Talk:Extinction Rebellion

Aims

Hello. The three aims of the movement are stated twice in the 'manifesto' section. I offer to correct that. Let me know if you have any comments.
Ms Theresa Marty (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC).

Go for it - WP:BEBOLD. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources

In certain circumstances the normally preferred sources for an wikipedia aticle are not necessarily the best.

Mainstream media reports of new or emerging social movements tend to be very light on detail, many are clearly not written by reporters at the event, some are reports compiled of a trawl through social media sites for information, as such the media aticles are sometimes the more biased and skewed reports.

Some primary sources can be regarded as reliable, verifiable and neutral.

From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources WP:IRS

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."

Although coming from a primary source connected with the group Extinction Rebellion/XR, the nearly four hour long livestream of the "Declaration of Rebellion" assembly on 31oct is an unbroken video without commentary allowing the events of that day to be viewed from an impartial point of view and facts to be checked especially if referenced with time footnotes (ftn). Currently this article is missing some citations related to this event.

In short I believe that the quality of this article can be improved by the use of selective social media and be more accurate whilst maintaining a neutral point of view.

This is a fast emerging movement that is rapidly changing and media/public interest is growing - pageviews are up from 731 to 1,187 to 1,529 yesterday - I hope our wikipedia article reflects an accurate and balanced summary of events so far.BorisAndDoris (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is the coverage by the independent reliable sources that demonstrates the notability of the events. If such sources do not cover parts of the event, then they are not considered notable. Wikipedia's job is not to provide a thorough document of an event, but to reflect what independent reliable sources describe about it / say is notable. The organisation or movement's own web site can describe events in more detail. If the parts of the event you describe become noteworthy by being described by independent reliable sources in future, then they can be described here. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability of the events described here is not an issue as there was plenty of coverage from independent reliable sources. The sparseness of detail of these reports allows for some extra details to be supplied from other sources which are reliable, verifiable and neutral. Guidelines as quoted above (WP:IRS) make it clear that a non-independent source may be the better source for this information ("Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information")BorisAndDoris (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

By events, I mean individual events within the wider main event. Obviously the main event is notable. My concern is with using a primary source, not just a non-neutral source. Surely other non neutral sources exist to support the claims you are adding, that are not a primary source. Anyway I have made the point and that is all I wish to do, in the hope of an article with the best sourcing, so that it can sustain critique. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Swarming"

BorisAndDoris, it is acceptable to "revert edits without raising the issue on the talk page first" that I believe to be misguided, as per WP:BEBOLD. If my reversions are themselves reverted then I will take it to the talk page. The Guradian uses 'Swarming' in quotes to indicate this is what only the group themselves are calling it, and the Sky News headline does not mention it, as you claim in saying "mentioned in the headline of two national news reports", its headline is "'Rebellion Day' activists plan to block five London bridges". We should steer clear of naming things by the new names invented by organisations or by movements and instead see whether they are merely new names for existing practices. Let time and the eventual analysis by reliable sources be the judge of whether something is actually novel and a new name appropriate. This article deserves to have editorial rigour. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your point seems to be confused, the two references that supported the use of 'Swarming' were The Guardian and The Independent, after you suggested in the summary that "Before a new phrase is coined we need more sources than 1 that demonstrate this is anything new" and above in the discussion on sources that content in mainstream media should guide what content we include in the wikipedia article. Reverting edits without discussion does not seem to assume good faith.BorisAndDoris (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes sorry you are right, I misread the ref used. However with 1 source or 3 sources in the immediate aftermath of the event each using the term with caution in quotes, I still don't believe we should be reinforcing its use for the reasons I gave above. If you don't agree then let us leave it as it is, but I do suggest replacing the current single quotes with double quotes. Also, if you prefer that collective editing be done via the talk page rather than using the revert option, then I am happy to do that. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Collective editing does seem to require that disputes are settled on the talk page rather than via an edit war. Reverting, in particular, seems to show a disregard for the work that other wikipedeans have done and personally I would reserve it mostly for vandalism. If you are changing the context, or removing a term, it is best not to hide it behind a catch-all summary lke 'Copyedit' as this appears misleading. How 'Swarming' is presented does not matter but removing the term after it was the first word in the headline of the only media report at the time contradicts your previous assertion that content in the mainstream media should guide the content of this article. I hope we can agree that we both want this article to be the best quality it can be and avoid future edit disputes by respecting the work of each other and all contributors to this page.BorisAndDoris (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I was not talking about edit warring, I said "If my reversions are themselves reverted then I will take it to the talk page." Collective editing would be much too slow if every alteration was first discussed on the talk page. I stand by my comments about citing reliable sources because I am harsher where it comes to people or organisations coining a new term for the sake of it. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"without capitalisation a way is needed to show the different emphasis on website"

BorisAndDoris, we do not need to explicitly replicate the subject's web site. Wikipedia is not intended to be such a direct representation, but a summary of the facts. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Without showing that the original had a different emphasis, between the first statement and the second in each point, then we are changing the meaning of the quote.BorisAndDoris (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Which is what I believe Wikipedia style is, but I do not have a reference for policy on that, so can only wait to see what someone more knowledgeable than I suggests. (For similar see MOS:TMRULES in terms of changing the subject's styling for a straighter interpretation.) -Lopifalko (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References to work in

Here are some references that could potentially be worked into the article. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

References

History

100 people and top academics around the world signing letters did not come out of no-where. XR can be traced back to https://web.archive.org/web/20151015172755/https://compassionate-revolution.net/ and this Compassionate Revolution Ltd. is a company that then has Rising Up! and Extinction Rebellion derived from it. Wayback machine has it appearing in 2015. The campaign of Extinction Rebellion began in the planning in 2018, in the Spring. BUT even looking in 2015 there were people thinking about ecological politics involved from the start. Many of the figures involved were activists long before Occupy emerged around 2011. IN fact some can trace their direct action to the Reclaim the Streets! of the 1990s. How tenuous this chain is or how much this influenced the modern XR is not easy to say. There are probably not sources that say this to wikipedia standards. Rather looking at the key individuals and their histories would be a better way of assessing this. However a lot were not activists and not involved in any groups or gatherings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.7.24 (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

There are two key articles related to this Activism initiative and this response from Greta Thunberg aspects of manufacturing consent and controlled opposition and Gatekeepers all figure and the initiative should not be left here un-critically, the pedagogical aspects of Wikipedia should not be ignored to promote activism. I will work up a påaragraph with the first two references as this article is really a trotting out of the PR campaign from RogerGLewis (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@user Pavlor A new section should be added regarding the controversy about media manipulation by Climate Alarmist lobby using people like Greta as Useful idiots or compliant stooges.I will start drafting a paragraph for this article and the Greta article I am not the only one with this concern. RogerGLewis (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

refs for this section

References

Criticism

Greta Thonberg responded to concerns of corporate capture of her message which has been expressed by the Wrong Kind of Green , an Indigenous peoples environmental group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• This same paragraph was also added to Extinction Rebellion; my edit removing it was reverted there as it was here, and it should be removed from there, for the same reasons it's been removed here. Levivich 18:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Greta Thonberg responded [1] to concerns of corporate capture of her message which has been expressed by the Wrong Kind of Green [2], an Indigenous peoples environmental group. [3] "We attempt to expose those who undermine the People’s Agreement. One role of the non-profit industrial complex is to undermine, marginalize and make irrelevant, the People’s Agreement. The reason being, to protect corporate interests by which they are funded. As well, the non-profit industrial complex protects the industrialized, capitalist economic system, responsible for the capitalist destruction of our shared environment. Those groups who continue to protect such interests must be considered complicit in crimes against humanity. RogerGLewis (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• This content shouldn't be anywhere: it totally lacks secondary sources and thus fails WP:V spectacularly--not just because of lack of reliability, but the quality of the sourcing indicates this isn't noteworthy. Moreover, it's grammatically challenged: the "which" in "which has been expressed" refers in a very wonky way to "her message", since that is the closest antecedent, but I think it's meant to refer to "concerns", which is a plural and too far away for proper anaphoric reference. Finally, I think you left out a closing quotation mark in this longer comment; at first I thought you, RogerGLewis, were making a statement about complicity. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• It contains WP:SYNTH because Thunberg's words addressing pushback in general does not name the other sources provided here. That means RogerGLewis is doing WP:Original research to connect the dots. It is also a neutrality/BLP problem because the "About us" text from the criticizing blog is being used to imply Thunberg is an example of the those things the criticizing blog exists to do battle against. Another problem is the long quute from the criticizing blog is about the criticizing blog, not about the subject of this article, so it is off topic. And the text fails WP:Verification because none of the sources identify the criticing blog as "an indigenous people's environmental group". If it were not for all the other problems we might be able to say something with inline attribution to the authors of the blog column. Something like, "According to....". Maybe. But what we have here are self publishing people who self-describe their obvious advocacy pieces as "independent jouranlism". Who cares, everyone is entitled to an opinion and Wordpress blogs are free. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC) The concerns section is I think relevant to both articles which Page should we conduct the discussion it is probably easier to find consensus on one page and then discuss any changes to the core point which I think is a general point on most polarised positions in Political economy./* Criticism */ Consensus process nominate talk at extinction rebellion page for this discussion as well? RogerGLewis (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sources supporting this content are too weak for a BLP article (probably also weak for any contentious claim in any article). Without better sourcing, there is no place for this in the article. Pavlor (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eseb User:Esebtalk)I wonder if you might like to comment on the proposes edit I share your concerns. RogerGLewis (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)