![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What does the final section ("On the 18 January 1982, in France, unidentifed attackers fired five rockets at the nuclear central Superphenix. Years later, Chaïm Nissim, former ecologist deputy from nearby Geneva, linked to the terrorist Carlos, admitted to the crime") have to do with eco-terrorism? What was the MOTIVE of that terrorist act? -- Jamiem 14:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Important note: Could someone please remove the reference to Osama bin Laden from this article? He is not an eco-terrorist. He is an Islamist terrorist. There is a BIG difference between those vastly different and completely unrelated ideologies. Let's keep the article focused on "eco-terrorism" and not distort the conversation by linking the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks (which killed innocent people and animals and caused enormous environmental damage) to people who support the use of property damage and sometimes violence as a means of ending the perceived exploitation of animals/the environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderson76 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Because "eco-terrorism" is a loaded word, I NPOVed.
I think that this article should be about what people mean when they say "eco-terror," and that it should compare these meanings to "animal liberation," "state terror," "property destruction," "sabotage" and "direct action."
The use of "ecoterror" is by centrists, right-wingers, and the FBI. It is inherently POV. It can be discussed, but as a propaganda term. FBI and others monitor environmentalists for "ecoterror" acts that include banner hanging, consensus meetings, and nonviolent civil disobedience (traffic obstruction, blockading).
What is Rush Limbaugh doing here? If this were an article about neo-con radio hosts I would understand but as he has no expertise in any field pertaining to this article I cannot see a point in having such a large piece of it devoted to him.
Have made several changes through the article, including removing the Limbaugh section in its entirety - if content from it can be rescued and integrated into the rest of the article it may be of use but I felt devoting an entire section to it was rather over the top. I would propose that for eco-terrorism, rather than - as was the case - attempting to definitively say "X is eco-terrorism, Y is not eco-terrorism", we should simply report the use of these terms by appropriate sources. -- Black Butterfly 00:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder: Eco-terrorism is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Domestic Terrorism Section as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." [is this about innocent property or is any property that destroys ecology considered innocent because it is property.12M$ and they need to invent a terrorism. screw wiki for liking to feauture the fassism. 77.251.179.188 08:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you all please not conflate my dear Earth First! with ELF? There are Elves who are EarthFirst!ers, but it is only the FBI that thinks that the generally legal activities of EarthFirst! are eco-terror, and there are many EarthFirst!ers who take explicit positions against property destruction/violence.
Also, to say "member" of ELF or ALF or EarthFirst! is inaccurate as none of these groups have membership. You can subscribe to the EarthFirst! journal, if you'd like, or you can burn down condominiums and spraypaint "ELF" all over the place, but in neither case is there an organization to join or dues to pay. If you want to be an EarthFirst!er, you just have to put the earth first in your life (i.e. adopt biocentrism), and if you want to be a ELF/ALF participant, you just have to have a good lawyer and disrespect for the law.
-- Defenestrate 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The article incorrectly paraphrased FBI assessment of ELF. I have corrected this and cited the actual FBI testimony from the FBI website to clarify. Previously, the article had stated that FBI said ELF was the "most dangerous". However, testimony by Jarboe in 2001 called ELF the "most active". In fact, it clearly states that, right wing domestic terrorist threats became the "most dangerous" during the 90's, and that now ELF and ALF emerging as a serious threat.
I also agree with the statements about how ecoterrorism is a propaganda term. It would be best to discuss most of the actual issues in the ALF and ELF articles themselves. It's difficult since the term is so widely used, yet tossed around so informally. There is certainly no consensus on even what the word "terrorism" means. The United Nations, US FBI, US State Department, and US Department of Defense all have different definitions.-- Teej 07:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The term ecoterrorism is a propaganda term, and only that. It is not legitimate under any frame of analysis to call someone who opposes ecological devastation with their own body a "terrorist" - nor someone who merely damages property - they may be a saboteur or arsonist but if they don't take life, they aren't a terrorist, period. Note even the CIA, only the FBI would disagree with that position, and we don't yet take an FBIPOV here. So this should be heavily moderated.
Ecotage is a fair term. So is terrist. But no one calls themsELVES an Ecoterrorist, it's only others that do so. And the idea that the French government was in some way responding to "ecoterrorism" by blowing up the Greenpeace boat (which was on its way to disrupt a nuclear test) is mad, and was ruled madness by a French court.
This article must be a bit harsher on those who use the term "ecoterrorism", and effectively explain it only as a propaganda term which confuses both the idea of ecological protection, and of terrorism. EofT
Allowing the Wiki to reflect a blatant oxymoron such as "eco-terrorism" is ridiculous. There is no violence against any person whatsoever involved in ecotage and, therefore, there cannot be any violence against a subset of persons (namely, civillians). This entry is an oxymoron, at best, and a more accurate soci-political discussion must include the fact that it is also used as a propaganda tool by the multinational resource extraction and refining corporations against which most ecotage occurs. Bangarang
Violence against a person is not necessary for it to be considered terrorism. See my comment below. -- Xinoph 03:58, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
American Heritage provides the following...
ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
RK, is there an example you have in mind when you say ecoterrorism has included actual murder? Evercat 21:54, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Suggested title: environmentalist direct action, with redirects from both ecoterrorism and ecotage. That would allow us to matter-of-factly describe all aspects of environmental direct action without falling victim to semantic disputes. Martin 23:13, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Just as a matter of interest, who considers Greenpeace a terrorist organisation? -- snoyes 03:23, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The following has been copied here from my talk page: ( RK)
OK. I'm trying to work on the article towards NPOV - I think calling non-violent action "terrorism" is too strong. Maybe the article should only mention actual destructive, dangerous or threatening acts, and note that there is a contrast between these and non-violent acts...
Also, do you have an example of an ecoterrorist murder? The page you gave says no deaths due to ecoterrorism in the U.S. - is there an example abroad? Evercat 22:11, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals does not give any financial support to ALF or ELF. I removed the false information about PETA. Also, the ALF and ELF do not engage in violence. Destroying property is not considered violence.
You are absolutely crazy. You don't have to kill or injure somebody to be considered a terrorist. And yeah, PETA has given money to ALF and ELF. That is a fact. This article is pure garbage seeming to endorse acts of violence.--1 March 2007 SN
Um, yeah it is. If you blow up my car, that's violent. I'm putting PETA back in because there is a source that links them, at least financially to the ALF. -- Bonus Onus 18:38, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Just had to fix the header for this section. It was simply untrue and should not be stated anywhere. plain_regular_ham 13:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
wait one second... PETA doesnt even deny giving money to alf and elf. take a look at their tax forms sometime, they donate TONS of money to ecoterrorists, and admit it. IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
I have no real opinion on the subject but I wanted to link a Testimony before the Senate that clearly ties PETA to some interesting group financially. Read it how you want. Senate Testimony
Spleeman inserted the NPOV header on the page for the following reason:
"Many environmentalists view the use of the term eco-terrorism as a propaganda-driven attempt to associate the widespread use of nonviolent civil disobedience by environmentalists with the more contentious acts of property damage or vandalism, and to link acts of vandalism with notions of terrorism." That's why, Bill. -- Spleeman 11:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, what I meant was that the eco-terrorism title is itself controversial, and I was trying to use the quote to support that. I agree with the quote as well. Come to think of it, perhaps a "controversial" warning would be more appropriate than a NPOV warning. Spleeman
The text below refers to a previous draft, still available by google but not currently a live entry in the Wikipedia.
This article should be deleted, period. It's POV by nature; the term "eco-terrorism" is straight from FBI propaganda. Why don't we just have the FBI article moved to State Terrorism to even the score? I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss the term "eco-terrorism" somewhere, but this doesn't seem the right way to do it... -- Tothebarricades.tk 22:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I work for Greenpeace and I'm astounded that the Wikipedia is being used to promote the right wing fringe suggestion that we're a terrorist organisation.
Greenpeace was founded on the principle of non-violence and 'bearing witness' of environmental destruction.
Non-violence is a part of our mission statement:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/extra/?item_id=4265&language_id=en
We always have been and always will remain strictly non-violent in all our endeavours. Our reputation of non-violence and peaceful direct action is widely known, and this is one aspect of Greenpeace our supporters value most. We believe violence is counter productive to the cause of stopping environmental destruction, and we believe violence is morally wrong. This sort of accusation is particularly offensive when you consider that we ourselves have been the victims of officially sanctioned terrorism, such as when the Rainbow Warrior was blown up by French secret agents, murdering one of our crew members.
To say "Some groups believe Greenpeace to be a terrorist organisation" may be technically true: we've heard that from the High North Alliance and Ron Arnold, (both of whom have a political agenda behind the accusation) but including such a statement in the Wikipedia is the journalistic equivalent of insisting that the phrase "Some groups believe that Henry Kissenger and Queen Elizabeth are responsible for the world's ###### trade" in an entry on opium simply because Lyndon Larouche says so. Same level of credibility.
Unless somebody can document a case of Greenpeace using terrorism, please remove our name from this entry.
--brian fitzgerald bfitzgerald [at!] int.greenpeace.org
"Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence and acts of war." from Terrorism
Are any of Greenpeace's acts consistent with the above definition? I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to find evidence for "acts that are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack)", unlawful acts, acts that disregard the safety of civilians, and acts that are intended to create fear. That said I doubt that it will be consistent with all the elements of Wikipedia's definition of eco-terrorism.
Who claims that Greenpeace is eco-terrorist organisation? If numerous credible sources do, it might be valuable to mention this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.73.127 ( talk) 15:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The entry on the Wise Use movement describes it as "a loose affiliation of activists opposed to the environmental movement". "Anti-environmentalist" is probably a more neutral adjective than "anti-environmental". Dirtbiscuit 05:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Moreover, I don't believe that "anti-environmentalist" suggests opposition to the fundamentalist values of environmentalism per se, but that they are against environmentalists - two very different things. Similarly, the term anti-big business doesn't mean you don't believe in capitalism, or even that you disagree with the fundamental principles of big business - only that you are against big business. See the difference? It's a fine one, but important. I think the self-defined mission of the Wise Use movement is responsible use of the environment by the business community, not to act as an antithetical force to environmentalists. Therefore we shouldn't use it as a label for them here in an encyclopedia. Just because one doesn't follow traditional views on conservation of the environment doesn't mean one is anti-environmentalist.-- Xinoph 03:09, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
H.Cheney, why have you removed a link to the Disinfopedia article, which balances the SPLC report? I find it disturbing that you are doing this while accusing others of censorship. Dirtbiscuit 18:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This paragraph:
Further, some people hold that clearcutting, strip-mining and other destructive resource extraction activities are true eco-terrorism, battling against such activities is considered by such people to be more akin to self-defense or defense of one's home, than to be terrorism. In many countries—notably the United States—self-defense, defense of a one's home or a loved one, can be held to be a valid legal defence to a charge of a crime. Thus, some people consider vandalism, active resistance, crime or even violence in defense of their ecosystem to be moral, ethical, and legally defensible.
This argument, though some may make it, seems like quite a stretch (burning down a housing development is self defense because the housing development was hurting your "loved one" (the environment)) and it certainly shouldn't be in the opener to this article. IMHO, if we keep this paragraph at all, we should move it down the page a lot to a section called "defense of eco-terorism" or something like that. Bonus Onus 03:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
According to The Record, the only incidents involving PETA involved pie, or monetary support. I wouldn't call that working "openly" with eco-terrorists. It is close, but i would still leave PETA out of here, just to keep balance. If anyone can find evidence of a more direct link, perhaps we could make the change. -- Bonus Onus 04:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
PETA admits giving money to elf/ALF/ josh harper/rod coronodo... if PETA admits it, why is it even contended? they gave money to the groups the desirve space in the article. IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
also, can we change the text from saying largely legal help to largley financial help? it is much more common for peta to give people money than they are to give them a lawyer, from what I have seen... IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
Guys, lets compromise. Stop making your edits so blatant, and stop reverting without posting on the talk page. -- Bonus Onus 01:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
I don't get it... violence and vandalism aren't "associated with eco-terrorism", they *are* eco-terrorism. Right?-- JonGwynne 02:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the removal of the NPOV tag? Have we finally gotten the article to a point where nobody can object to what it says? I'll give this a week... if no one objects, I'll remove the tag.-- JonGwynne 06:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I read the entire discussion page, was intrigued by the debate, and saw that there was room for a fresh eye to do some minor edits for flow. I attempted in good faith to keep all the substance on both sides. If I have failed, please see if it can be improved before reverting. -- Niku 03:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
It is unsupported, undocumented and completely pointless. There is no discussion of who it is who refers to themselves as "eco defenders", what the term means and whether it, or these claims, have any credibility or not... The section seems to be an attempt by militant environmentalists (or their apologists) to rationalize violent and destructive activities by pretending that they are are somehow in service of some noble case. I'm removing it (again) and anyone who wants to restore it had best be prepared to offer some support for these claims as well as a logical argument as to why the unquantified and uncorroborated claims attributed to unknown, anonymous and possible non-existant individuals is even relevant. -- JonGwynne 19:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
He asks us to, "· look at the definitions of the words, "eco is short for eco-system, and Webster's definition of terrorism is the political use of terror and intimidation. If you put those two together, ·you start to see companies that are destroying and polluting as eco-terrorists. I like to think of myself more as an eco-defender." [13]
Eco-defenders are disjointed, have varying degrees of motivation, and all have different ideas of how environmental concerns should be addressed. from: Confessions of an Eco-Warrior by Dave Foreman, 1993, ISBN 051788058X. See also: Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching same author, 1993, ISBN 0963775103. Vsmith 15:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Surely a "see also" link will suffice? Limbaugh didn't coin the term "eco-terrorist". Dirtbiscuit 09:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why Limbaugh, one example of someone who uses the term, is accorded one-half of the length of this article. A one-sentance comment would have sufficed. This tells us a lot about Rush, but not much about eco-terrorism.
I've written some criticism of this page at my blog: http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/ Chuck0 22:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the inclusion of the term "controversial" in the introduction, but think it should be in the first sentence, i.e., "Eco-terrorism is a controversial term that some people...." or something similar. In my experience - and I admit I could be wrong - this term is almost entirely used by American conservatives who are antagonistic to the environmentalist/ecologist/animal rights/welfare movements in general. Monkeywrenching or criminal damage, which appears make up the majority of what these people call 'eco-terrorism,' can in no neutral, objective and uncontroversial way be considered terrorism - so the nature of the term should be flagged up immediately. JF Mephisto 03:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It's defined by the FBI not by you. They decide what's terrorism and what isn't. It's a defenition used in legal terms by the FBI. It shouldn't be controversial as much as the term "negligent manslaughter" is controversial. 70.162.43.130 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I included that as part of Ecoterrorism in fiction. Since the episode involved the ALF, I just thought it would be appropriate to add it to the list.
I probably should have posted here before I did it, but I moved the FBI definition to the top. For all the controversy around the label eco-terrorism, the FBI's definition is quite complete, the official definition of a government body, and the most relevant from a law enforcement standpoint. If someone comes to this Wiki page, they're going to want to know the FBI definition, however they feel about the label. Might as well put it up front. I also provided a reference for the FBI's definition. Mgunn 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is this considered a "controversial term?" The FBI uses it as a legal definition to describe certain crimes and criminals. It's like saying someone who murders somebody is offended by being called a "murderer." Also I don't see any citation or references for it. I don't see any articles or reputable discussions about the term being offensive to consider having that fragment of the article in there. If someone does something that falls under the umbrella of eco-terrorism, they'll be labelled an eco-terrorist. Who cares if they're offended? It's not relavant to the article. People are always going to be offended by terms, it's human nature, and it's a pretty obvious assumption that people who think they're doing the right thing shouldn't be labelled what they think is an offensive term. In summation, this is not a controversial term, it's a term. It's used by the FBI to describe certain crimes and regardless of the criminals opinion on the subject that's how they're going to be labelled. 70.162.43.130 02:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Also I find the statement that property and things cannot feel terror so "eco-sabotage" is a better word quite nonsensical. As stated earlier the 9/11 terrorists didn't attack people, they attacked a building, people were just colateral casulties. I also think destroying someones property might lead to the person being terrified therefore it fits the categorical definition of terrorism. This article needs to be cleaned up. There are too many rebuttals in sections when a clearly unbiased account is given. E.g., when defining the term used by the FBI there is a random paragraph devoted to why indirect human harming acts should be considered eco-sabotage. Someone doesn't have to be physically harmed by an act to suffer from it. 70.162.43.130 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I nearly fell out of my chair when reading this from above: "Also, the ALF and ELF do not engage in violence. Destroying property is not considered violence." The flaming ignorance of the left is beyond belief.
There is one ongoing operation going on. It is Operation Backfire (FBI). This is designed to take out Eco-Terrorists, Eco-nuts and other environmentalists. I hava consulted police on this, and seen the article here. Want to be a loon, they got a padded cell for ya ! 65.163.112.74 18:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone source that the term is really controversial? Mainstreme media, etc.? If not, I think the OP looks much better condensed Larklight ( talk) 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed the controversial tag. Larklight ( talk) 16:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to reference the groups that have been called "eco-terrorists"!. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ ( talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I re-inserted them, and added citation needed tags. Taking them out looks (though I'm sure it isn't) like POV. I'd be willing to give you fairly good odds that most of them have been accused thus. Larklight ( talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The laundry list of "groups accused" in the See Also section doesn't seem to fit with this or most articles. Can't we work these into the text, or simply ensure they're in the Category:Eco-terrorism? -- Tom Ketchum 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Theres nothing wrong with the sources that I used. News.com.au is a well established news website. Plus it wasnt just the Whaling Association, it was also the Environment Minister Ian Campbell. Also in the FBI article, it is stated that "Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe". This shows that the FBI considers Greenpeace to be the "pioneer" of these eco-terrorism tactics. -- SilverOrion ( talk) 09:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Dont let your opinions get in the way. -- SilverOrion ( talk) 10:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Another source: "The Danish branch of Greenpeace, the international environmental campaigning organization, was charged yesterday (11 May 2005) under laws adopted to implement UN and EU law on the financing of acts of terrorism. The acts in question occurred on 13 October 2003 when Greenpeace activists staged a protest against the widespread use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in animal feed on Danish farms" http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/1214/9/-- SilverOrion ( talk) 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This is certainly an interesting question. In this age, it has become standard practice -- especially for governments and law-enforcement -- to call those who protest on pretty much any grounds "terrorists". This is the root of much of the controversy regarding this neologism and therefore this article. The FBI has given a "formal" definition: "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.". Thus, there are several key elements:
In my view, Greenpeace fails to meet the first of these (Violence), although that could be argued, and they also failed to meet the second, as they (in the cases discussed) are targeting whalers. The tree-spiking cases are (in my view) similar, but for different reasons -- they are violent, but lack the PR/symbolic value, as is the case with much "monkey-wrenching".
But this is just my opinion, clearly we need to rely on reliable sources here, rather than our own interpretations. In the first citation (news.com.au), we could say "The President of the Japan Whaling Association has accused the Sea Shepherds of eco-terrorism", but there is no quote vis. Greenpeace. The FBI document address "disaffected members" of Greenpeace forming Sea Shepherd who then cut drift nets. But taken apart, the sentence in question says "Since 1977 acts of eco-terrorism have occurred", noting that the formation of Sea Shepherd occurred then. The implied/alleged causal relationship is from Sea Shepherd to eco-terrorism, not Greenpeace.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not on one side or the other of this. I just think we need to be careful. If we lard Greenpeace in here, then pretty soon someone's going to be arguing about putting the Sierra Club in, and the whole thing will become meaningless. My approach is that since the term has largely been defined and used by law-enforcement, we should (figuratively) let them decide who is in and who isn't, via their press-releases and whatnot. If an organization calls themselves "ecotagers" or whatever, but are not otherwise identified by law enforcement, I think they should stay out. But sticking someone in here because you don't like their tactics is wrong, as is leaving someone out because you sympathize with their aims. -- Tom Ketchum 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, sorry for the trouble. Thanks for the input -- SilverOrion ( talk) 06:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Do the comments reported in sources 11 and 12 constitute an allegation that Greenpeace is ecoterrorist?
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 03:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The article currently states
I think this gives the wrong interpretation of quite what is and is not eco-terrorism. The previous wording
describes the situation better.
Ecological civil disobedience takes may forms: Tree-sits, tresspass, blockades, most of which are far from being terrorism. The result of the case mentioned in the paragraph confirms that this is the view the courts have on the subject. Its only right wing groups greenwash groups like the ALEC which try to promote this view. -- Salix alba ( talk) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Besides some accusations that radical animal right activism is ecoterrorism, what other sources are there for animal rights groups to be included in this article? The FBI definition does not say anything about violence and crime in the name of animal rights, only in the name of environmentalism. I'm not trying to say that radical animal right activism is not terrorism, but I'm wondering can it be said in the opening that it is ecoterrorism even though it's goals mainly aren't about environmentalism. Shubi ( talk) 17:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the terrorism that destroys the environment.
Or environmental terrorism. -- 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Certain editors seem to be on a mission to clean up Sea Shepherds image on Wikipedia. Please do not let these edits remove pertinent information such as how the FBI defines eco-terrorism by using Sea Shepherd violence as an example. It's in the article now but keeps getting removed. Same problem on the Sea Shepherds main page which get white washed from time to time as well. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm -- 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 15:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Canadian Security Intelligence Service defines single-issue terrorism as extremist millitancy against a percieved injustice of sorts. They then place Paul Watson and Sea Shepherds in this category for thier millitancy. http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm74-eng.asp -- 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 15:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
uh, i dont think sea shepherd is labeld as terrorits. they are listed as a tax-exempt charity in america, would that happen if they were listed as terorists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Somebody hid this section with the following explanation: "This section should be a chronologically ordered list, with references showing each case really was called eco-terrorism. Right now I think it's better out than in."
I've removed the code that was hiding it as it isn't a good way to voice a concern with a section. I've added a {{ accuracy-section}} to better illustrate the thoughts of the person who hid it. Smartse ( talk) 21:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
In Chili, near the Biobío River, foreign logging and reforestation companies started planting non-indiginous plants as Eucalyptus trees. This has resulted in the lowering of the water table. A local ethnic population called the Mapuche did not appreciate the planting of these non-indiginous trees, aswell as the prevailence of toxic spills from the companies and started burning the tree plantations, aswell as the equipment of the companies. Besides the destruction of equipment, Mapuches and people from the forestry companies were also killed. To this day, the situation remains tense. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Not sure whether they are eco terrorists or something else; they don't target "innocent people" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.181.194 ( talk) 18:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead of this article currently claims that eco-terrorism is a form of terrorism. This is problematic because:
I fixed the problem [15], but this was reverted by Mdlawmba, a user who earlier also participated in an attempt to tag Sea Shepherd as eco-terrorist [16]. Mdlawmba, could you please clarify whether it is your opinion that Sea Shepherd deliberately targets or disregards the safety of non-combatants. Hans Adler 13:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
here as an eco-terrorist and saying eco-terrorist = terrorist we are going against a court ruling and in breach of BLP. -- Salix ( talk): 15:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The important thing to verify is that we do not make any claims and that we follow WP:Terrorist very closely. Also, the president has allready been set in the terrorism project that eco-terrorism is a subset of terrosim, as the FBI would describe it, intentional destruction of property for political statements (terrorism) specifically for ecological statements (eco-terrorism). The key in thier definitions is intentional destruction of property that would be criminally prosecutable if done in the Unites States. -- 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 00:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the unsourced phrase in the intro that basically said ecoterrorism is done to people who are seen as harming the environment. This was both in part, not true and te part that was is allready noted. The intro allready says (and still does) that eco-terrorism is done in support of ecological causes, so that part doesn't need repeating, but to say that it targets only people who are hurting the environment is to suggest that felonious acts of vandalism (such as spray painting on a public wall) or destruction of periferal property (such as providers of computer equipment of a desired target) or hijacking an unrelated vehicle would by the intro no longer be eco-terrorism. If however, the intent was to make a point in support of the environment and federal laws had been broken, then by FBI definitions (and most common sense defs) it should still be eco-terrorism (in short, ANY terrorism done for ecological reasons). Thoughts? -- 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the last edit, I am not sure the move of the definition given by the activists was placed in the "appropriate section". That description is still about the definition of the term and why it is used. It belongs at the top with the one given by the FBI, unless we want to give this article a US department stamp. There is no need. Terrorism has no definitive intelectual authority (see policies regarding the word) and we have demonstrated in wikipedia an hability to be above the sensationalist tabloids. Maziotis ( talk) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Things are getting a little heated. First things first is for us all to take a minute to look at the style guideline:
Wikipedia:Lead section and pay extra mind to
MOS:BEGIN. The definition of the term is blank. After that, we need to provide a few paragraphs that summarize the article that could be read as a stand alone piece. Also, there shouldn't be anything in the lead that does not address the information below.
In regards to "terrorism": does the term always refer to terrorism? No. sometimes it is simple sabotage. Eco-terrorism is x,y,or z. We could also just use the FBI definition if it makes it simple. That might be US centric (unless the FBI simply nailed it) so that may be a poor solution.
In regards to the counter "No... Corporations are eco-terrorists": Being contrary is a good play and there is some validity to that argument. However, most independent and reputable reliable sources discuss it much much more often as the exact opposite. Undue weight and maybe even the principles apply to giving it top billing. I think it would be a great addition to a line later in the lead. Not number two. A concise paragraph can be added to the lead explaining motivation for (alleged possibly) eco-terrorism and that would be a great place for it.
The application of the term is for sure controversial. That deserves mention in the lead but just stuffing it in in the opening definition wasn't the best way. Does any of the above step on anyone's toes? Cptnono ( talk) 03:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The minority view in question regards the group of people to whom the term is being applied. You cannot use the 50% plus 1 whenever it is convenient. Minority views are also relevant, and in this case it is a matter of defining the subject by both sides. Please don't turn this around as if I was pushing for the ELF views on the lead of the vegetarianism article. You are the one who is pushing a POV. The FBI is not an authority on terrorism. They cannot define who is a terrorist. That is why we have guidelines such as wp:terrorist and the article on "terrorist organizations" merely points to who classifies who, instead of categorizing through verifiable sources. There is no authority on terrorism, and your version of the article is totally unacceptable. Notable authors such as Noam Chomsky think that the state for whom the FBI works is terrorist and you don't see me pushing for such sort of classifications anywhere. Maziotis ( talk) 01:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Since there was no answer, I have gone ahead and changed the article. I believe the concern expressed by the other editor over the importance of reflecting the prevalent perspective is met in the prominence that is given to the FBI view on the subject, in the defining lead. My POV would be something much different. Maziotis ( talk) 11:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I edited the article to include more of the alternative use of the word that activists use. I don't like it though because now the article has almost more content about the counter-punch of eco-terrorists than it does about eco-terrorism. Not sure that's the best direction to take. 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 04:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This article seems very POV to me. It starts remarking that the term is controversial and mentioning that there are radically different competing definitions and then goes on to describe applications of the term as if it was uncontroversial in general usage. I think part of the ploblem that the article assumes that U.S. use of the term is general, we could probably benefit by adding to the definition such that the term is defined as being a "perjorative term in use in the U.S. to mean...". I intend to write a criticism and history of the term when I get round to it, but I really think that it needs alot more than that. In particular a move away from use of the term as if it is uncontroversial from "tactics" onward- for example a change from "There are a wide variety of tactics that have been used by eco-terrorists and groups associated with eco-terrorism." to "There are a wide variety of tactics that have been used by those described as eco-terrorists and groups seen as associated with eco-terrorism." a bit meely mouthed perhaps but as this page shows there really is no agreement over the correct usage of the term and some people find it very offensive. Pete the pitiless ( talk) 19:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've made a few changes, but feel alot more needs to be done.I hope I have avoided the traps you mention above. I still think that we are not getting the points about the politcal context of the term accross sufficiently and I will look to the rest of the article soon. I would greatly appreciate it if you could look to definitions outside the USA as you suggest you might above. I had thought other Governments would not include property damage within the definition of "terrorism" however http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/28/ecoterrorismisamisnomer points out that for the UK and EU this is not so. However I have found no mention of the use of the term "eco-terrorism" within UK law and some suggestion that the term is being avioded within the UK justice system http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/26/ministry-justice-environmental-campaigners-terrorism Pete the pitiless ( talk) 16:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Why are the Unabomber and Al-Qaeda listed as "ecoterrorists" ? The Unabomber was anti-technology, which is a different kettle of fish. You don't need modern technology to destroy the environment/animal life. 76.66.192.55 ( talk) 19:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
If eco terrorism is NOT terrorism than why blow up all that stuff just to blow it up..to "free" people from w/e you call corporate greed? honestly you blow up a cell phone tower its fires are gunna burn the envirnment around it/..subsequently you become your enemy. All this crap off Not terorism whahhh is crap...any attempt to cause people to fear "littering" or whatever is using violent force to make a group act in a way acceptable by the agressors by use of psychological fear related to said voilent events.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.176.247 ( talk) 00:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No merge-- Salix ( talk): 03:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the Environmental terrorism article is merged into this one. It seems to cover essentially the same topic; that article states that some use the term 'environmental terrorism' to refer to terrorism directed at the environment, while 'eco-terrorism' means terrorism in the name of the environment, but from the sources it's clear that this distinction isn't widely recognised. Both 'eco-terrorism' and 'environmental terrorism' can mean either of these things; they are generally used as synonyms. It would make more sense to have only one article, and mention the alternate uses of the term here. Robofish ( talk) 15:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
N0thingbetter ( talk) 00:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting Nature piece which might be used to expand this article: Nanotechnology: Armed resistance -- Beland ( talk) 20:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This needs to be on wikipedia. Who wants the honors of creating it? I don't feel like creating an account.
76.112.8.146 ( talk) 21:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What does the final section ("On the 18 January 1982, in France, unidentifed attackers fired five rockets at the nuclear central Superphenix. Years later, Chaïm Nissim, former ecologist deputy from nearby Geneva, linked to the terrorist Carlos, admitted to the crime") have to do with eco-terrorism? What was the MOTIVE of that terrorist act? -- Jamiem 14:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Important note: Could someone please remove the reference to Osama bin Laden from this article? He is not an eco-terrorist. He is an Islamist terrorist. There is a BIG difference between those vastly different and completely unrelated ideologies. Let's keep the article focused on "eco-terrorism" and not distort the conversation by linking the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks (which killed innocent people and animals and caused enormous environmental damage) to people who support the use of property damage and sometimes violence as a means of ending the perceived exploitation of animals/the environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderson76 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Because "eco-terrorism" is a loaded word, I NPOVed.
I think that this article should be about what people mean when they say "eco-terror," and that it should compare these meanings to "animal liberation," "state terror," "property destruction," "sabotage" and "direct action."
The use of "ecoterror" is by centrists, right-wingers, and the FBI. It is inherently POV. It can be discussed, but as a propaganda term. FBI and others monitor environmentalists for "ecoterror" acts that include banner hanging, consensus meetings, and nonviolent civil disobedience (traffic obstruction, blockading).
What is Rush Limbaugh doing here? If this were an article about neo-con radio hosts I would understand but as he has no expertise in any field pertaining to this article I cannot see a point in having such a large piece of it devoted to him.
Have made several changes through the article, including removing the Limbaugh section in its entirety - if content from it can be rescued and integrated into the rest of the article it may be of use but I felt devoting an entire section to it was rather over the top. I would propose that for eco-terrorism, rather than - as was the case - attempting to definitively say "X is eco-terrorism, Y is not eco-terrorism", we should simply report the use of these terms by appropriate sources. -- Black Butterfly 00:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder: Eco-terrorism is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Domestic Terrorism Section as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." [is this about innocent property or is any property that destroys ecology considered innocent because it is property.12M$ and they need to invent a terrorism. screw wiki for liking to feauture the fassism. 77.251.179.188 08:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you all please not conflate my dear Earth First! with ELF? There are Elves who are EarthFirst!ers, but it is only the FBI that thinks that the generally legal activities of EarthFirst! are eco-terror, and there are many EarthFirst!ers who take explicit positions against property destruction/violence.
Also, to say "member" of ELF or ALF or EarthFirst! is inaccurate as none of these groups have membership. You can subscribe to the EarthFirst! journal, if you'd like, or you can burn down condominiums and spraypaint "ELF" all over the place, but in neither case is there an organization to join or dues to pay. If you want to be an EarthFirst!er, you just have to put the earth first in your life (i.e. adopt biocentrism), and if you want to be a ELF/ALF participant, you just have to have a good lawyer and disrespect for the law.
-- Defenestrate 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The article incorrectly paraphrased FBI assessment of ELF. I have corrected this and cited the actual FBI testimony from the FBI website to clarify. Previously, the article had stated that FBI said ELF was the "most dangerous". However, testimony by Jarboe in 2001 called ELF the "most active". In fact, it clearly states that, right wing domestic terrorist threats became the "most dangerous" during the 90's, and that now ELF and ALF emerging as a serious threat.
I also agree with the statements about how ecoterrorism is a propaganda term. It would be best to discuss most of the actual issues in the ALF and ELF articles themselves. It's difficult since the term is so widely used, yet tossed around so informally. There is certainly no consensus on even what the word "terrorism" means. The United Nations, US FBI, US State Department, and US Department of Defense all have different definitions.-- Teej 07:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The term ecoterrorism is a propaganda term, and only that. It is not legitimate under any frame of analysis to call someone who opposes ecological devastation with their own body a "terrorist" - nor someone who merely damages property - they may be a saboteur or arsonist but if they don't take life, they aren't a terrorist, period. Note even the CIA, only the FBI would disagree with that position, and we don't yet take an FBIPOV here. So this should be heavily moderated.
Ecotage is a fair term. So is terrist. But no one calls themsELVES an Ecoterrorist, it's only others that do so. And the idea that the French government was in some way responding to "ecoterrorism" by blowing up the Greenpeace boat (which was on its way to disrupt a nuclear test) is mad, and was ruled madness by a French court.
This article must be a bit harsher on those who use the term "ecoterrorism", and effectively explain it only as a propaganda term which confuses both the idea of ecological protection, and of terrorism. EofT
Allowing the Wiki to reflect a blatant oxymoron such as "eco-terrorism" is ridiculous. There is no violence against any person whatsoever involved in ecotage and, therefore, there cannot be any violence against a subset of persons (namely, civillians). This entry is an oxymoron, at best, and a more accurate soci-political discussion must include the fact that it is also used as a propaganda tool by the multinational resource extraction and refining corporations against which most ecotage occurs. Bangarang
Violence against a person is not necessary for it to be considered terrorism. See my comment below. -- Xinoph 03:58, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
American Heritage provides the following...
ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
RK, is there an example you have in mind when you say ecoterrorism has included actual murder? Evercat 21:54, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Suggested title: environmentalist direct action, with redirects from both ecoterrorism and ecotage. That would allow us to matter-of-factly describe all aspects of environmental direct action without falling victim to semantic disputes. Martin 23:13, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Just as a matter of interest, who considers Greenpeace a terrorist organisation? -- snoyes 03:23, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The following has been copied here from my talk page: ( RK)
OK. I'm trying to work on the article towards NPOV - I think calling non-violent action "terrorism" is too strong. Maybe the article should only mention actual destructive, dangerous or threatening acts, and note that there is a contrast between these and non-violent acts...
Also, do you have an example of an ecoterrorist murder? The page you gave says no deaths due to ecoterrorism in the U.S. - is there an example abroad? Evercat 22:11, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals does not give any financial support to ALF or ELF. I removed the false information about PETA. Also, the ALF and ELF do not engage in violence. Destroying property is not considered violence.
You are absolutely crazy. You don't have to kill or injure somebody to be considered a terrorist. And yeah, PETA has given money to ALF and ELF. That is a fact. This article is pure garbage seeming to endorse acts of violence.--1 March 2007 SN
Um, yeah it is. If you blow up my car, that's violent. I'm putting PETA back in because there is a source that links them, at least financially to the ALF. -- Bonus Onus 18:38, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Just had to fix the header for this section. It was simply untrue and should not be stated anywhere. plain_regular_ham 13:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
wait one second... PETA doesnt even deny giving money to alf and elf. take a look at their tax forms sometime, they donate TONS of money to ecoterrorists, and admit it. IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
I have no real opinion on the subject but I wanted to link a Testimony before the Senate that clearly ties PETA to some interesting group financially. Read it how you want. Senate Testimony
Spleeman inserted the NPOV header on the page for the following reason:
"Many environmentalists view the use of the term eco-terrorism as a propaganda-driven attempt to associate the widespread use of nonviolent civil disobedience by environmentalists with the more contentious acts of property damage or vandalism, and to link acts of vandalism with notions of terrorism." That's why, Bill. -- Spleeman 11:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, what I meant was that the eco-terrorism title is itself controversial, and I was trying to use the quote to support that. I agree with the quote as well. Come to think of it, perhaps a "controversial" warning would be more appropriate than a NPOV warning. Spleeman
The text below refers to a previous draft, still available by google but not currently a live entry in the Wikipedia.
This article should be deleted, period. It's POV by nature; the term "eco-terrorism" is straight from FBI propaganda. Why don't we just have the FBI article moved to State Terrorism to even the score? I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss the term "eco-terrorism" somewhere, but this doesn't seem the right way to do it... -- Tothebarricades.tk 22:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I work for Greenpeace and I'm astounded that the Wikipedia is being used to promote the right wing fringe suggestion that we're a terrorist organisation.
Greenpeace was founded on the principle of non-violence and 'bearing witness' of environmental destruction.
Non-violence is a part of our mission statement:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/extra/?item_id=4265&language_id=en
We always have been and always will remain strictly non-violent in all our endeavours. Our reputation of non-violence and peaceful direct action is widely known, and this is one aspect of Greenpeace our supporters value most. We believe violence is counter productive to the cause of stopping environmental destruction, and we believe violence is morally wrong. This sort of accusation is particularly offensive when you consider that we ourselves have been the victims of officially sanctioned terrorism, such as when the Rainbow Warrior was blown up by French secret agents, murdering one of our crew members.
To say "Some groups believe Greenpeace to be a terrorist organisation" may be technically true: we've heard that from the High North Alliance and Ron Arnold, (both of whom have a political agenda behind the accusation) but including such a statement in the Wikipedia is the journalistic equivalent of insisting that the phrase "Some groups believe that Henry Kissenger and Queen Elizabeth are responsible for the world's ###### trade" in an entry on opium simply because Lyndon Larouche says so. Same level of credibility.
Unless somebody can document a case of Greenpeace using terrorism, please remove our name from this entry.
--brian fitzgerald bfitzgerald [at!] int.greenpeace.org
"Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence and acts of war." from Terrorism
Are any of Greenpeace's acts consistent with the above definition? I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to find evidence for "acts that are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack)", unlawful acts, acts that disregard the safety of civilians, and acts that are intended to create fear. That said I doubt that it will be consistent with all the elements of Wikipedia's definition of eco-terrorism.
Who claims that Greenpeace is eco-terrorist organisation? If numerous credible sources do, it might be valuable to mention this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.73.127 ( talk) 15:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The entry on the Wise Use movement describes it as "a loose affiliation of activists opposed to the environmental movement". "Anti-environmentalist" is probably a more neutral adjective than "anti-environmental". Dirtbiscuit 05:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Moreover, I don't believe that "anti-environmentalist" suggests opposition to the fundamentalist values of environmentalism per se, but that they are against environmentalists - two very different things. Similarly, the term anti-big business doesn't mean you don't believe in capitalism, or even that you disagree with the fundamental principles of big business - only that you are against big business. See the difference? It's a fine one, but important. I think the self-defined mission of the Wise Use movement is responsible use of the environment by the business community, not to act as an antithetical force to environmentalists. Therefore we shouldn't use it as a label for them here in an encyclopedia. Just because one doesn't follow traditional views on conservation of the environment doesn't mean one is anti-environmentalist.-- Xinoph 03:09, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
H.Cheney, why have you removed a link to the Disinfopedia article, which balances the SPLC report? I find it disturbing that you are doing this while accusing others of censorship. Dirtbiscuit 18:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This paragraph:
Further, some people hold that clearcutting, strip-mining and other destructive resource extraction activities are true eco-terrorism, battling against such activities is considered by such people to be more akin to self-defense or defense of one's home, than to be terrorism. In many countries—notably the United States—self-defense, defense of a one's home or a loved one, can be held to be a valid legal defence to a charge of a crime. Thus, some people consider vandalism, active resistance, crime or even violence in defense of their ecosystem to be moral, ethical, and legally defensible.
This argument, though some may make it, seems like quite a stretch (burning down a housing development is self defense because the housing development was hurting your "loved one" (the environment)) and it certainly shouldn't be in the opener to this article. IMHO, if we keep this paragraph at all, we should move it down the page a lot to a section called "defense of eco-terorism" or something like that. Bonus Onus 03:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
According to The Record, the only incidents involving PETA involved pie, or monetary support. I wouldn't call that working "openly" with eco-terrorists. It is close, but i would still leave PETA out of here, just to keep balance. If anyone can find evidence of a more direct link, perhaps we could make the change. -- Bonus Onus 04:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
PETA admits giving money to elf/ALF/ josh harper/rod coronodo... if PETA admits it, why is it even contended? they gave money to the groups the desirve space in the article. IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
also, can we change the text from saying largely legal help to largley financial help? it is much more common for peta to give people money than they are to give them a lawyer, from what I have seen... IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
Guys, lets compromise. Stop making your edits so blatant, and stop reverting without posting on the talk page. -- Bonus Onus 01:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
I don't get it... violence and vandalism aren't "associated with eco-terrorism", they *are* eco-terrorism. Right?-- JonGwynne 02:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the removal of the NPOV tag? Have we finally gotten the article to a point where nobody can object to what it says? I'll give this a week... if no one objects, I'll remove the tag.-- JonGwynne 06:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I read the entire discussion page, was intrigued by the debate, and saw that there was room for a fresh eye to do some minor edits for flow. I attempted in good faith to keep all the substance on both sides. If I have failed, please see if it can be improved before reverting. -- Niku 03:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
It is unsupported, undocumented and completely pointless. There is no discussion of who it is who refers to themselves as "eco defenders", what the term means and whether it, or these claims, have any credibility or not... The section seems to be an attempt by militant environmentalists (or their apologists) to rationalize violent and destructive activities by pretending that they are are somehow in service of some noble case. I'm removing it (again) and anyone who wants to restore it had best be prepared to offer some support for these claims as well as a logical argument as to why the unquantified and uncorroborated claims attributed to unknown, anonymous and possible non-existant individuals is even relevant. -- JonGwynne 19:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
He asks us to, "· look at the definitions of the words, "eco is short for eco-system, and Webster's definition of terrorism is the political use of terror and intimidation. If you put those two together, ·you start to see companies that are destroying and polluting as eco-terrorists. I like to think of myself more as an eco-defender." [13]
Eco-defenders are disjointed, have varying degrees of motivation, and all have different ideas of how environmental concerns should be addressed. from: Confessions of an Eco-Warrior by Dave Foreman, 1993, ISBN 051788058X. See also: Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching same author, 1993, ISBN 0963775103. Vsmith 15:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Surely a "see also" link will suffice? Limbaugh didn't coin the term "eco-terrorist". Dirtbiscuit 09:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why Limbaugh, one example of someone who uses the term, is accorded one-half of the length of this article. A one-sentance comment would have sufficed. This tells us a lot about Rush, but not much about eco-terrorism.
I've written some criticism of this page at my blog: http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/ Chuck0 22:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the inclusion of the term "controversial" in the introduction, but think it should be in the first sentence, i.e., "Eco-terrorism is a controversial term that some people...." or something similar. In my experience - and I admit I could be wrong - this term is almost entirely used by American conservatives who are antagonistic to the environmentalist/ecologist/animal rights/welfare movements in general. Monkeywrenching or criminal damage, which appears make up the majority of what these people call 'eco-terrorism,' can in no neutral, objective and uncontroversial way be considered terrorism - so the nature of the term should be flagged up immediately. JF Mephisto 03:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It's defined by the FBI not by you. They decide what's terrorism and what isn't. It's a defenition used in legal terms by the FBI. It shouldn't be controversial as much as the term "negligent manslaughter" is controversial. 70.162.43.130 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I included that as part of Ecoterrorism in fiction. Since the episode involved the ALF, I just thought it would be appropriate to add it to the list.
I probably should have posted here before I did it, but I moved the FBI definition to the top. For all the controversy around the label eco-terrorism, the FBI's definition is quite complete, the official definition of a government body, and the most relevant from a law enforcement standpoint. If someone comes to this Wiki page, they're going to want to know the FBI definition, however they feel about the label. Might as well put it up front. I also provided a reference for the FBI's definition. Mgunn 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is this considered a "controversial term?" The FBI uses it as a legal definition to describe certain crimes and criminals. It's like saying someone who murders somebody is offended by being called a "murderer." Also I don't see any citation or references for it. I don't see any articles or reputable discussions about the term being offensive to consider having that fragment of the article in there. If someone does something that falls under the umbrella of eco-terrorism, they'll be labelled an eco-terrorist. Who cares if they're offended? It's not relavant to the article. People are always going to be offended by terms, it's human nature, and it's a pretty obvious assumption that people who think they're doing the right thing shouldn't be labelled what they think is an offensive term. In summation, this is not a controversial term, it's a term. It's used by the FBI to describe certain crimes and regardless of the criminals opinion on the subject that's how they're going to be labelled. 70.162.43.130 02:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Also I find the statement that property and things cannot feel terror so "eco-sabotage" is a better word quite nonsensical. As stated earlier the 9/11 terrorists didn't attack people, they attacked a building, people were just colateral casulties. I also think destroying someones property might lead to the person being terrified therefore it fits the categorical definition of terrorism. This article needs to be cleaned up. There are too many rebuttals in sections when a clearly unbiased account is given. E.g., when defining the term used by the FBI there is a random paragraph devoted to why indirect human harming acts should be considered eco-sabotage. Someone doesn't have to be physically harmed by an act to suffer from it. 70.162.43.130 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I nearly fell out of my chair when reading this from above: "Also, the ALF and ELF do not engage in violence. Destroying property is not considered violence." The flaming ignorance of the left is beyond belief.
There is one ongoing operation going on. It is Operation Backfire (FBI). This is designed to take out Eco-Terrorists, Eco-nuts and other environmentalists. I hava consulted police on this, and seen the article here. Want to be a loon, they got a padded cell for ya ! 65.163.112.74 18:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone source that the term is really controversial? Mainstreme media, etc.? If not, I think the OP looks much better condensed Larklight ( talk) 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed the controversial tag. Larklight ( talk) 16:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to reference the groups that have been called "eco-terrorists"!. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ ( talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I re-inserted them, and added citation needed tags. Taking them out looks (though I'm sure it isn't) like POV. I'd be willing to give you fairly good odds that most of them have been accused thus. Larklight ( talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The laundry list of "groups accused" in the See Also section doesn't seem to fit with this or most articles. Can't we work these into the text, or simply ensure they're in the Category:Eco-terrorism? -- Tom Ketchum 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Theres nothing wrong with the sources that I used. News.com.au is a well established news website. Plus it wasnt just the Whaling Association, it was also the Environment Minister Ian Campbell. Also in the FBI article, it is stated that "Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe". This shows that the FBI considers Greenpeace to be the "pioneer" of these eco-terrorism tactics. -- SilverOrion ( talk) 09:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Dont let your opinions get in the way. -- SilverOrion ( talk) 10:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Another source: "The Danish branch of Greenpeace, the international environmental campaigning organization, was charged yesterday (11 May 2005) under laws adopted to implement UN and EU law on the financing of acts of terrorism. The acts in question occurred on 13 October 2003 when Greenpeace activists staged a protest against the widespread use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in animal feed on Danish farms" http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/1214/9/-- SilverOrion ( talk) 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This is certainly an interesting question. In this age, it has become standard practice -- especially for governments and law-enforcement -- to call those who protest on pretty much any grounds "terrorists". This is the root of much of the controversy regarding this neologism and therefore this article. The FBI has given a "formal" definition: "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.". Thus, there are several key elements:
In my view, Greenpeace fails to meet the first of these (Violence), although that could be argued, and they also failed to meet the second, as they (in the cases discussed) are targeting whalers. The tree-spiking cases are (in my view) similar, but for different reasons -- they are violent, but lack the PR/symbolic value, as is the case with much "monkey-wrenching".
But this is just my opinion, clearly we need to rely on reliable sources here, rather than our own interpretations. In the first citation (news.com.au), we could say "The President of the Japan Whaling Association has accused the Sea Shepherds of eco-terrorism", but there is no quote vis. Greenpeace. The FBI document address "disaffected members" of Greenpeace forming Sea Shepherd who then cut drift nets. But taken apart, the sentence in question says "Since 1977 acts of eco-terrorism have occurred", noting that the formation of Sea Shepherd occurred then. The implied/alleged causal relationship is from Sea Shepherd to eco-terrorism, not Greenpeace.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not on one side or the other of this. I just think we need to be careful. If we lard Greenpeace in here, then pretty soon someone's going to be arguing about putting the Sierra Club in, and the whole thing will become meaningless. My approach is that since the term has largely been defined and used by law-enforcement, we should (figuratively) let them decide who is in and who isn't, via their press-releases and whatnot. If an organization calls themselves "ecotagers" or whatever, but are not otherwise identified by law enforcement, I think they should stay out. But sticking someone in here because you don't like their tactics is wrong, as is leaving someone out because you sympathize with their aims. -- Tom Ketchum 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, sorry for the trouble. Thanks for the input -- SilverOrion ( talk) 06:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Do the comments reported in sources 11 and 12 constitute an allegation that Greenpeace is ecoterrorist?
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 03:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The article currently states
I think this gives the wrong interpretation of quite what is and is not eco-terrorism. The previous wording
describes the situation better.
Ecological civil disobedience takes may forms: Tree-sits, tresspass, blockades, most of which are far from being terrorism. The result of the case mentioned in the paragraph confirms that this is the view the courts have on the subject. Its only right wing groups greenwash groups like the ALEC which try to promote this view. -- Salix alba ( talk) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Besides some accusations that radical animal right activism is ecoterrorism, what other sources are there for animal rights groups to be included in this article? The FBI definition does not say anything about violence and crime in the name of animal rights, only in the name of environmentalism. I'm not trying to say that radical animal right activism is not terrorism, but I'm wondering can it be said in the opening that it is ecoterrorism even though it's goals mainly aren't about environmentalism. Shubi ( talk) 17:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the terrorism that destroys the environment.
Or environmental terrorism. -- 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Certain editors seem to be on a mission to clean up Sea Shepherds image on Wikipedia. Please do not let these edits remove pertinent information such as how the FBI defines eco-terrorism by using Sea Shepherd violence as an example. It's in the article now but keeps getting removed. Same problem on the Sea Shepherds main page which get white washed from time to time as well. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm -- 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 15:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Canadian Security Intelligence Service defines single-issue terrorism as extremist millitancy against a percieved injustice of sorts. They then place Paul Watson and Sea Shepherds in this category for thier millitancy. http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm74-eng.asp -- 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 15:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
uh, i dont think sea shepherd is labeld as terrorits. they are listed as a tax-exempt charity in america, would that happen if they were listed as terorists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Somebody hid this section with the following explanation: "This section should be a chronologically ordered list, with references showing each case really was called eco-terrorism. Right now I think it's better out than in."
I've removed the code that was hiding it as it isn't a good way to voice a concern with a section. I've added a {{ accuracy-section}} to better illustrate the thoughts of the person who hid it. Smartse ( talk) 21:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
In Chili, near the Biobío River, foreign logging and reforestation companies started planting non-indiginous plants as Eucalyptus trees. This has resulted in the lowering of the water table. A local ethnic population called the Mapuche did not appreciate the planting of these non-indiginous trees, aswell as the prevailence of toxic spills from the companies and started burning the tree plantations, aswell as the equipment of the companies. Besides the destruction of equipment, Mapuches and people from the forestry companies were also killed. To this day, the situation remains tense. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Not sure whether they are eco terrorists or something else; they don't target "innocent people" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.181.194 ( talk) 18:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead of this article currently claims that eco-terrorism is a form of terrorism. This is problematic because:
I fixed the problem [15], but this was reverted by Mdlawmba, a user who earlier also participated in an attempt to tag Sea Shepherd as eco-terrorist [16]. Mdlawmba, could you please clarify whether it is your opinion that Sea Shepherd deliberately targets or disregards the safety of non-combatants. Hans Adler 13:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
here as an eco-terrorist and saying eco-terrorist = terrorist we are going against a court ruling and in breach of BLP. -- Salix ( talk): 15:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The important thing to verify is that we do not make any claims and that we follow WP:Terrorist very closely. Also, the president has allready been set in the terrorism project that eco-terrorism is a subset of terrosim, as the FBI would describe it, intentional destruction of property for political statements (terrorism) specifically for ecological statements (eco-terrorism). The key in thier definitions is intentional destruction of property that would be criminally prosecutable if done in the Unites States. -- 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 00:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the unsourced phrase in the intro that basically said ecoterrorism is done to people who are seen as harming the environment. This was both in part, not true and te part that was is allready noted. The intro allready says (and still does) that eco-terrorism is done in support of ecological causes, so that part doesn't need repeating, but to say that it targets only people who are hurting the environment is to suggest that felonious acts of vandalism (such as spray painting on a public wall) or destruction of periferal property (such as providers of computer equipment of a desired target) or hijacking an unrelated vehicle would by the intro no longer be eco-terrorism. If however, the intent was to make a point in support of the environment and federal laws had been broken, then by FBI definitions (and most common sense defs) it should still be eco-terrorism (in short, ANY terrorism done for ecological reasons). Thoughts? -- 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the last edit, I am not sure the move of the definition given by the activists was placed in the "appropriate section". That description is still about the definition of the term and why it is used. It belongs at the top with the one given by the FBI, unless we want to give this article a US department stamp. There is no need. Terrorism has no definitive intelectual authority (see policies regarding the word) and we have demonstrated in wikipedia an hability to be above the sensationalist tabloids. Maziotis ( talk) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Things are getting a little heated. First things first is for us all to take a minute to look at the style guideline:
Wikipedia:Lead section and pay extra mind to
MOS:BEGIN. The definition of the term is blank. After that, we need to provide a few paragraphs that summarize the article that could be read as a stand alone piece. Also, there shouldn't be anything in the lead that does not address the information below.
In regards to "terrorism": does the term always refer to terrorism? No. sometimes it is simple sabotage. Eco-terrorism is x,y,or z. We could also just use the FBI definition if it makes it simple. That might be US centric (unless the FBI simply nailed it) so that may be a poor solution.
In regards to the counter "No... Corporations are eco-terrorists": Being contrary is a good play and there is some validity to that argument. However, most independent and reputable reliable sources discuss it much much more often as the exact opposite. Undue weight and maybe even the principles apply to giving it top billing. I think it would be a great addition to a line later in the lead. Not number two. A concise paragraph can be added to the lead explaining motivation for (alleged possibly) eco-terrorism and that would be a great place for it.
The application of the term is for sure controversial. That deserves mention in the lead but just stuffing it in in the opening definition wasn't the best way. Does any of the above step on anyone's toes? Cptnono ( talk) 03:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The minority view in question regards the group of people to whom the term is being applied. You cannot use the 50% plus 1 whenever it is convenient. Minority views are also relevant, and in this case it is a matter of defining the subject by both sides. Please don't turn this around as if I was pushing for the ELF views on the lead of the vegetarianism article. You are the one who is pushing a POV. The FBI is not an authority on terrorism. They cannot define who is a terrorist. That is why we have guidelines such as wp:terrorist and the article on "terrorist organizations" merely points to who classifies who, instead of categorizing through verifiable sources. There is no authority on terrorism, and your version of the article is totally unacceptable. Notable authors such as Noam Chomsky think that the state for whom the FBI works is terrorist and you don't see me pushing for such sort of classifications anywhere. Maziotis ( talk) 01:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Since there was no answer, I have gone ahead and changed the article. I believe the concern expressed by the other editor over the importance of reflecting the prevalent perspective is met in the prominence that is given to the FBI view on the subject, in the defining lead. My POV would be something much different. Maziotis ( talk) 11:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I edited the article to include more of the alternative use of the word that activists use. I don't like it though because now the article has almost more content about the counter-punch of eco-terrorists than it does about eco-terrorism. Not sure that's the best direction to take. 68.41.80.161 ( talk) 04:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This article seems very POV to me. It starts remarking that the term is controversial and mentioning that there are radically different competing definitions and then goes on to describe applications of the term as if it was uncontroversial in general usage. I think part of the ploblem that the article assumes that U.S. use of the term is general, we could probably benefit by adding to the definition such that the term is defined as being a "perjorative term in use in the U.S. to mean...". I intend to write a criticism and history of the term when I get round to it, but I really think that it needs alot more than that. In particular a move away from use of the term as if it is uncontroversial from "tactics" onward- for example a change from "There are a wide variety of tactics that have been used by eco-terrorists and groups associated with eco-terrorism." to "There are a wide variety of tactics that have been used by those described as eco-terrorists and groups seen as associated with eco-terrorism." a bit meely mouthed perhaps but as this page shows there really is no agreement over the correct usage of the term and some people find it very offensive. Pete the pitiless ( talk) 19:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've made a few changes, but feel alot more needs to be done.I hope I have avoided the traps you mention above. I still think that we are not getting the points about the politcal context of the term accross sufficiently and I will look to the rest of the article soon. I would greatly appreciate it if you could look to definitions outside the USA as you suggest you might above. I had thought other Governments would not include property damage within the definition of "terrorism" however http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/28/ecoterrorismisamisnomer points out that for the UK and EU this is not so. However I have found no mention of the use of the term "eco-terrorism" within UK law and some suggestion that the term is being avioded within the UK justice system http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/26/ministry-justice-environmental-campaigners-terrorism Pete the pitiless ( talk) 16:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Why are the Unabomber and Al-Qaeda listed as "ecoterrorists" ? The Unabomber was anti-technology, which is a different kettle of fish. You don't need modern technology to destroy the environment/animal life. 76.66.192.55 ( talk) 19:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
If eco terrorism is NOT terrorism than why blow up all that stuff just to blow it up..to "free" people from w/e you call corporate greed? honestly you blow up a cell phone tower its fires are gunna burn the envirnment around it/..subsequently you become your enemy. All this crap off Not terorism whahhh is crap...any attempt to cause people to fear "littering" or whatever is using violent force to make a group act in a way acceptable by the agressors by use of psychological fear related to said voilent events.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.176.247 ( talk) 00:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No merge-- Salix ( talk): 03:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the Environmental terrorism article is merged into this one. It seems to cover essentially the same topic; that article states that some use the term 'environmental terrorism' to refer to terrorism directed at the environment, while 'eco-terrorism' means terrorism in the name of the environment, but from the sources it's clear that this distinction isn't widely recognised. Both 'eco-terrorism' and 'environmental terrorism' can mean either of these things; they are generally used as synonyms. It would make more sense to have only one article, and mention the alternate uses of the term here. Robofish ( talk) 15:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
N0thingbetter ( talk) 00:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting Nature piece which might be used to expand this article: Nanotechnology: Armed resistance -- Beland ( talk) 20:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This needs to be on wikipedia. Who wants the honors of creating it? I don't feel like creating an account.
76.112.8.146 ( talk) 21:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)