Talk:Environmental movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Environment (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology / Social Movements  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
 
In the interests of allowing for the ease of discussion please sign your entry.
Please add new comments to the bottom. The "+" tag next to the "edit this page" tag will do this automatically.

Criticisms: sources?[edit]

The material on James Lovelock is pertinent, but I agree, needs sourcing. Please document references. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Add reference here, or where?[edit]

99.181.143.157 (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As a reference for what? References are used to support content and usually (or should be) provided when the content is added. Vsmith (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Article structure[edit]

Thanks for efforts to globalize this article. In it's current, more geographically diverse form, some article restructuring is needed, in my opinion. After the article lead, it now jumps right in to environmentalism in the U.S. Before it does so, though, some broader, definitional elaboration would be helpful, such as the material currently later in the article on 'scope of the movement'. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Have made a few tweaks, towards further globalizing the article. Despite the helpful additions, it remains US-centric and in need of further restructuring. Some of the material in the US section may be more appropriate in the Environmental movement in the United States article. A summary of key perspectives from related articles on Australia, New Zealand and South Africa would be useful to add here, too. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Article structure remains rather jumbled, with broad overview information, then country-specific information, then topical information. There are, in my opinion, probably too many different -- and diverse -- subtopics included within this article at present. Reorganization needed... Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ecology movement[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Ecology movement into Environmental movement. Karmos (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Two different names; same movement DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's two names for the same movement Gor (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see certain people wanting to distinguish a narrower "ecology movement" from the broader "environmental movement," but as it stands I see complete overlap between the two articles. I'm for the merge. Karmos (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Deep green environmentalism[edit]

In the text it states: Deep Ecology is an ideological spinoff of the ecology movement that views the diversity and integrity of the planetary ecosystem, in and for itself, as its primary value.

Can we add: Followers of this ideology can be called deep green environmentalists ?

In the Deep green environmentalism article, we can then put the following: Similar to dark greens, "deep greens" put most of the blame of the current environmental problems on the industry, and also follow an anti-consumerist ideology. For individuals, they advocate adopting a simple/low-tech lifestyle, yet accept using green technologies whenever this is not possible. They also follow a non-anthropocentric environmental ideology. They also believe that the collapse of the current society, due to environmental difficulties, is at hand and thus also prepare for this collapse.

81.242.248.237 (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

neutrality of critisism[edit]

neutrality of critisism is really quetionable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.146.26 (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Terms suggested by user:Gravuritas[edit]

user:Gravuritas gave some terms while editing. (see Edit History) I googled "Rag & bone environment", I found this: [1] & with "responsible care management system", this: [2]. Not sure if it is the right content. (I might add it when I have time. You can add it if you want...) -- Petorial (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I was rather short & cryptic in the edit note. I thought that the claims that interest in recycling etc was new, and business's interest in environmental issues was new, were inaccurate. The responsible care management system was launched by the chemical industry in 1986, for instance. And 'Rag and Bone' men drove round the streets in the UK, buying up stuff and selling/recycling it until about 50 years ago. And re-using vehicle parts from a car-breaker used to be much more common than it is now. While many new re-use/ recycle initiatives are to be welcomed, there should be no pretending that this never happened before. The little chunk I deleted from the article was making that claim.
Gravuritas (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Pardon me that I misunderstood you! I got something via googling and I thought they might be useful if they are related to the topic, but I am not confident enough to do the editing so I left a note here. Thanks for the clarification! :D -- Petorial (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Ecology movement[edit]

I performed the merge. Very little was salvageable material—either unsourced or unsourced and biased. I'd encourage those who are interested to look back at the version of the ecology movement page and rework and find sources for unsourced material. Karmos (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)