![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
suggestion: how about mentioning Al Gore, and his stance on global warming, and his movie An Inconvenient Truth, which probably had a fairly heavy impact on people's beliefs concerning global warming. may be too off-subject, just throwing that out there. 66.32.200.185 ( talk) 23:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think not. I think Gore is a pretty iconic figure in a watershed moment.- —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.57.73.132 (
talk)
23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The link to http://www.envirowiki.info was removed from the external links section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Environmentalism&oldid=192919030 ). From Wikipedia:Spam is think that I've done everything correctly (I should point out that I run the site, but I think I can be objective enough about this). The only appropriate reason for removal (listed on WP:Spam) I can see, is that the website is not "truly relevant" to the article. I would disagree. It is, as far as I know, the largest wiki specifically about environmentalism, and perhaps the only one. It could be argued that as a wiki, it currently does not have enough articles/content to be relevant. I would argue that this is not correct in this instance, as envirowiki currently has almost twice the content of the permuculture wikia, which is listed in the external links of the permaculture page (there's another wiki linked from permaculture, which only has ~15 pages). -- naught101 ( talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ecocide redirects here, yet there is no mention anywhere on the page of ecocide - if it redirects here, surely it deserves some mention? Otherwise it appears that wikipedia is linking to a source of information that does not, in fact, exist. Glacialfury ( talk) 15:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Please include info from this annihalited wiki page into the article. thanks. KVDP ( talk) 20:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Surely there must be some. Why no section? Many, if not most, ideological articles have one. I have none to offer, but the lack of criticism seemed glaring. If it is being suppressed, that would be most unfortunate and unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.201.18 ( talk) 10:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
71.132.219.233 ( talk) 21:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Proposal: Was going to start writing a criticism section, I don't want an edit war, if the admins are not going to allow a criticism section please just tell me, I know how this goes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.220.167 ( talk) 19:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I added a few names to the list that i found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/nov/28/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
I am not sure if I should site that source or if I did how I would. Also if someone wants to add more I suggest they start there; it is a long list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathnsci ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the following statement:
"One in three US preteen believes that the Earth "won't exist when they grow up". [1] [2]"
from the lead to the talk page for discussion. While the survey is probably possibly notable, the text as written is problematic and also misplaced. First off, the survey is presented as "fact", without noting the nature of the survey, who conducted it, when, where, and so on. These are important details that help to add context to the results. Furthermore, given the (probably too) short lead, we are placing too much weight on the results of one survey. The source is an environmental web site called "Habitat Heroes", and the second reference (a blog) is an opinion piece that states "And why wouldn’t they given the environmental hysteria they’re indoctrinated with on a daily basis." Thoughts? --
Ckatz
chat
spy
18:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
What the heck does the blue marble have to do with environmentalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.189.141 ( talk) 22:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
In the book "The Transition Handbook" by Rob Hopkins, we read he describes the Light-bulb syndrome: "Similarly, I have heard many a talk where the speaker has set out the scale of the climate challenge, and at the end has one slide about turning down our thermostats and changing our light bulbs. "
Perhaps this can be mentioned in article and the Light-bulb syndrome could be made. Thanks in advance, 81.245.84.68 ( talk) 13:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
OUR COMMON FUTURE (the Brundtland Report, 1987) -major text in history of environmentalism - begins with a reference to the new experience in the middle of the 20th century of seeing the planet from space. It suggests that this new view may be seen in the future as having had a greater impact on human thought than the Copernican revolution of the 16th century. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.17.92 ( talk) 02:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Should have date of birth for each person. -- NeoXNeo ( talk) 15:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I request an article titled Environmental activism, eco-warrior article may be linked herein as one of the methods/spinoffs. The book Environmental activism by Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer [3] may be used to make the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.78.99 ( talk) 15:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was consensus against move per our policy on using the common name of a subject.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Environmentalism → Ecologism — I request to move the article to ecologism, as the term is popularlu used, dough incorrect. Environment typically refers to the surroundings of an object. Ecology is a better term instead of "environmentalism", so ecologism is a more logical term aswell.
Note that the definition is best made to "Ecologism is the broad philosophy and social movement regarding concerns for the conservation of the original environment and the rehabilitation of the state of the original environment."
This as "conserving the environment" would mean that environmentalism does not condone a rehabilitation to the vegetation pattern, ... which existed before eg facilities and buildings were built.
91.182.170.124 ( talk) 08:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this trollery or do the admins really believe that there exists no criticism of environmentalism, anywhere, from anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.217.21 ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 5 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 ( talk) 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
suggestion: how about mentioning Al Gore, and his stance on global warming, and his movie An Inconvenient Truth, which probably had a fairly heavy impact on people's beliefs concerning global warming. may be too off-subject, just throwing that out there. 66.32.200.185 ( talk) 23:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think not. I think Gore is a pretty iconic figure in a watershed moment.- —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.57.73.132 (
talk)
23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The link to http://www.envirowiki.info was removed from the external links section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Environmentalism&oldid=192919030 ). From Wikipedia:Spam is think that I've done everything correctly (I should point out that I run the site, but I think I can be objective enough about this). The only appropriate reason for removal (listed on WP:Spam) I can see, is that the website is not "truly relevant" to the article. I would disagree. It is, as far as I know, the largest wiki specifically about environmentalism, and perhaps the only one. It could be argued that as a wiki, it currently does not have enough articles/content to be relevant. I would argue that this is not correct in this instance, as envirowiki currently has almost twice the content of the permuculture wikia, which is listed in the external links of the permaculture page (there's another wiki linked from permaculture, which only has ~15 pages). -- naught101 ( talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ecocide redirects here, yet there is no mention anywhere on the page of ecocide - if it redirects here, surely it deserves some mention? Otherwise it appears that wikipedia is linking to a source of information that does not, in fact, exist. Glacialfury ( talk) 15:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Please include info from this annihalited wiki page into the article. thanks. KVDP ( talk) 20:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Surely there must be some. Why no section? Many, if not most, ideological articles have one. I have none to offer, but the lack of criticism seemed glaring. If it is being suppressed, that would be most unfortunate and unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.201.18 ( talk) 10:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
71.132.219.233 ( talk) 21:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Proposal: Was going to start writing a criticism section, I don't want an edit war, if the admins are not going to allow a criticism section please just tell me, I know how this goes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.220.167 ( talk) 19:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I added a few names to the list that i found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/nov/28/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
I am not sure if I should site that source or if I did how I would. Also if someone wants to add more I suggest they start there; it is a long list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathnsci ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the following statement:
"One in three US preteen believes that the Earth "won't exist when they grow up". [1] [2]"
from the lead to the talk page for discussion. While the survey is probably possibly notable, the text as written is problematic and also misplaced. First off, the survey is presented as "fact", without noting the nature of the survey, who conducted it, when, where, and so on. These are important details that help to add context to the results. Furthermore, given the (probably too) short lead, we are placing too much weight on the results of one survey. The source is an environmental web site called "Habitat Heroes", and the second reference (a blog) is an opinion piece that states "And why wouldn’t they given the environmental hysteria they’re indoctrinated with on a daily basis." Thoughts? --
Ckatz
chat
spy
18:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
What the heck does the blue marble have to do with environmentalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.189.141 ( talk) 22:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
In the book "The Transition Handbook" by Rob Hopkins, we read he describes the Light-bulb syndrome: "Similarly, I have heard many a talk where the speaker has set out the scale of the climate challenge, and at the end has one slide about turning down our thermostats and changing our light bulbs. "
Perhaps this can be mentioned in article and the Light-bulb syndrome could be made. Thanks in advance, 81.245.84.68 ( talk) 13:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
OUR COMMON FUTURE (the Brundtland Report, 1987) -major text in history of environmentalism - begins with a reference to the new experience in the middle of the 20th century of seeing the planet from space. It suggests that this new view may be seen in the future as having had a greater impact on human thought than the Copernican revolution of the 16th century. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.17.92 ( talk) 02:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Should have date of birth for each person. -- NeoXNeo ( talk) 15:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I request an article titled Environmental activism, eco-warrior article may be linked herein as one of the methods/spinoffs. The book Environmental activism by Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer [3] may be used to make the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.78.99 ( talk) 15:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was consensus against move per our policy on using the common name of a subject.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Environmentalism → Ecologism — I request to move the article to ecologism, as the term is popularlu used, dough incorrect. Environment typically refers to the surroundings of an object. Ecology is a better term instead of "environmentalism", so ecologism is a more logical term aswell.
Note that the definition is best made to "Ecologism is the broad philosophy and social movement regarding concerns for the conservation of the original environment and the rehabilitation of the state of the original environment."
This as "conserving the environment" would mean that environmentalism does not condone a rehabilitation to the vegetation pattern, ... which existed before eg facilities and buildings were built.
91.182.170.124 ( talk) 08:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this trollery or do the admins really believe that there exists no criticism of environmentalism, anywhere, from anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.217.21 ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 5 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 ( talk) 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)