Talk:Ecofascism

message: I am going through this section with some surprise--it appears as if rather than listing accusations (which is already very questionable, encyclopedically speaking), our article simply concocts criticisms of politicians and writers by synthesizing materials in order to get what seems like their opinion in here. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ecofascism is a real thing, just not officially. . 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:4CA0:582:824A:8206 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The real issue (as the lead indicates) is that this is a snappy term that has been used by different people at different times to refer to different things, so it doesn't really have one unified meaning and doesn't refer to any one concrete thing.  The best we can do is cover the various ways it's been used. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Accusations"

message: Why is "Ecofascism" part of a series on Fascism, But Feminazi part of a series on Feminism? Koopinator (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the sources only cover Feminazi as a pejorative for feminism, with no actual connection to fascism as an ideology, whereas there are some sources that connect the term 'ecofascism' to actual or hypothetical fascist governments.  Granted that the sources for this article are spotty and cover a wide range of different usages, so I'm not sure how coherent it really is. --Aquillion (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Given the wide range of (sometimes contradictory) definitions for ecofascism and the fact that many sources have expressed skepticism about the seriousness of the suspect's manifesto, I think it's important to rely on high-quality reliable sources in covering it and to make it clear from those sources how they interpret "Eco-fascism" in this context. --Aquillion (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

text: I've trimmed down the soundbites from the alleged perpetrators of this and the 2019 El Paso shooting; quoting their respective manifestos without any secondary-source analysis gives them too much weight and treads perilously close to promoting their ideology, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christchurch mosque shooting 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I reverted the image from this page just because it was only here on the dubious basis of the shooter's PRIMARY source.  We'd need good independent SECONDARY or TERTIARY sources that say any given symbol is really representative of this political philosophy NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: HOUSEKEEPING NOTE Since this is about the article and other editors may be interested (either today or in the future) this belongs at article talk.  So I moved it here from my user talk NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see.... an IP just added this along with text that is not in the RS for those sentences.  I reverted here, the IP restored without discussion, and I reverted again here.  I didn't notice the sidebars were part of this when I reverted.   If you want the sidebars, go ahead and add them back, and I will think about those later.  TO be honest, I didn't even notice, I went right to the text in the paragraph and comparing to the RS, without noticing the sidebars until you called them to my attention.  To repeat, I have no opinion in favor or against the sidebars, and as a matter of process I don't object if you add them back.  If I have an opinion about them later, I may say something then.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sidebars 

message: *Confronting the Rise of Eco-Fascism Means Grappling with Complex Systems (CARR, Jul 2020)
*The Far Right and the Environment: Politics, Discourse and Communication (2019 book, Routledge)
Jlevi (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources for consideration 

message: Per the WP:TPG I moved this here from my user talk NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.  I was totally unaware of the context.  Thinking...... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

text: "Authoritarian environmentalist government"... I already made the tweak, thanks for teaching me something about Wiki I didn't know.  Does that phrasing seem both sufficiently short and specifically accurate? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short Description 

message: I'm not sure if the following section should be included in the article, as  after looking at the reference, and  the original source for the quote, it is that a purported leader in ITS stated how the took some organisational influence from fascist criminal groups which had sown to be advantageous, along with taking influence from a variety of other groups, while not adopting the ideological justifications that these other groups use for their actions. So it seems that including the anarchist group ITS in the article on ecofascism isn't correct.
 Cdjp1 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: FDD categorized the group as having "ecofascist" themes, so fits the bill if you ask me.RKT7789 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITS