Talk:Radical environmentalism

message: Moving forward: I could not find support for the content in the pdf, as I stated above in 3C's. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and Nature

message: If it's true that there aren't many sources on this, how bout merging with Environmentalism?  Is "radical environmentalism" some verifiably distinct movement, or is it just a label applies to some of the fringes of the broader movement?  Friday (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See deep ecology; this might be considered a qualitative difference between mainstream environmentalist movements and "radical" ones. Graft 17:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands the article seems to be meant to cover techniques of direct action, which may or may not coincide with the philosophy of deep ecology.  I don't think you can lump violent animals rights vegans with "back to the Pleistocene" types, except insofar as they are both outside of the mainstream.  I'm not sure the title is neutral - how does one objectively define a "radical"? (Usually it's "someone whose philosophy I can't relate to", isn't it?).  Guettarda 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Radical environmentalism has become a popular term. Deep ecology is considered radical environmentalist, as are groups like ELF/ALF, and to some extent Earth First! especially. The Ungovernable Force 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What bothers me is how to define "radical".  The I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach doesn't really work.  Is Greenpeace radical?  Is PETA?  What about the "environmental" groups that are basically astroturfing by the oil industry ("Greening Earth" and the like).  It's pretty radical for an environmental group to be pro-industry.  How does one define membership in this group without violating NPOV?  Guettarda 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the biggest problem. I don't think it's a reason to not have an article though. We could make part of the article about how it is used in political ways by different groups for different reasons. It's like ecoterrorism, but we still have an article on that. The Ungovernable Force 02:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it looks like there are some good academic sources out there.  Guettarda 03:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not support a merge. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: * Definition of Radical environmentalism - this needs to be based on cited sources.  As discussed above #Merge.3F.  I began with one who appears to be one of the major authorities on the movement(s); the idea is supported by others.  I haven't found all the sources, but we need a real definition or defintions.
* History - this is unsourced.  Does the movement really start with Greenpeace?  Does Greenpeace actually fit the definition of RE?  (Of course, we need a definition/definitions).  
* New religious movement - This paragraph clearly violates NPOV by presenting a misleading take on the facts.  This does not appear to be Taylor's "pet theory".  As it is currently presented it suggests that this is outside of the mainstream.  This is highly misleading.  Guettarda 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the final - my concern would be mostly whether those within the movement would accept theirs as a religious movement or not. If not, this suggests presentation of Taylor's view, even if it has mainstream or academic acceptance, should be tempered by (sourced) claims to the contrary. Here is a reviewer with some experience with EF! questioning Taylor's thesis, incidentally. Graft 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Taylor's view should be tempered with alternative interpretations.  All sourced views should be presented.  We should not have "Taylor's view" in one paragraph, "Devall's view" in another section, "Jay Roger's" view in a third, in a "he said, she said" fight.  I wrote the lead with what was available last night, working from what I could find in academic sources.  Devall concludes "In summary, the deep, long-range ecology movement is not intended as an institutionalized religious movement. It is not in competition with institutionalized religion. It is not a "new religious movement." If we have to characterize the movement in these terms, it is a movement seeking a spiritual/ecocentric paradigm shift."  My initial wording wasn't balanced (it was late, I was sleepy) and I qualifed it in my revert.  But presenting it as "Taylor says" is far less balanced - not only does Duvall say "Certainly Taylor is not the first academic to search for religious motivations in the ecology movement." - but Martha Lee also makes this case in Earth First!: Environmental Apocalypse.  Guettarda 22:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Obviously the great Taylor hasn't met too many American Indians, eh?  (Or Hindus or Buddhists either, for that matter).  What is needed here is balance.  The views of a lone looney should not drive the article. •Jim62sch• 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go find some other loonies, equally prominent and germaine. I'm beginning to see why Ed was going to put in Crichton quotes. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What am I doing here? Oh, I thought you said "need more Moonies", yuk yuk ;-) --Uncle Ed 15:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grin. Only if they come with verifiable cites!!! (Are you verifiable?) KillerChihuahua?!? 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean, am I for real? I don't know about you, buddy, but I sure am. ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *lol* Avoid self references! KillerChihuahua?!? 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New religious movement

message: We need to improve the definition of radical environmentalism.  Here's a definition from an earlier version of this article;
"[Radical] environmentalists take the position that traditional methods of social change like political lobbying, public awareness campaigns, and the like are insufficient for achieving necessary changes in the relationship between humans and the environment. As such, radical environmentalists resort to non-traditional forms of activism." 
I would tend to re-write it along the following lines:
:Radical environmentalists take the position that traditional methods of social change are insufficient for achieving necessary changes in the relationship between humans and the environment. Instead of methods such as political lobbying and public awareness campaigns, radical environmentalists resort to non-traditional forms of activism, such as direct action.  
Thoughts? Sunray 04:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, that wasn't very clear. I should have referred to the lead paragraph. The sentence above could become the second sentence in the lead.  The first, currently reads as: "Radical environmentalism is a movement which views the current environmental crisis as an attack on the natural world, which it considers to be sacrosanct."  I'm not all that happy with this as a definition of radical environmentalism, but haven't found a better statement out there (actually I haven't found any). Anyone else have anything? Sunray 19:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an incredibly difficult article to source. :( KillerChihuahua?!? 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is that. Sunray 07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: The first paragraph doesn't seem clear to me. It seems to me two separate things are being discussed. The first idea is Radical Environmentalism which seeks to "overthrow of current Western ideas of religion and philosophy". - thats radical The second idea is Militant Environmentalism which uses direct action etc thats militant. Perhaps those are not the correct terms but the article seems to imply that they are more or less the same thing. A group could be either radical, militant or both. KAM 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've sorted out the problem. When referring to the movement, it would be very different to referre to the groups within, as they don't reflect the movement in the same way it represents itself through speech and education. I'm trying to say that basically the radical groups now are all pretty much using direct action at the moment, despite the fact this doesn't actually relate to the ideology of RE, which as Jeff Luers argues was born after human existence.TomLovesCake 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral?

message: Perhaps someone who drafted the section on critics could clarify the line "fictional as a theory" - i don't follow it. If the critics disagree with radical environmentalism, that doesn't mean the theory  behind r.e. does not exist. Clearly theory behind radical environmentalism DOES exist, so as written, the line seems to function as a sweeping criticism of the critics, charging that the critics are unable to recognize reality? Perhaps the critics feel certain beliefs behind the theory are based on fiction, in which case  the line should be reworded to make that point (and perhaps suggest which supposed fictions lie behind the theories). G34j (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: last line on critics of theory

message: Why does Environmental groups redirect here?  99.181.150.228 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does [[Environmental groups]] redirect here? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Radical environmentalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103104619/http://www.carkeys.co.uk/features/everything_else/914.asp to http://www.carkeys.co.uk/features/everything_else/914.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051016222643/http://www.penbay.org/ef/treesit_first1985.html to http://www.penbay.org/ef/treesit_first1985.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424015446/http://www.things.org/~jym/ef/tree-spiking-memo.html to http://www.things.org/~jym/ef/tree-spiking-memo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211235040/http://greenfield.fortunecity.com/tree/16/fire.html to http://greenfield.fortunecity.com/tree/16/fire.html
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_36_15/ai_56063251
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817222138/http://www.fbi.gov/page2/jan06/elf012006.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/page2/jan06/elf012006.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301045057/http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1223134.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1223134.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Environmental groups. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11#Environmental groups until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Environmental groups" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]