti-smoking' to describe the tobacco control lobby. Arnold, in his essay [Overcoming Ideology], refers repeatedly to environmentalism and environmentalists in describing a particular ideology to which he is clearly opposed, and defines Wise Use as a movement which has formed in opposition to environmentalism. He appears to view environmentalism as a social wrong in much the same way that others view smoking as a wrong.


 * As such, it seems to me both reasonable and usefully descriptive to retain this adjective in the article. Compared to "eco-terrorist", environmentalist is a term that both supporters and opponents of the ideology it describes seem to be able to live with.


 * BTW, thank you for discussing rather than reverting. If only people did that more often! Dirtbiscuit 13:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the term anti-environmentalist fits the Wise Use movement either. Just as environmentalism isn't always anti-business, not being against responsible economic use of the environment doesn't make you anti-environmentalist.  It is possible to be against neither the environment nor big business.  They are not necessarily opposing forces - in fact I would argue that both could accomplish their goals if they only worked together more often.  Note that the only use of the term "anti-environmentalist" in the Wise Use article itself comes from the Greenpeace book about them, which can hardly be considered a neutral source (it may even be the ultimate origin of the label).

Moreover, I don't believe that "anti-environmentalist" suggests opposition to the fundamentalist values of environmentalism per se, but that they are against environmentalists - two very different things. Similarly, the term anti-big business doesn't mean you don't believe in capitalism, or even that you disagree with the fundamental principles of big business - only that you are against big business. See the difference? It's a fine one, but important. I think the self-defined mission of the Wise Use movement is responsible use of the environment by the business community, not to act as an antithetical force to environmentalists. Therefore we shouldn't use it as a label for them here in an encyclopedia. Just because one doesn't follow traditional views on conservation of the environment doesn't mean one is anti-environmentalist.--Xinoph 03:09, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Disinfopedia
H.Cheney, why have you removed a link to the Disinfopedia article, which balances the SPLC report? I find it disturbing that you are doing this while accusing others of censorship. Dirtbiscuit 18:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is, it's all right to link to biased Disinfopedia articles here, but linking to related NPOV Wikipedia articles in tree sitting is unacceptable. Please try to be more neutral. --H. C HENEY 18:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually no, I haven't made any comment about whether articles should only link to neutral sources. In fact, I doubt whether that is possible. As I've explained elsewhere and at some length, the 'See also' link from tree sitting to eco-terrorism implied definition, and a definition which is contentious. The Disinfopedia link is an external link to an article which has the same title, so that problem doesn't arise. Dirtbiscuit 19:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I find it somewhat strange that a simple link to the Disinfopedia article - which I initiated - has been removed on the grounds the article is biased. Surely Wikipedia includes plenty of links to external articles/sites that someone will find biased. Surely it is up to readers to decide whether the Disinfopedia article is biased ... and I would have thought that part of the role of Wikipedia (and other wikis) is to help make it easy for readers to find information so they can make up their own minds.


 * (For example, in Disinfopedia there are numerous external links to articles, books, organisations etc that I and other readers might find 'biased' - such as Ron Arnold's - but I think including them makes the articles more useful for readers). --Bob Burton 11:48, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bad Paragraph
This paragraph:

Further, some people hold that clearcutting, strip-mining and other destructive resource extraction activities are true eco-terrorism, battling against such activities is considered by such people to be more akin to self-defense or defense of one's home, than to be terrorism. In many countries&mdash;notably the United States&mdash;self-defense, defense of a one's home or a loved one, can be held to be a valid legal defence to a charge of a crime. Thus, some people consider vandalism, active resistance, crime or even violence in defense of their ecosystem to be moral, ethical, and legally defensible.

This argument, though some may make it, seems like quite a stretch (burning down a housing development is self defense because the housing development was hurting your "loved one" (the environment)) and it certainly shouldn't be in the opener to this article. IMHO, if we keep this paragraph at all, we should move it down the page a lot to a section called "defense of eco-terorism" or something like that. Bonus Onus 03:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

PETA
According to The Record, the only incidents involving PETA involved pie, or monetary support. I wouldn't call that working "openly" with eco-terrorists. It is close, but i would still leave PETA out of here, just to keep balance. If anyone can find evidence of a more direct link, perhaps we could make the change. --Bonus Onus 04:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * JonGwynne, that article you cited was hardly neutral, but at least its a step in the right direction. I guess we can leave PETA in for now. --Bonus Onus 05:02, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems PETA has made its way back in, not only in reference to its financial link, but directly under the four groups labeled as eco-terrorism. Although it may be radical, and some of its members may support eco-terrorism, the group itself is not a terrorist group per se--its mission statement does not include violence--and it should be taken off the paragraph listing the main groups. I completely agree with including it further down where it is financially linked to eco-terrorism. Bonus Onus 21:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

PETA admits giving money to elf/ALF/ josh harper/rod coronodo... if PETA admits it, why is it even contended? they gave money to the groups the desirve space in the article. IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

also, can we change the text from saying largely legal help to largley financial help? it is much more common for peta to give people money than they are to give them a lawyer, from what I have seen... IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)


 * Non-violent ??? I recently heard on the news that they intended to go to some KFCs and piss and shit on the food in the buffet counters. 65.163.112.74 18:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert War
Guys, lets compromise. Stop making your edits so blatant, and stop reverting without posting on the talk page. --Bonus Onus 01:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Associated with?"
I don't get it... violence and vandalism aren't "associated with eco-terrorism", they *are* eco-terrorism. Right?--JonGwynne 02:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, true, but i think "generally associated" makes this sentence better. people who call treesitting and other forms of nonviolent protest "ecoterrorism" are trying to make a connection in peoples minds between treesitting and things like violence, arson, and vandalism. It is all about associations. Also, just for NPOV sake it is better not to make any absolutes. and i'm not implying anything here, its just from an editorial perspective that im making this change. --Bonus Onus 03:19, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, but there is a problem: In the paragraph in question, we're talking about "real" eco-terrorism.  I think it is made pretty clear elsewhere that non-violence acts aren't terroristic in nature and that those who try to pretend otherwise are wrong for doing it.  However, when specifically discussing acts of overt violence, they can't be "associated" with terrorism as if they are somehow separate from it, it must be clear that violence when committed to serve a political end *is* terrorism.--JonGwynne 03:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, looks good. I like the wording on that edit. -Bonus Onus 20:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
Does anyone object to the removal of the NPOV tag? Have we finally gotten the article to a point where nobody can object to what it says? I'll give this a week... if no one objects, I'll remove the tag.--JonGwynne 06:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i think things are better. why dont you go ahead and remove it. --Bonus Onus 17:55, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * It has been more than a week and no one has objected so... out it goes...  --JonGwynne 20:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I read the entire discussion page, was intrigued by the debate, and saw that there was room for a fresh eye to do some minor edits for flow. I attempted in good faith to keep all the substance on both sides. If I have failed, please see if it can be improved before reverting. --Niku 03:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edit. I think it looks better than it did before.  I made one small change and fixed the spacing.  --JonGwynne 07:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The "Alternative View" section
It is unsupported, undocumented and completely pointless. There is no discussion of who it is who refers to themselves as "eco defenders", what the term means and whether it, or these claims, have any credibility or not... The section seems to be an attempt by militant environmentalists (or their apologists) to rationalize violent and destructive activities by pretending that they are are somehow in service of some noble case. I'm removing it (again) and anyone who wants to restore it had best be prepared to offer some support for these claims as well as a logical argument as to why the unquantified and uncorroborated claims attributed to unknown, anonymous and possible non-existant individuals is even relevant. --JonGwynne 19:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 20:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)) The section makes sense, but it offends your POV. Restored.


 * (William M. Connolley 20:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)) And please mark your reverts as such.


 * --Niku 22:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) If William can document the term "eco defender" on this talk page then it is a relevant addition to the existing discussion. However the alternative view section was redundant in that it followed a more thorough treatment of the same view, so I integrated the content of William's addition into the other section, and tried to make the discussion of the view a bit more consise.


 * WMC is not one to document or support his claims - he comes from tbe "because I said so, that's why" school of argument. Notice that he didn't support his restoral of the information.  Still, I think in the new context you've given it, it isn't objectionable so it can stay.  --JonGwynne 05:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 09:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Thanks to Niku. Since you're restored essentially all the text and re-arranged it, I'm happy.


 * Still, documentation of the usage of the term eco-defender is still appropriate; other controversial facts on this page have been argued and either documented or removed as well. Why don't you google it and give us a couple examples and then we can all move on? --Niku 13:16, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

''He asks us to, "· look at the definitions of the words, "eco is short for eco-system, and Webster's definition of terrorism is the political use of terror and intimidation. If you put those two together, ·you start to see companies that are destroying and polluting as eco-terrorists. I like to think of myself more as an eco-defender."''

Eco-defenders are disjointed, have varying degrees of motivation, and all have different ideas of how environmental concerns should be addressed. from: Confessions of an Eco-Warrior by Dave Foreman, 1993, ISBN 051788058X. See also: Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching same author, 1993, ISBN 0963775103. Vsmith 15:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And here we see the rationalizations provided by criminals for their actions... --JonGwynne 02:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Your POV is obvious.  Wikipedia is not the place to push it. Kaibabsquirrel 04:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How is it POV to describe someone who commits crimes as a "criminal"? --JonGwynne 16:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong question, the question is how is it not POV to deliberately try to remove mention of the use of the term "eco-defenders" when it is well documented? Kaibabsquirrel 21:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The term "eco-defender" is merely the opinion of those who commit criminal acts and then try to rationalize them by claiming that these crimes are committed in the defense of the environment. Can you prove any examples of serious, mainstream use of this term?  Also, why is my question wrong?  You said I'm trying to push my POV with the statement I made about eco-terrorists who commit crimes being criminals.  I think I'm entitled to an answer to the question: how does calling someone who commits crimes a "criminal" fit into the category of POV?   --JonGwynne 22:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous. This is an article about those to whom the term "ecoterrorism" is applied, therefore it would be appropriate to include references to what they call themselves in the article, regardless of whether there is any "mainstream" use of the term.  Regarding your other question, your post was in response to a quote from Dave Foreman and was in the context of your not wanting the eco-defender reference mentioned in the article.  Leaving aside the question of whether somebody whose only crime was to write a book and give a copy of it to an undercover FBI agent provocateur deserves to be called a criminal in the first place, it's POV when the criminal label is used as a reason to exclude pertinent material from the article. Kaibabsquirrel 01:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether or not someone "deserves" to be called a criminal is POV and irrelevant. A criminal is someone who has committed a crime.  That is the only objective, neutral definition of the word.   --JonGwynne 19:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with Environmentalist wacko, Econazi and Ecoterrorist
Surely a "see also" link will suffice? Limbaugh didn't coin the term "eco-terrorist". Dirtbiscuit 09:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The term "eco-terrorism" is a neologism... So are "environmentalist wacko" and "econazi". I don't see a reason to split the concept into two articles just because two (or three) of the words were coined by one man. Why should Limbaugh's use of the terms get an article by itself? -Willmcw 22:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see a reason. Rush's is a right wing response to the action by the left.  In the scheme of eco-terrorism the Limbaugh stuff is pretty unimportant and therefore it would completely marginalized here and so I think it should remain there. gren グレン 11:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why Limbaugh, one example of someone who uses the term, is accorded one-half of the length of this article. A one-sentance comment would have sufficed. This tells us a lot about Rush, but not much about eco-terrorism.

External criticism
I've written some criticism of this page at my blog: http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/ Chuck0 22:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial"
I agree with the inclusion of the term "controversial" in the introduction, but think it should be in the first sentence, i.e., "Eco-terrorism is a controversial term that some people...." or something similar. In my experience - and I admit I could be wrong - this term is almost entirely used by American conservatives who are antagonistic to the environmentalist/ecologist/animal rights/welfare movements in general. Monkeywrenching or criminal damage, which appears make up the majority of what these people call 'eco-terrorism,' can in no neutral, objective and uncontroversial way be considered terrorism - so the nature of the term should be flagged up immediately. JF Mephisto 03:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's defined by the FBI not by you. They decide what's terrorism and what isn't. It's a defenition used in legal terms by the FBI. It shouldn't be controversial as much as the term "negligent manslaughter" is controversial. 70.162.43.130 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To note that the FBI most certainly do not have a monopoly on defining what is or what isn't terrorism. Their definition is notable, but this is a world-wide encyclopedia. Can we find any other country that has a definition of eco-terrorism? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Free Willzyx
I included that as part of Ecoterrorism in fiction. Since the episode involved the ALF, I just thought it would be appropriate to add it to the list.

Moved FBI's definition to the top
I probably should have posted here before I did it, but I moved the FBI definition to the top. For all the controversy around the label eco-terrorism, the FBI's definition is quite complete, the official definition of a government body, and the most relevant from a law enforcement standpoint. If someone comes to this Wiki page, they're going to want to know the FBI definition, however they feel about the label. Might as well put it up front. I also provided a reference for the FBI's definition. Mgunn 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why Controversial?
Why is this considered a "controversial term?" The FBI uses it as a legal definition to describe certain crimes and criminals. It's like saying someone who murders somebody is offended by being called a "murderer." Also I don't see any citation or references for it. I don't see any articles or reputable discussions about the term being offensive to consider having that fragment of the article in there. If someone does something that falls under the umbrella of eco-terrorism, they'll be labelled an eco-terrorist. Who cares if they're offended? It's not relavant to the article. People are always going to be offended by terms, it's human nature, and it's a pretty obvious assumption that people who think they're doing the right thing shouldn't be labelled what they think is an offensive term. In summation, this is not a controversial term, it's a term. It's used by the FBI to describe certain crimes and regardless of the criminals opinion on the subject that's how they're going to be labelled. 70.162.43.130 02:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also I find the statement that property and things cannot feel terror so "eco-sabotage" is a better word quite nonsensical. As stated earlier the 9/11 terrorists didn't attack people, they attacked a building, people were just colateral casulties. I also think destroying someones property might lead to the person being terrified therefore it fits the categorical definition of terrorism. This article needs to be cleaned up. There are too many rebuttals in sections when a clearly unbiased account is given. E.g., when defining the term used by the FBI there is a random paragraph devoted to why indirect human harming acts should be considered eco-sabotage. Someone doesn't have to be physically harmed by an act to suffer from it.70.162.43.130 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Eco Extremists
I nearly fell out of my chair when reading this from above: "Also, the ALF and ELF do not engage in violence. Destroying property is not considered violence." The flaming ignorance of the left is beyond belief.


 * What the fucking hell are you on ?! Destroying property is considered violence, as defined under all laws. Dont worry though, they got a nice padded cell for ya. Also sig your statements, etc.65.163.112.128 (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Read that again, he was agreeing with you Mad031683 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and wasn't it incivil? BTW, it may be of interest to note that in UK crime statistics crimes against property do not come under the heading of crimes of violence. So destroying property is not violence "as defined under all laws". S'pose it's the padded cell for me... Itsmejudith (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FBI Ops
There is one ongoing operation going on. It is Operation Backfire (FBI). This is designed to take out Eco-Terrorists, Eco-nuts and other environmentalists. I hava consulted police on this, and seen the article here. Want to be a loon, they got a padded cell for ya ! 65.163.112.74 18:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial
Can anyone source that the term is really controversial? Mainstreme media, etc.? If not, I think the OP looks much better condensed Larklight (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed the controversial tag. Larklight (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys Refs
We need to reference the groups that have been called "eco-terrorists"!. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Conventional Definition

 * Greenpeace
 * Sea Shepherd
 * Animal Liberation Front
 * Earth Liberation Front
 * Earth First!
 * Animal Rights Militia
 * Justice Department
 * Revolutionary Cells (RCALB)
 * PETA

I re-inserted them, and added citation needed tags. Taking them out looks (though I'm sure it isn't) like POV. I'd be willing to give you fairly good odds that most of them have been accused thus. Larklight (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya point taken, that was a little extreme, I'm a little doubtful about PETA and greenpeace, but we'll see. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Referenced one. Wasn't too hard, I expect most can be found pritty quickly. Larklight (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed Greenpeace as unsourced. BTW Conventional definition is not very informative as a section heading. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Greenpeace
Theres nothing wrong with the sources that I used. News.com.au is a well established news website. Plus it wasnt just the Whaling Association, it was also the Environment Minister Ian Campbell. Also in the FBI article, it is stated that "Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe". This shows that the FBI considers Greenpeace to be the "pioneer" of these eco-terrorism tactics. --SilverOrion (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing wrong with the sources at all. They just don't say anything about Greenpeace being ecoterrorist. At all. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dont let your opinions get in the way. --SilverOrion (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe".
 * Japan Whaling Association president Keiichi Nakajima (Keiichi Nakajima) accused the Sea Shepherds of "eco-terrorism'' and said the deregistration of the Farley Mowat gave the ship official status as a pirate vessel.


 * Yes, I read it. Note it says that they were "disaffected members" that formed a new group. I.e. they left Greenpeace to form another body. They were separate from Greenpeace. Greenpeace's strategy and theirs were not identical. That is why the split occurred. Therefore the source is explicitly not defining Greenpeace as ecoterrorist. If you read it again, you will notice that it does not even say that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was ecoterrorist. It says that after they began the activities listed, acts of ecoterrorism occurred. B follows A does not mean that A is an instance of B. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Sea Shepard != Greenpeace. The groups employ different tactics. --Salix alba (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the FBI source then?--SilverOrion (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Another source: "The Danish branch of Greenpeace, the international environmental campaigning organization, was charged yesterday (11 May 2005) under laws adopted to implement UN and EU law on the financing of acts of terrorism. The acts in question occurred on 13 October 2003 when Greenpeace activists staged a protest against the widespread use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in animal feed on Danish farms"http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/1214/9/--SilverOrion (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Link does not contain th word "Danish". Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Link seems to be wrong one, http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/jun/04greenpeace.htm, http://www.libertysecurity.org/article283.html and better, the latter considers the terrorism question in detail and seems to conclude its not. --Salix alba (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly an interesting question. In this age, it has become standard practice -- especially for governments and law-enforcement -- to call those who protest on pretty much any grounds "terrorists". This is the root of much of the controversy regarding this neologism and therefore this article. The FBI has given a "formal" definition: "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.". Thus, there are several key elements:


 * 1) Violence + Crime
 * 2) Against "innocents" or property
 * 3) Sub-national
 * 4) Environmental/AR
 * 5) PR/Symbolic

In my view, Greenpeace fails to meet the first of these (Violence), although that could be argued, and they also failed to meet the second, as they (in the cases discussed) are targeting whalers. The tree-spiking cases are (in my view) similar, but for different reasons -- they are violent, but lack the PR/symbolic value, as is the case with much "monkey-wrenching".

But this is just my opinion, clearly we need to rely on reliable sources here, rather than our own interpretations. In the first citation (news.com.au), we could say "The President of the Japan Whaling Association has accused the Sea Shepherds of eco-terrorism", but there is no quote vis. Greenpeace. The FBI document address "disaffected members" of Greenpeace forming Sea Shepherd who then cut drift nets. But taken apart, the sentence in question says "Since 1977 acts of eco-terrorism have occurred", noting that the formation of Sea Shepherd occurred then. The implied/alleged causal relationship is from Sea Shepherd to eco-terrorism, not Greenpeace.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on one side or the other of this. I just think we need to be careful. If we lard Greenpeace in here, then pretty soon someone's going to be arguing about putting the Sierra Club in, and the whole thing will become meaningless. My approach is that since the term has largely been defined and used by law-enforcement, we should (figuratively) let them decide who is in and who isn't, via their press-releases and whatnot. If an organization calls themselves "ecotagers" or whatever, but are not otherwise identified by law enforcement, I think they should stay out. But sticking someone in here because you don't like their tactics is wrong, as is leaving someone out because you sympathize with their aims. -- Tom Ketchum  18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is not for us to state whether Greenpeace is an eco-terrorist orginisation, for that would be Original Research, we can mearly say what others have concluded. --Salix alba (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sorry for the trouble. Thanks for the input --SilverOrion (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Whether allegations have been made against Greenpeace
Do the comments reported in sources 11 and 12 constitute an allegation that Greenpeace is ecoterrorist?


 * Can you give links? Sources can allege that Greenpeace is an ecoterrorist; Wikipedia cannot. Life.temp (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "ela" :
 * The eco-terrorist anthrax connection, ESR, October 21st 2001.
 * The eco-terrorist anthrax connection, ESR, October 21st 2001.

civil disobedience
The article currently states
 * Acts of civil disobedience may be described as eco-terrorism. 

I think this gives the wrong interpretation of quite what is and is not eco-terrorism. The previous wording
 * Acts of civil disobedience and other nonviolent protest do not meet a rigid definition of "eco-terrorism," though they may be described as such for political purposes. 

describes the situation better.

Ecological civil disobedience takes may forms: Tree-sits, tresspass, blockades, most of which are far from being terrorism. The result of the case mentioned in the paragraph confirms that this is the view the courts have on the subject. Its only right wing groups greenwash groups like the ALEC which try to promote this view. --Salix alba (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither of these statements are ideal. I agree that many or most acts of civil disobedience would not normally be classified as terrorism. But it seems that the US government's definition - the only official definition around - is loose enough to include even simple acts against property, such as letting down tyres on SUVs. It would be good to find more sourced material on the topic before trying to formulate a new statement. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Animal rights?
Besides some accusations that radical animal right activism is ecoterrorism, what other sources are there for animal rights groups to be included in this article? The FBI definition does not say anything about violence and crime in the name of animal rights, only in the name of environmentalism. I'm not trying to say that radical animal right activism is not terrorism, but I'm wondering can it be said in the opening that it is ecoterrorism even though it's goals mainly aren't about environmentalism. Shubi (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I Think it would eb safe to say, for the purpose of using the FBI definition that including animal right within the scope of "environmentally-minded" works. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Actually if you read the FBI article they include ALF and ELF specifically under those definitions. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't PETA qualify for being on the list then? 76.66.192.55 (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ecodestruction terrorism
This is the terrorism that destroys the environment.

Or environmental terrorism. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FBI eco-terrorism and Sea Shepherds
Certain editors seem to be on a mission to clean up Sea Shepherds image on Wikipedia. Please do not let these edits remove pertinent information such as how the FBI defines eco-terrorism by using Sea Shepherd violence as an example. It's in the article now but keeps getting removed. Same problem on the Sea Shepherds main page which get white washed from time to time as well. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Security Intelligence Service defines single-issue terrorism as extremist millitancy against a percieved injustice of sorts. They then place Paul Watson and Sea Shepherds in this category for thier millitancy. http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm74-eng.asp --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

uh, i dont think sea shepherd is labeld as terrorits. they are listed as a tax-exempt charity in america, would that happen if they were listed as terorists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One man's tax exempt group is another man's terrorist. It is quite clear however, with their intentions of destroying property and attacking people, their actions are made with the intent to inflict Terror upon people that they consider are hunting Whales.

Examples
Somebody hid this section with the following explanation: "This section should be a chronologically ordered list, with references showing each case really was called eco-terrorism. Right now I think it's better out than in."

I've removed the code that was hiding it as it isn't a good way to voice a concern with a section. I've added a accuracy-section to better illustrate the thoughts of the person who hid it. Smartse (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mapuches ?
In Chili, near the Biobío River, foreign logging and reforestation companies started planting non-indiginous plants as Eucalyptus trees. This has resulted in the lowering of the water table. A local ethnic population called the Mapuche did not appreciate the planting of these non-indiginous trees, aswell as the prevailence of toxic spills from the companies and started burning the tree plantations, aswell as the equipment of the companies. Besides the destruction of equipment, Mapuches and people from the forestry companies were also killed. To this day, the situation remains tense.

Not sure whether they are eco terrorists or something else; they don't target "innocent people" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.181.194 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think all terrorist believe that thier targets are not innocent. This is certainly true of Hamas and others. The only difference between them and Hamas is that Hamas targets people and Sea Shepherds target Objects. The FBI line of terrorism is that it's intentional, destructive, for a cause and it would be criminally prosecutable if done in the US. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Eco-terrorism is terrorism ..."
The lead of this article currently claims that eco-terrorism is a form of terrorism. This is problematic because: I fixed the problem, but this was reverted by Mdlawmba, a user who earlier also participated in an attempt to tag Sea Shepherd as eco-terrorist. Mdlawmba, could you please clarify whether it is your opinion that Sea Shepherd deliberately targets or disregards the safety of non-combatants. Hans Adler 13:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the body explains, the term is used very liberally. In fact, most definitions call violence against instruments used to commit ecological damage "eco-terrorism" if it is committed in an organised way and/or to get a political effect.
 * The lead links to the article terrorism, which defines terrorism as "systematic use of [fear|terror] especially as a means of coercion". It goes on to explain that "[c]ommon definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." Not the word and, not the word or.
 * In light of the ongoing discussion on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society your recent POV edits to this page are, at minimum, suspect. I believe the other editors involved in that discussion would agree.  Frankly, this discussion you started appears to be more of a "call to arms" for those sympathetic to your beliefs than a legitimate discussion.  If anyone takes issue, please review the ongoing discussion on that page.  I will not alter or destroy a consensus reached on this page or any other page to suit the needs of any organization and hope others will similarly refrain.Mdlawmba (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What a pity that you haven't answered my direct question yet. While you are thinking about it, here are a few more:
 * Consider this action by Greenpeace. Was it eco-terrorism? Should Wikipedia's position be that Greenpeace has committed eco-terrorism? Should Wikipedia's position be that an act of eco-terrorism came before a UK court and the eco-terrorists were acquitted because the eco-terrorism was justified? After answering all these questions, please answer them again, with the word "eco-terrorism" replaced by "terrorism". The purpose of this exercise is to find out where exactly we disagree so that we can focus on trying to find agreement about the points where we don't.
 * Here are my answers: AFAIK, Sea Shepherd does not deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Since they are a key example for "eco-terrorism", there is a disconnect between the definitions of eco-terrorism and terrorism. The Greenpeace action in question was not eco-terrorism, and it was certainly not terrorism. Most definitions of terrorism suffer from the attempt to make them as inclusive as possible while excluding regular armies, the definer's favourite "freedom fighters", and of course the definer's own actions. Terrorism really is the attempt to achieve political aims by causing a situation in which people are in mortal fear when going about their ordinary lives: Bombs in churches, mosques and synagogues. Exploding planes, exploding buildings. Detention and torture of random citizens. Reign of Terror, Pan Am Flight 103, September 11 attacks, Guantanamo Bay detention camp are genuine examples of terrorism. "Eco-terrorism" is a very strong, emotive, word, and should only be applied in cases of actual terrorism. But de facto it isn't. We need to explain the situation. What we certainly can't do is stress the most inclusive definitions as in the body of this article and at the same time claim that eco-terrorism is always terrorism. Whether Greenpeace are eco-terrorist or not depends on the definition. They are not terrorist under any of the more accepted definitions. Hans Adler 14:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Terrorism is always a difficult label. Generally its safeest to use it qualified by the group who is making the accusation. It becomes especially difficult if a whole class of activities is labeled as such. We do have some BLP problems with the page as its stands, with those listed as being eco-terrorist. If we say take the case of Tre Arrow certain newspapers have given him the label "eco-terrorist" yet judges have ruled that the term "terrorist" cannot be applied to him. So by implication by listing him

here as an eco-terrorist and saying eco-terrorist = terrorist we are going against a court ruling and in breach of BLP. --Salix (talk): 15:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The important thing to verify is that we do not make any claims and that we follow WP:Terrorist very closely. Also, the president has allready been set in the terrorism project that eco-terrorism is a subset of terrosim, as the FBI would describe it, intentional destruction of property for political statements (terrorism) specifically for ecological statements (eco-terrorism). The key in thier definitions is intentional destruction of property that would be criminally prosecutable if done in the Unites States. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added two dictionary refs to clarify what they say it is. The words sabotage and terrorism ought to be included. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on intro
I've removed the unsourced phrase in the intro that basically said ecoterrorism is done to people who are seen as harming the environment. This was both in part, not true and te part that was is allready noted. The intro allready says (and still does) that eco-terrorism is done in support of ecological causes, so that part doesn't need repeating, but to say that it targets only people who are hurting the environment is to suggest that felonious acts of vandalism (such as spray painting on a public wall) or destruction of periferal property (such as providers of computer equipment of a desired target) or hijacking an unrelated vehicle would by the intro no longer be eco-terrorism. If however, the intent was to make a point in support of the environment and federal laws had been broken, then by FBI definitions (and most common sense defs) it should still be eco-terrorism (in short, ANY terrorism done for ecological reasons). Thoughts? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added Controversial back into the intro. It belongs there as people are obviously demonstrating on this talk page. There is also a great deal of cultural discussion on this topic. I'll start gathering sources as my time permits.treatiseonbaking (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed your comment from the opening, as it stood it was original research and unsupported by the citations in that sentance. If you find that the controversial nature of the application of the term is notable, I suggest placing that discussion in the a subsection. Also make sure that any statement is qualified with a notable source. :) Please don't stop. Peace and happy editing. --0nonanon0 (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the last edit, I am not sure the move of the definition given by the activists was placed in the "appropriate section". That description is still about the definition of the term and why it is used. It belongs at the top with the one given by the FBI, unless we want to give this article a US department stamp. There is no need. Terrorism has no definitive intelectual authority (see policies regarding the word) and we have demonstrated in wikipedia an hability to be above the sensationalist tabloids.Maziotis (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are putting too much of an emphasis on a miority opinion by your prominent placement of the material. This view point is not very notable. Please do not push the prominence of that View Point. That is called Point of View Pushing. 0nonanon0 (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Things are getting a little heated. First things first is for us all to take a minute to look at the style guideline: Lead section and pay extra mind to MOS:BEGIN. The definition of the term is blank. After that, we need to provide a few paragraphs that summarize the article that could be read as a stand alone piece. Also, there shouldn't be anything in the lead that does not address the information below.

In regards to "terrorism": does the term always refer to terrorism? No. sometimes it is simple sabotage. Eco-terrorism is x,y,or z. We could also just use the FBI definition if it makes it simple. That might be US centric (unless the FBI simply nailed it) so that may be a poor solution.

In regards to the counter "No... Corporations are eco-terrorists": Being contrary is a good play and there is some validity to that argument. However, most independent and reputable reliable sources discuss it much much more often as the exact opposite. Undue weight and maybe even the principles apply to giving it top billing. I think it would be a great addition to a line later in the lead. Not number two. A concise paragraph can be added to the lead explaining motivation for (alleged possibly) eco-terrorism and that would be a great place for it.

The application of the term is for sure controversial. That deserves mention in the lead but just stuffing it in in the opening definition wasn't the best way. Does any of the above step on anyone's toes?Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your suggestions but I don't think that the term is necesarrily controversial. In regards to Elf and Alf, I don't think the application is at all controversial and is almost universally accepted. Using it to describe Al Gore and hippies is pajorative but is that application of the term as notable? That is the only suggestion I take issue with, the rest I like. 0nonanon0 (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually if you read the citation, it doesn't support the statement that it is a controversial term. It just says that experts disagree with using the term to describe non-violent activists. I think we all agree that using a term to exagerate the position of others is controversial, like the word millitant or terrorist. How do those articles treat the subject? 0nonanon0 (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The minority view in question regards the group of people to whom the term is being applied. You cannot use the 50% plus 1 whenever it is convenient. Minority views are also relevant, and in this case it is a matter of defining the subject by both sides. Please don't turn this around as if I was pushing for the ELF views on the lead of the vegetarianism article. You are the one who is pushing a POV. The FBI is not an authority on terrorism. They cannot define who is a terrorist. That is why we have guidelines such as wp:terrorist and the article on "terrorist organizations" merely points to who classifies who, instead of categorizing through verifiable sources. There is no authority on terrorism, and your version of the article is totally unacceptable. Notable authors such as Noam Chomsky think that the state for whom the FBI works is terrorist and you don't see me pushing for such sort of classifications anywhere. Maziotis (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there was no answer, I have gone ahead and changed the article. I believe the concern expressed by the other editor over the importance of reflecting the prevalent perspective is met in the prominence that is given to the FBI view on the subject, in the defining lead. My POV would be something much different. Maziotis (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the previously presented version by CPTNONO was more balanced in terms of what it presented and it reads better as an article. "This is a contentious word!" is not an encyclopedic opening. Let's consider modeling this article after other simmilar articles. How wiki deal with the words Terrorism or hippy or communist? All of which are controversially used. --72.44.138.1 (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I didn't really come across clearly. We should not make it a huge disclaimer in the opening line or even the opening paragraph. If a second and third paragraph are drafted, mention in one of them that some people dispute the application of the label then it should be OK. The lead being expanded to a concise but still stand alone summary is required for GA assessment. Multiple other aspects need to be addressed before just putting in a random disclaimer.Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you don't believe we should classify the term as controversial, at the beginning of the article. What does that have to do with moving the not-so-lovable-definition-by-you out of the lead?


 * We need to take this point by point. About the issue of terorrism being comparable to hippy and communism, there is no doubt there are controversies in all of these politically used terms. But communism is a specific ideology and hippy is a social movement. Terrosim is by definition a perjorative term, and given the official policy I found on Wikipedia I don't see how you can assume the category as described by entity X. That is all that I was saying.Maziotis (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point. If the FBI were the only people describing eco-terorism in one light then we should simply not be using their opinoin with much prominence. I think however, due to how often it is quoted, used by scholarly types and how closely it fits symaticaly with dictionary defs that the FBI def suits our purposes for a general starting point. Do you agree on that? Also, with groups like ELF and ALF the converse is true, that their opinion on eco-terrorism is not very notable or held by the majoity of english language speakers and is not prominently used in like-manner by scholar-types or major media. It would follow then that we should be careful to give their viewpoint much prominence in the article when that prominence does not exist in actuality. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the wording I've introduced. It summarizes what you were saying but doesn't get to into detail in the opening. Do you agree the proper ammount of prominence for notability is being used here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question, Maziotis.
 * That recent trim could work. I almost think it is too much but if we trimmed it more I would expect to see "who says so" tags.
 * We also might want to shift the focus away from the lead and into the body. The alleged eco-terrorists combating the term by using the term recieves more weight then it deserves. Maybe it is time to expand who has been accussed and why. Obviousley it needs to be done summary style with wikilinks.Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My question was about you giving a justification for the removal of the term "controversial" and not giving any for changing the definition at the lead, in the same edit. I was asking what is the justification.
 * In response to 68.41.80.161: I believe you shoulnd't be afraid of people reading and finding radical links at the top of the page. The prominence of the "majority view" is already reflected by the wording and order of the definition given at the beginning of the article. Also, it is not true that the "minority view" in question is expressed by ELF and ALF activists. Read the sources carefully. One of the authors is a professor of philosophy at a university. There are no anonymous, radical communiques here. This is the direct response to an acusation of terrorism by prominent figures of a social movement. We are not dealing with a marginal group or a single organization. It is totally relevant. Maziotis (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the new wording of the response is not acceptable. According to the sources, they give a direct response to the acussation that is made and they discuss how they believe it is misdirected. There was no original research in my wording. Check the sources. It is both relevant and verifiable.Maziotis (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it above. I have copy edited so it makes more sense. Sorry about that.: "In regards to the counter "No... Corporations are eco-terrorists": Being contrary is a good play and there is some validity to that argument. However, most independent and reputable reliable sources discuss it much much more often as the exact opposite. Undue weight and maybe even the (oops) principles apply to not giving it top billing. I think it would be a great addition to a line later in the lead. Not number one or two. A concise paragraph can be added to the lead explaining motivation for (alleged possibly) eco-terrorism and that would be a great place for it. The application of the term is for sure controversial. That deserves mention in the lead but just stuffing it in in the opening definition wasn't the best way." Basically, it does not deserve the prominence of being at the top due to the coverage from reliable sources. Cptnono (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your response doesn't really address my point. You are just saying that the due weight is so that it justifies giving the voice of these theorists a corner in the article that is not on the lead. Well, I have not disagreed that there is one perspective that is more prominent and should be made clear as a definition at the beginning of the article. The justification for being the only one, however, is just not there. If you want, I can look for more published authors that discuss "eco-terrorism" as a fear-mongering tactic by real environmentalist terrorists. Craig Rosebraugh's "Burning Rage" is another one that comes to mind. Again, these are not the voices of the outlaw or the single response of a particular organization. This is not the same as giving voice to the radical interpretation of islam by the Al-Qaeda in the "terrorism" article. You have to understand that we are dealing with a social movement with its own theorists, and this article concerns the very actions related to this activity. I would agree with you if this was the article for "terrorism" or "social activism".


 * Lately, I have been looking for sources on this for another article and I believe there are enough academic sources out there to question the perspective given in this particular article for the term "eco-terrorism". Along with the authors I have already mentioned, you might want to check Will Potter's greenisthenewred.com. You can find an article in .pdf written by him in the Vermont Law review, here: http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/ Maziotis (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't what I am saying. I am saying it deserves a mention in a later paragraph in the lead to meet WP:LEAD standards. I also do understand well enough and as I have said, coverage of these "theorists" being contrary is not as significant of the more mainstream view. That needs to be reflected in the article.
 * See:
 * WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. (emphasis mine)
 * WP:VALID: The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views...
 * WP:FRINGE: Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.
 * Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I am NOT disputing that the emphasis should be given to the more "mainstream" definition of eco-terrorism. The policies you have underlined were clearly at mind when I gave my last response. I guess the question is, how much marginal are the theories of the "minority" view. I just gave you two academic sources on eco-terrorism as fear mongering, one of them published in a law publication, describing exactly this phenomenon as being pushed by the government as a tactic maneuver. You, on the other hand, have so far give me none. I didn't question the fact that "eco-terrorism" is known as "direct action in defense of environmentalist causes", but I don't see a concrete argument for excluding the discussion of the sources that I provided, in the beginning of the article, where the subject is defined.Maziotis (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would stop arguing and actually read my comments and the provided wikilinks it might make more sense.Cptnono (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read those links many times before. If you would actually point to where I am failling to abide by the rules it would be more helpful. Maziotis (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Balance between common use and counter use
- I edited the article to include more of the alternative use of the word that activists use. I don't like it though because now the article has almost more content about the counter-punch of eco-terrorists than it does about eco-terrorism. Not sure that's the best direction to take. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I plan on deleting most of it. There is a hatnote at the top of this page for Environmental terrorism. Summary style, weight, and sourcing concerns.Cptnono (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are violating the polcies of wp:npov and wp: original research. I understand that the accusation made by the "eco-terrorists" is already contemplated by the concept of "environmental terrorism". That doesn't change the fact that some notable sources, including academic ones, have directly responded to the eco-terrorism charged and how it failed by those who act as the accusers. That "counter-punch" was written in two sentences. It can't be that much. Maziotis (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I simply disagree with you. Don't ignore the weight issue.Cptnono (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to explore options for adding info but it clearly was grossly overstated to the point of hijacking the article before.Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

POV and regional
This article seems very POV to me. It starts remarking that the term is controversial and mentioning that there are radically different competing definitions and then goes on to describe applications of the term as if it was uncontroversial in general usage. I think part of the ploblem that the article assumes that U.S. use of the term is general, we could probably benefit by adding to the definition such that the term is defined as being a "perjorative term in use in the U.S. to mean...". I intend to write a criticism and history of the term when I get round to it, but I really think that it needs alot more than that. In particular a move away from use of the term as if it is uncontroversial from "tactics" onward- for example a change from "There are a wide variety of tactics that have been used by eco-terrorists and groups associated with eco-terrorism." to "There are a wide variety of tactics that have been used by those described as eco-terrorists and groups seen as associated with eco-terrorism." a bit meely mouthed perhaps but as this page shows there really is no agreement over the correct usage of the term and some people find it very offensive.Pete the pitiless (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also a negative term in other countries. Please do not write a criticism section since that is frowned upon on Wikipeida. Making it clear that some are simply allegations (adding "those described") would be great and could negate what you see as POV. Go for it.Cptnono (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your timely responce. Having thought a bit more I think the point is not whether the term is used in other (maybe all) english speaking countries, rather that it's not clear that it is used to include sabotage (or as the "tactics" section seems to imply "tree sitting") in other countries, in fact I think it's unlikely that the term is used to include these things elsewhere. If it is then it needs better sourcing, if it isn't then we need to be clear that we are decscribing U.S. usage and compare to usage elsewhere.
 * I just read WP: criticism sections it had some good points. I'm not sure I'll be able to include all I want to add at the same time as integrating it. Clearly if I can it would be less confrontational and tidier. It's worth mentioning that the wp page acknowledges that they are sometimes necessary.Pete the pitiless (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Integration should be easy enough. The first step is probably finding sources from other countries that discuss eco-terrorism and use "terrorist/ism". I can think of a several off the top of my head and will need to track them down. Does the article say that something as benign as tree sitting is actually terrorism? It might be easier to clarify that sort of thing.Cptnono (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And the whole "Application of the term" section already borders on dismissing it so a new section might present weight issues.Cptnono (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got a few sources to look at as well and I'll have a look today. I also want to include quite a bit about the accusations some people make that the term, as defined in the first section, is only in existence as a political tool to try and influence a debate within society. I've got some sources on this and will see if it'll go in the "application" section. I think that issue hints toward a wider point, which I don't think got properly discussed above, which is what is this page for - Is it too describe a distinct movement or activity- If so it fails to draw a clear distinction between eco-terrorism and enviromental activism, or is it to describe the history of a controversial term. I'll raise the purpose question on the talk page after I've made a few edits.86.175.56.169 (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Watch out for undue weight or else you will have editors removing it since this isn't soapbox to make a point or write an essay.Cptnono (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few changes, but feel alot more needs to be done.I hope I have avoided the traps you mention above. I still think that we are not getting the points about the politcal context of the term accross sufficiently and I will look to the rest of the article soon. I would greatly appreciate it if you could look to definitions outside the USA as you suggest you might above. I had thought other Governments would not include property damage within the definition of "terrorism" however http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/28/ecoterrorismisamisnomer points out that for the UK and EU this is not so. However I have found no mention of the use of the term "eco-terrorism" within UK law and some suggestion that the term is being avioded within the UK justice system http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/26/ministry-justice-environmental-campaigners-terrorismPete the pitiless (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

listed examples
Why are the Unabomber and Al-Qaeda listed as "ecoterrorists" ? The Unabomber was anti-technology, which is a different kettle of fish. You don't need modern technology to destroy the environment/animal life. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

eco terrorism retardation
If eco terrorism is NOT terrorism than why blow up all that stuff just to blow it up..to "free" people from w/e you call corporate greed? honestly you blow up a cell phone tower its fires are gunna burn the envirnment around it/..subsequently you become your enemy. All this crap off Not terorism whahhh is crap...any attempt to cause people to fear "littering" or whatever is using violent force to make a group act in a way acceptable by the agressors by use of psychological fear related to said voilent events.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.176.247 (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No merge--Salix (talk): 03:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the Environmental terrorism article is merged into this one. It seems to cover essentially the same topic; that article states that some use the term 'environmental terrorism' to refer to terrorism directed at the environment, while 'eco-terrorism' means terrorism in the name of the environment, but from the sources it's clear that this distinction isn't widely recognised. Both 'eco-terrorism' and 'environmental terrorism' can mean either of these things; they are generally used as synonyms. It would make more sense to have only one article, and mention the alternate uses of the term here. Robofish (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Dictionaries are organised by words, but encyclopedias are organised by topics. In a dictionary several entries are handled together if they describe the same word, in a dictionary several articles are merged if they are about the same topic. While the word "eco-terrorism" may sometimes be used for environmental terrorism (really? is that a legitimate use or just a mistake?), the two topics are not much more related to each other than both are to the more general term terrorism. Merging the two articles would actually support this confusion. Hans Adler 16:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - they seem to cover distinct topics. Environmental terrorism covers destruction of the environment while Eco-terrorism covers extremist acts to protect the environment. They are almost opposite. —Joshua Issac (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the environmental terrorism page cannot even provide a single source demonstrating that terrorism *against* the environment has ever been referred to as "eco-terrorism." I agree with Hans Adler's logic; these are totally different concepts and topics and they don't become any more synonymous just because people use the same term for both - the concept remain distinct.

N0thingbetter (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - totally different article and concept. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Info on attacks on nano-technology researchers in Mexico
Interesting Nature piece which might be used to expand this article: Nanotechnology: Armed resistance -- Beland (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Movie article stub needs creating Confessions of an Eco-Terrorist (film)
This needs to be on wikipedia. Who wants the honors of creating it? I don't feel like creating an account.
 * https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/confessions-eco-terrorist/id519381061
 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1720073/
 * http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/confessions_of_an_eco_terrorist/
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/confessions-of-an-eco-terrorist
 * http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/04/sea-shepherd-whale-wars-confessions-of-an-eco-terrorist.html

76.112.8.146 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)