Talk:Environmentalism/Archive 2

al gore?
suggestion: how about mentioning Al Gore, and his stance on global warming, and his movie An Inconvenient Truth, which probably had a fairly heavy impact on people's beliefs concerning global warming. may be too off-subject, just throwing that out there. 66.32.200.185 (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He certainly has received a lot of publicity for his stance and his film and is covered elsewhere in WP. This article is for global info over the long term. Hence reference to Al Gore will skew the articles' contents to but one geographical and temporal case. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 01:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think not. I think Gore is a pretty iconic figure in a watershed moment.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.73.132 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

envirowiki link in external links.
The link to http://www.envirowiki.info was removed from the external links section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmentalism&oldid=192919030 ). From Spam is think that I've done everything correctly (I should point out that I run the site, but I think I can be objective enough about this). The only appropriate reason for removal (listed on WP:Spam) I can see, is that the website is not "truly relevant" to the article. I would disagree. It is, as far as I know, the largest wiki specifically about environmentalism, and perhaps the only one. It could be argued that as a wiki, it currently does not have enough articles/content to be relevant. I would argue that this is not correct in this instance, as envirowiki currently has almost twice the content of the permuculture wikia, which is listed in the external links of the permaculture page (there's another wiki linked from permaculture, which only has ~15 pages). --naught101 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I removed the link because it struck me as WP:Spam, and because Wikipedia is not a repository of links. As you said Envirowiki contains very little content. Its inclusion as an external link serves more to promote Envirowiki than to add content to the wikipedia article Consider this from WP:Spam "Wikipedia is not a space for...the promotion of...Web sites....If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place." Your point about the double standard with the permaculture page is a good one, but I would argue that the permaculture wiki link should be removed as well. All that said, best of luck growing your project, I just think it's a bit too early in its development to be a useful addition to this wikipedia page. --Osbojos (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My point about the other wikis on permaculture is that this is a pattern that is repeated throughout wikipedia. I agree that the second wiki on permaculture is too short, but the permaculture wikia is a very useful tool already, even though it only contains 173 articles. Obviously we disargee on this, but I would like your opinion on what WOULD constitute enough content for envirowiki to be a useful addidtion to this page? And would you agree on me returning with the link at that point? --naught101 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When it has enough content to be a useful addition to the wikipedia page, by all means, add it. The problem is just that if every web page weak on content but big on potential was added to wikipedia, the external links section would become useless. I have no idea how to quantify what is enough content for envirowiki to be useful, but I just don't think it's there yet. Obviously I'm not an absolute authority on this. If others disagree with me, please speak up. --Osbojos (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, will wait for further discussion from others. I would like to say that I think envirowiki currently, that is, with only 300+ pages is much more relevant to environmentalism than the "worlds most polluted places" (should be in pollution), and PEAS, which seems to have been dead for 5 years, and is only relevant to india anyway... --naught101 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the two links that you mention. There are not approp to a high level (in terms of a hierarchy of importance and categorisation) article such as this.  -- Alan Liefting- talk - 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, I agree with Osbojos. Apart from anything else, a wiki is not a reliable source, it is a tertiary or worse source, like Wikipedia. As for the other external links, I would remove all of them - none add to this article, and all are there to promote themselves. There must be tens of thousands of good web sites that are "relevant" to this article, but as Osbojos points out, we are not here to list them. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy with a few ext links in any article but only if approp. Without them the article can look a little, ahh, bare. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ecocide redirect
Ecocide redirects here, yet there is no mention anywhere on the page of ecocide - if it redirects here, surely it deserves some mention? Otherwise it appears that wikipedia is linking to a source of information that does not, in fact, exist. Glacialfury (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There was an ecocide article but it was an unreferenced, unwikified stub. This is the article before it was redirected to environmentalism. It is probably worth giving it an article of its own rather than being redirected. It gets a lot of google hits but the term is not used much in academia. -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 21:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have resurrected ecocide from the dead. See what you tink of it. -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Include info from annihilated wiki-page
Please include info from this annihalited wiki page into the article. thanks. KVDP (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?
Surely there must be some. Why no section? Many, if not most, ideological articles have one. I have none to offer, but the lack of criticism seemed glaring. If it is being suppressed, that would be most unfortunate and unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.201.18 (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right - it does need a section on criticism of environmentalism. In the interim I have put a link to Environmental skepticism in the See also section. As to whether it is suppressed you could start by checking the edit history.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As the article touches upon, environmentalism isn't really a singular ideology, but rather, a component part of a vast spectrum of ideologies. "Criticisms" directed at environmentalism as a whole are almost always strawmen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.242.205 (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There certainly are strawmen as well as other fallacious arguments aimed at environmentalists but there are also comments that are critical of the environmental movement which should be documented. Private property rights and economic arguments are given as reasons to not protect the environment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also many published writers who criticize environmentalism on philosophical grounds. There do exist those who believe that human needs should override conservation, however some would disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.219.233 (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just thought of it, might I suggest a few words from Freeman Dyson. He is a respected scientist with moderated, educated criticism of environmentalism.

71.132.219.233 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Was going to start writing a criticism section, I don't want an edit war, if the admins are not going to allow a criticism section please just tell me, I know how this goes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.220.167 (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are numerous, and fair, criticisms that can be made of environmentalism: brushing those complaints aside as written by Strawmen is symptomatic of a global movement which is one such problem. However it is an 'ism' and I hope the point is made that like many 'isms' it is based on a large amount of dogmatic belief - in this case clearly in models (which cannot predict what will happen) and the message construed by each government to the people (which are all different). Also interesting philosophically speaking that the aim of environmentalism (i.e to live in a neutral way with nature) has a lot of parallels with the writing and aims of Rousseau (in my opinion a critiscism in itself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.75.56 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

notable enviromenatlists
I added a few names to the list that i found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/nov/28/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

I am not sure if I should site that source or if I did how I would. Also if someone wants to add more I suggest they start there; it is a long list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathnsci (talk • contribs) 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The "one in three" statement
I've moved the following statement:"'One in three US preteen believes that the Earth 'won't exist when they grow up'. '"from the lead to the talk page for discussion. While the survey is probably possibly notable, the text as written is problematic and also misplaced. First off, the survey is presented as "fact", without noting the nature of the survey, who conducted it, when, where, and so on. These are important details that help to add context to the results. Furthermore, given the (probably too) short lead, we are placing too much weight on the results of one survey. The source is an environmental web site called "Habitat Heroes", and the second reference (a blog) is an opinion piece that states "And why wouldn’t they given the environmental hysteria they’re indoctrinated with on a daily basis." Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  18:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is Al Gore's website. Are you questioning his credibility on environmental issues? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather far out rationalization. Its not "Al Gore's website" its a blog hosted on a free-for-all TV-station that incidentally Al Gore owns. Its like saying that Google adheres to conspiracy theory - because there are lots of claims on YouTube... I agree with Ckatz here. Both are blogs (first a reprint of a blog, second a blog)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Blue Marble
What the heck does the blue marble have to do with environmentalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.189.141 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article needs an image. An image of the Earth is used to indicate that environmentalism is a concern for the whole planet. The image does not have to be Blue Marble image - any image of the Earth would suffice. I will expand the caption. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Light-bulb syndrome
In the book "The Transition Handbook" by Rob Hopkins, we read he describes the Light-bulb syndrome: "Similarly, I have heard many a talk where the speaker has set out the scale of the climate challenge, and at the end has one slide about turning down our thermostats and changing our light bulbs. "

Perhaps this can be mentioned in article and the Light-bulb syndrome could be made. Thanks in advance, 81.245.84.68 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not appear to be a particularly notable phrase so therefore it would not warrant inclusion in this article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OUR COMMON FUTURE (the Brundtland Report, 1987) -major text in history of environmentalism - begins with a reference to the new experience in the middle of the 20th century of seeing the planet from space. It suggests that this new view may be seen in the future as having had a greater impact on human thought than the Copernican revolution of the 16th century. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.17.92 (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Notable environmentalists
Should have date of birth for each person. --NeoXNeo (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Article request
I request an article titled Environmental activism, eco-warrior article may be linked herein as one of the methods/spinoffs. The book Environmental activism by Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer may be used to make the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.78.99 (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. We already have environmentalism, environmentalist and environmental movement. I don't think environmental activism is really needed at this stage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

The result of the proposal was consensus against move per our policy on using the common name of a subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Environmentalism → Ecologism — I request to move the article to ecologism, as the term is popularlu used, dough incorrect. Environment typically refers to the surroundings of an object. Ecology is a better term instead of "environmentalism", so ecologism is a more logical term aswell.

Note that the definition is best made to "Ecologism is the broad philosophy and social movement regarding concerns for the conservation of the original environment and the rehabilitation of the state of the original environment."

This as "conserving the environment" would mean that environmentalism does not condone a rehabilitation to the vegetation pattern, ... which existed before eg facilities and buildings were built.

91.182.170.124 (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia titles should reflect common use. With no evidence provided of either common use or of usage in reliable or scholarly sources, there is no reason to change this based on personal reasoning. older ≠ wiser 11:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME 76.66.195.206 (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME --Born2cycle (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Environmentalism is a widely used term that encompases ecologism, conservation (ethic), green thinking etc. Wether it is an accurate term to describe the ideology is a moot point. We are stuck with it since its usage is firmly entrenched. Also WP is not the place to force the usage of one word over another. The use of logic to arrive at the conclusion that "environmentalism does not condone a rehabilitation to the vegetation pattern" is not valid.  Logic does not work when it comes to semantics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - common name as noted. KVDP, if you want to analyze and explore movements, the use of terms, etc, then contributing at Appropedia (as you're already doing, in a great way) is the appropriate place for that. --Chriswaterguy talk 09:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment is this KVDP? If so he/she is being extremely disruptive to Wikipedia and should be cited for WP:POINT violations. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeeech, oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, even dough duh term is popularu used aswell.   talk 13:53, 31 October 2009 (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.

Criticism section deleted?
Is this trollery or do the admins really believe that there exists no criticism of environmentalism, anywhere, from anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.217.21 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Misusing of refs
is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 5 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)