Talk:Extinction Rebellion

Non-violence
Please find an independent source on the group being non-violent. I've left in the reference to non-violence in their "Stated Principles" section because it is sourced, but if you want to include that they are in fact non-violent their manifesto is not adequate as a source. 213.233.150.35 (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They profess to be non-violent. No RS has claimed they are not to my knowledge, I've not seen any evidence of they behaving in a violent manner. I think we can leave the description non-violent in the lede without source as the claim is sourced in the body Lyndaship (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You must be joking. Some of them are quite violent. Even Antifa.103.246.36.31 (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 15 (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1385295662435160066 "nonviolent"


 * see What is Extinction Rebellion and what does it want? plus can you give evidence of Extinction Rebellion being violent, Antifa are a different organisation.
 * oh I am responding to a old conversation and it is referenced in the main body. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocking someone's access is violent.204.9.220.42 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Forcing their will onto others is coercion which is a form of violence. They can argue it's "justified" violence but non-violence is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5816:A833:1:A965:D129:8D4C:CDF7 (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Aims
Hello. The three aims of the movement are stated twice in the 'manifesto' section. I offer to correct that. Let me know if you have any comments. Ms Theresa Marty (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC).
 * Go for it - WP:BEBOLD. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Swarming"
BorisAndDoris, it is acceptable to "revert edits without raising the issue on the talk page first" that I believe to be misguided, as per WP:BEBOLD. If my reversions are themselves reverted then I will take it to the talk page. The Guradian uses 'Swarming' in quotes to indicate this is what only the group themselves are calling it, and the Sky News headline does not mention it, as you claim in saying "mentioned in the headline of two national news reports", its headline is "'Rebellion Day' activists plan to block five London bridges". We should steer clear of naming things by the new names invented by organisations or by movements and instead see whether they are merely new names for existing practices. Let time and the eventual analysis by reliable sources be the judge of whether something is actually novel and a new name appropriate. This article deserves to have editorial rigour. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Your point seems to be confused, the two references that supported the use of 'Swarming' were The Guardian and The Independent, after you suggested in the summary that "Before a new phrase is coined we need more sources than 1 that demonstrate this is anything new" and above in the discussion on sources that content in mainstream media should guide what content we include in the wikipedia article. Reverting edits without discussion does not seem to assume good faith.BorisAndDoris (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes sorry you are right, I misread the ref used. However with 1 source or 3 sources in the immediate aftermath of the event each using the term with caution in quotes, I still don't believe we should be reinforcing its use for the reasons I gave above. If you don't agree then let us leave it as it is, but I do suggest replacing the current single quotes with double quotes. Also, if you prefer that collective editing be done via the talk page rather than using the revert option, then I am happy to do that. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Collective editing does seem to require that disputes are settled on the talk page rather than via an edit war. Reverting, in particular, seems to show a disregard for the work that other wikipedeans have done and personally I would reserve it mostly for vandalism. If you are changing the context, or removing a term, it is best not to hide it behind a catch-all summary lke 'Copyedit' as this appears misleading. How 'Swarming' is presented does not matter but removing the term after it was the first word in the headline of the only media report at the time contradicts your previous assertion that content in the mainstream media should guide the content of this article. I hope we can agree that we both want this article to be the best quality it can be and avoid future edit disputes by respecting the work of each other and all contributors to this page.BorisAndDoris (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about edit warring, I said "If my reversions are themselves reverted then I will take it to the talk page." Collective editing would be much too slow if every alteration was first discussed on the talk page. I stand by my comments about citing reliable sources because I am harsher where it comes to people or organisations coining a new term for the sake of it. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"without capitalisation a way is needed to show the different emphasis on website"
BorisAndDoris, we do not need to explicitly replicate the subject's web site. Wikipedia is not intended to be such a direct representation, but a summary of the facts. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Without showing that the original had a different emphasis, between the first statement and the second in each point, then we are changing the meaning of the quote.BorisAndDoris (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is what I believe Wikipedia style is, but I do not have a reference for policy on that, so can only wait to see what someone more knowledgeable than I suggests. (For similar see MOS:TMRULES in terms of changing the subject's styling for a straighter interpretation.) -Lopifalko (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References to work in
Here are some references that could potentially be worked into the article. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

History
100 people and top academics around the world signing letters did not come out of no-where. XR can be traced back to https://web.archive.org/web/20151015172755/https://compassionate-revolution.net/ and this Compassionate Revolution Ltd. is a company that then has Rising Up! and Extinction Rebellion derived from it. Wayback machine has it appearing in 2015. The campaign of Extinction Rebellion began in the planning in 2018, in the Spring. BUT even looking in 2015 there were people thinking about ecological politics involved from the start. Many of the figures involved were activists long before Occupy emerged around 2011. IN fact some can trace their direct action to the Reclaim the Streets! of the 1990s. How tenuous this chain is or how much this influenced the modern XR is not easy to say. There are probably not sources that say this to wikipedia standards. Rather looking at the key individuals and their histories would be a better way of assessing this. However a lot were not activists and not involved in any groups or gatherings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.7.24 (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There are two key articles related to this Activism initiative and this response from Greta Thunberg aspects of manufacturing consent and controlled opposition and Gatekeepers all figure and the initiative should not be left here un-critically, the pedagogical aspects of Wikipedia should not be ignored to promote activism. I will work up a påaragraph with the first two references as this article is really a trotting out of the PR campaign from RogerGLewis (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Criticism
''Housekeeping note: This discussion started when RogerGLewis added this paragraph to this article, and also to Greta Thunberg. Identical threads were started at both pages, and once I asked, per MULTI, Roger has decided to consolidate discussion at this talk page. I am taking liberty to reformat the proposed text Roger wants to add. I have not changed any of Rogers own words. My goal in refactoring/reformatting is to help make a comprehensible discussion. For the record, I think neutral "criticism" sections would be appropriate, the challenge is in finding acceptable RSs and presenting them fairly with regard to UNDUE WEIGHT and WP:Biographies of living people. Anyway, the text Roger originally added to both article reads as follows NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Greta Thonberg responded to concerns of corporate capture of her message which has been expressed by the Wrong Kind of Green, an Indigenous peoples environmental group. "We attempt to expose those who undermine the People’s Agreement. One role of the non-profit industrial complex is to undermine, marginalize and make irrelevant, the People’s Agreement. The reason being, to protect corporate interests by which they are funded. As well, the non-profit industrial complex protects the industrialized, capitalist economic system, responsible for the capitalist destruction of our shared environment. Those groups who continue to protect such interests must be considered complicit in crimes against humanity. RogerGLewis (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * /* Concerns of Corporate Green-washing */ I am reverting this new section if you wish to suggest and edit then please do It is clearly a concern looking at previous comments . I will initiate a consensus process if the revertiung continues. WH RogerGLewis (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The section about "Green-washing" is not appropriate in this article and is not sourced - please do not revert without further discusssionBorisAndDoris (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This content shouldn't be anywhere: it totally lacks secondary sources and thus fails WP:V spectacularly--not just because of lack of reliability, but the quality of the sourcing indicates this isn't noteworthy. Moreover, it's grammatically challenged: the "which" in "which has been expressed" refers in a very wonky way to "her message", since that is the closest antecedent, but I think it's meant to refer to "concerns", which is a plural and too far away for proper anaphoric reference. Finally, I think you left out a closing quotation mark in this longer comment; at first I thought you, RogerGLewis, were making a statement about complicity. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It contains WP:SYNTH because Thunberg's words addressing pushback in general does not name the other sources provided here. That means RogerGLewis is doing WP:Original research to connect the dots.  It is also a neutrality/BLP problem because the "About us" text from the criticizing blog is being used to imply Thunberg is an example of the those things the criticizing blog exists to do battle against.  Another problem is the long quute from the criticizing blog is about the criticizing blog, not about the subject of this article, so it is off topic.   And the text fails WP:Verification because none of the sources identify the criticing blog as "an indigenous people's environmental group". If it were not for all the other problems we might be able to say something with inline attribution to the authors of the blog column.  Something like, "According to....".   Maybe.  But what we have here are self publishing people who self-describe their obvious advocacy pieces as "independent jouranlism". Who cares, everyone is entitled to an opinion and Wordpress blogs are free. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC) The concerns section is I think relevant to both articles which Page should we conduct the discussion it is probably easier to find consensus on one page and then discuss any changes to the core point which I think is a general point on most polarised positions in Political economy./* Criticism */ Consensus process nominate talk at extinction rebellion page for this discussion as well? ''' RogerGLewis (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sources supporting this content are too weak for a BLP article (probably also weak for any contentious claim in any article). Without better sourcing, there is no place for this in the article. Pavlor (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * More comments by Roger NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eseb User:Esebtalk)I wonder if you might like to comment on the proposes edit I share your concerns. RogerGLewis (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * SOme cririsisms of The Rong Kind of Green etc.. also some grammarian stuff, all very interesting Eats shoots and leaves and all that. LOL,


 * On the problem of Notability I offer two Searches One for Duck a Go Go and one for Google


 * You will note that the Wrong Kind of Green article comes in at no 3 in Duck a Go Go and on google the search term itself is cleary the subject of a dynamic shadow ban in the google algorithm itself. RogerGLewis (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The Wrong Kind of Green is a collective and not a hierarchical patriarchal organisation as such it does not fit within the Categorisation negation of the media-industrial censorship complex barre mechanism, they avow to these principles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_People%27s_Conference_on_Climate_Change The real grassroots of Environmental activism which Greta complains of not reading about in the Newspapers. These are all matters which Professor Piers Robinson has been studying and publishing on, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Robinson, and drawing the ire of the Huff post etc.., corporate greenwashing and capture of well-meaning movements is a part of the study of Manufacturing Consent. and useful idiots , gatekeepers and controlled opposition do of course populate the organs of the Fourth Estate including Wikipedia articles.  RogerGLewis (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * @Roger,
 * (A) When determining WP:CONSENSUS no one cares about the dubious WP:GOOGLETEST.
 * (B) Helpful suggestion, study WP:Arguments to avoid in discussions in general.
 * (C) Whatever else the WrongKindOfGreen might be, for Wikipedia purposes we care a great deal about the fact that it is a SELF PUBLISHED source. We have an explicit prohibition on self published sources in biographies of living people.  That means you MAY NOT USE this blog on Greta's article.  See WP:BLPSPS.  On the flip side, Greta's self published words about herself are permitted, WP:BLPSELFPUB.   As for using the blog in Extinction Rebellion, that gets back to the general rule about SELF PUBLISHED sources.  We can't use self published criticism about third parties, especially when the criticism is advocating the self-publishing authors' own political and economic goals. Sorry.
 * (D) At article talk we should be focusing on content not our Wikipedia colleagues so I am troubled by your tendency to imply that one or more of us other editors are "useful idiots. gatekeepers... (who) populate the fourth estate". Please see WP:No personal attacks.
 * (E) Finally, if you keep beating the drum about the blog, without addressing the comments I and others have provided, you will drift across the line from new editor learning the ropes to an editor determined to engage in WP:Tendentious editing, which is an example of WP:Disruptive editing. We have a procedure for temporarily blocking editors from making changes, and its purpose is to prevent future problems rather than punish for past behavior. That is also the goal of my long comment here, prevention.
 * (F) Sure we can have a criticism section that meets our policies and guidelines. Please look for what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source, and steer clear of WP:PRIMARY sources.  What we need for a good criticism section are secondary or tertiary sources.  Although Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we are not allowed to cite ourselves as a reference.  On the talk page, its OK to help others know what you're talkinga about, but we can't cite Wikipedia in a Wikipedia article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * First I want to say thank you to Roger for consolidating the discussion on one article talk page and to NewsandEventsGuy for helping Roger with the housekeeping. I agree with the above editors that the paragraph quoted above should not be included. XR and Thunberg don't seem to be related to The Wrong Kind of Green blog in any way; and the blog itself is not (yet) a reliable source or a notable organization. I sympathize with the issue that the blog discusses but including quotes from the blog's "about us" web page in these articles does not comply with our policies, guidelines, and best practices, especially for a BLP. Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for very helpful guidance, I will see what I can do time allowing. Regarding the allegation of biased canvassing, That was something of a fly in the appointment I reject the accusation, but I will not get in the way what is turning out to be a rather spiffing learning curve for my Wikipedia journey which is intermittent at best. It will take a while to read all the articles, the arcana of Wikipedia is endlessly fascinating of course, Yet one, as we all do I am sure, has to put Bread on the Table, the dreaded Day Job etc. Anyway, have a good evening Its 98 PM here in Sweden and I have a long night of Code Hacking ahead of me. Thanks again & . RogerGLewis (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC) ;)


 * ,,  , Proposed new section revised.

Criticism and resignation from We do not have time
Thornberg responded to criticism of being a hired activist by resigning from the organisation we do not have time, which was accused of profiting from Greta's celebrity. " Ps I was briefly a youth advisor for the board of the non-profit foundation “We don’t have time”. It turns out they used my name as part of another branch of their organisation that is a start-up business. They have admitted clearly that they did so without the knowledge of me or my family. I no longer have any connection to “We don’t have time”. Nor has anyone in my family. They have deeply apologised and I have accepted their apology." RogerGLewis (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Opposed proposed text says nothing about the subject of this article, so it is off topic here. However, this matter is being discussed at Talk:Greta_Thunberg NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I also don't see the connection between the Thunberg/WDHT issue and XR. Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The interpenetration of time and space
This may have been a problem which puzzled philosophers for eons, but now it a practical problem here as XR becomes more prolific, organising simultaneous events across the world:
 * Do we list actions by time and subdivide by place, or by place and subdivide by time, or create a sortable table so that the reader can rearrange the data to suit their needs? Leutha (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Initially all actions were arranged by date irrespective of their location, then an editor split the international actions with the very little that had happened then outside UK, which was not really worth it then. Now, with the intensity of actions in London and the news reports coming out of it (the Guardian alone is producing two or three articles daily - I've added time name refs to keep track) the London actions need a section to themselves and probably could become a separate article as events continue. The sortable table worked on the School strike for climate page where most actions followed a similar pattern but each XR event is different and with the groups rapidly growing they will probably reinvent themselves in unexpected ways. So for the moment I'm in favour of keeping the current structure to avoid the confusion a rearrangement might create.BorisAndDoris (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I agree that we should wait and see before restructuring the information. Leutha (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Any ideas where to find an image for the Oxford Circus pink boat?
I have been trying to find a free image of the pink boat that can be used in the article as it seems to have been the iconic picture of the rebellion so far. If anyone has any ideas where I could search for a wikipedia usable image I'd be very grateful. BorisAndDoris (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to for providing his own picture BorisAndDoris (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I took several snaps.  Here's a panorama, showing the boat in context. Andrew D. (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)



Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2019
XR should be bold 219.79.97.212 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done B dash (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Move to article space listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Move to article space. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019
The Controversies section needs to be much more extensive.

There is a serious concern about the corporate sponsorship through companies like Huawei and STRATFOR which the leadership tries to conceal in order to appear as a grassroots non-affiliated movement. See https://nowhere.news/index.php/2019/04/01/astroturfing-the-way-for-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/

There are also serious concerns about the willingness of the organizers to work with the police, especially coming from Anarchists who constitute a large part of the organization. They allowed immigration checks to happen on the occupied marble arch camp, and requested their members to sign a public google docs confession form declaring they're willing to be arrested.

They did not provide adequate support for arrestees or proper explanation for the arrest process, nor did they give out arrest cards which are standard in this kind of protests in London. They did not even inform members they must answer no-comment to any questions until they have a lawyer, again, this is standard in similar UK actions, and there is a sentiment that the leadership treats members as cannon fodder with little to no regards to the harm it might cause some people in the long run.

109.231.195.125 (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Come back when you've got a reliable source.  Schwede 66  20:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a more reliable source of critique, coming from Organize! by the Anarchist Federation: http://organisemagazine.org.uk/2019/04/24/careful-comrade-your-class-is-showing-xr-has-some-problems/

It's split into sections,and I appreciate it can be time consuming to asses but it's important to include some of these critiques in this article.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2019
Suggest modifying the following:
 * By late evening police were saying that 682 people had been arrested in London.

to this --
 * By late evening police had towed away the boat and were saying that 682 people had been arrested in London.

The source is pretty clear that the boat was impounded on Friday, which would be 19 April. - 170.55.36.237 (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

15:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2023
Change the pages source to include "Category:Climate change organisations based in the United Kingdom" in square brackets at the end of the page as this is a climate organisation based in the UK Space Cadet Gone Rogue (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the article is already in Category:Environmental organisations based in the United Kingdom which is a sub-category of Category:Climate change organisations based in the United Kingdom. Nthep (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Request to reinstate Daily Mail citation
just rolled back the following Daily Mail citation that I had previously added regarding the HSBC bank protest:

I do not think that removal was appropriate. I acknowledge that the Daily Mail offers generally poor quality journalism. But two facts stand out in the case. First, court reporting in the United Kingdom is tightly regulated and those provisions apply to the material in question. And second, the article was informative, very well illustrated, contained a number of interesting quotations from the activists, and I saw nothing that contradicted my understanding of events. The photographs were credited to Reuters news agency.

I therefore ask that this citation be reinstated. And if not, then some explanation offered specific to these circumstances be provided. Both actions would seem appropriate. But conversely, an apparently blanket condemnation of Daily Mail reporting is surely counterproductive. And at odds with the ethos of Wikipedia too?

Thanks. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree absolutely and will reinstate your edit. Cheers! Terpomamanto (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to record the commit message from : "I read the Daily Mail article and agreed it was very informative and appeared non-biased. For context, I hate the Daily Mail (though this is not relevant to this edit), but this article seemed to be of good quality."
 * So we have a problem as I see it. This article is useful while its publisher is seen as pathologically unreliable.
 * Would it be possible for those rolling back edits to state some nuanced reasoning for their actions? And whether they have even read the article in question.
 * My earlier comment regarding court reporting rules is material too. TIA, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is deprecated and shouldn’t be used as a source at all. Please see WP:DAILYMAIL. Any information to be included should come from alternate sources. — Czello (music) 12:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Righto, I read the linked article and I agree that the use of the source in this article is against the guidelines (whether or not the source is accurate and good quality). Terpomamanto (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A carve out for court reporting could be useful as a Wikipedia policy. Such reporting is tightly controlled in the United Kingdom.  And probably why this Daily Mail article is of uncharacteristically high standard.  In any case, I guess this thread can now be considered closed?  Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I guess so. Maybe they should add that exception.
 * 'And probably why this Daily Mail article is of uncharacteristically high standard' hilarious! Terpomamanto (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)