Talk:Environmental organization

Comments
it is still an advantage to have page titles in singular, for example when you write about Greenpeace and want to mention that it is ... "an ((environmental organization))"

may I suggest you distinguish governmental or intergovernmental organizations (e.g. the IPCC) from non-governmental ones (e.g. Greenpeace). Then maybe the US EPA or the European Environment Agency could go here. -- Simon J Kissane

FWIW I agree with the above.

I moved the many external links in this "article" (right now, it's just a list of links) to a "Links" section. We will probably want Wikipedia articles on several of those--eventually, maybe all of them!

Obviously, some anti-environmentalist organizations should be listed as well. --LMS - What do you mean by anti-environmentalist organizations? Oil and chemical companies and various governments spring to mind, but I guess you have something else on your mind. --Pinkunicorn

Hidden page
Note that List of environmental organisations topics (before redirect) was redirected here, to Environmental organizations, after its AfD was closed 'no consensus', which defaults to Keep. Another editor may wish to restore it, but I think it needs work before being restored. As I noted in the AfD, it is superior to List of environmental issues in that it lists nearly four times as many articles. Anarchangel (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Add quote ?
Perhaps add this quote to the page: You know, when we started the World Wildlife Fund, its objective was to save endangered species from extinction, and I'm now near the end of my career and we've failed completely. We haven't saved a single endangered species. And if we'd put all that money we'd collected into condoms, we might have done some good. -Sir Peter Scott, co-founder of the WWF, in a personal conversation cited by Professor Roger Short-
 * absolutely, The quote I heard was “You know, I have often thought that at the end of the day, we would have saved more wildlife if we had spent all WWF’s money on buying condoms.” It shows that he was thinking about it a lot.  Gregkaye (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Weird assertion
Removed the weird assertion / generalisation that environment organisations have trouble managing their finances. Cited reference was dodgy. I believe the comment is too broad to be relevant and removes neutrality of the article particularly when other content is so sparse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethel the aardvark (talk • contribs) 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed history section
I removed the history section for the following reasons 1) Gave immensely undue weight to the Sierra club, even though the history of environmentalism is very complicated and had many important actors. 2) Made the history seem much simpler than it was. 3) Relied entirely on a self published source.

I believe entirely that this article should have a history section, but I think the one that existed didn't belong on Wikipedia. I won't be able to write this section without significant research, and would appreciate someone who is knowledgeable on the topic doing so, or at least dropping off some sources. Toad02 (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleted politics section
I deleted the politics section for the following reasons. 1) Was unclear exactly how environmental groups interacted with political organizations. 2) Contained a lot of unrelated information. 3) Lacked any citations.

I propose creating a section called "methods" that talks about how environmental groups do things, (including lobbying). Toad02 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Many Definitions needed
The article is of course too short and not clear. What is meant by an Environmental Organization. Examples are good, but Definitions are better. This article from "The Conversation" is very useful, especially for International Governmental level. I have no time to include the useful information in the article, therefore I share it here. --Ai24 (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)