Talk:Earth Day

Whew!

The comments about the Lenin birthday coincidence seem to me to be stacking about ten tons of baggage on top of a very small burro. The date thing is 99.999% coincidence, and if there's really even a .0001% non-coincidental aspect, I'd be very surprised. As I noted in an aside, Woodstock fell on Napoleon's 200th birthday. I think it's the combination of BOTH coincidences that's kind of interesting, but purely as trivia. Right-wing critiques of environmentalism CAN have some value. For example, there's an old piece in the libertarian Reason mag critiquing the Love Canal (toxic waste) liability issue, which makes a convincing case that the corporation responsible for the waste is being somewhat scapegoated - the waste-dumping itself was inexcusable, but a later decision to build houses on top of it came from the public sector. I also have some grudging respect for some anti-environmental arguments that come out of the mad-dog LaRouche movement - not because they disprove the importance of ecology per se, but because they remind us of how easy it is to insert hidden agendas into environmental issues, especially when it's the global elite of billionaires preaching austerity. But this business of piling arguments on top of the Lenin-birthday coincidence is just plain stupid.

There are actually very, very few people who have ever seriously tried to make an "organic" connection between Leninism and ecology in theory or practice. There are plenty of Leftists who take ecology seriously, but like "bourgeois" economists, most regard ecology as an "externality" - ie, something else that's going on, that's worth noticing and dealing with, in addition to their Leftist concerns. For the record, I do believe there is a powerful and fundamental connection, in that the distribution (and control) of the earth's limited resources is the central ecological issue AND the central issue in Marxism-Leninism. This, however, does NOT automatically lead to a logical conclusion that EITHER or BOTH movements are equipped to address this central issue in a useful way, either in theory or in practice. Nor does it automatically lead to any need to limit democracy, or to eliminate corporations, capitalism, or a dynamic private sector. It is a vast and urgent problem, calling for "drastic" solutions, but a well-designed and accurately targetted solution could be minimally disruptive. Personally, I believe the problem lies in the area of accounting - which makes a practice of devaluing or no-valuing nature. The ideas of Howard T. Odum - most of which seem to be inaccessible or buried in other stuff - have struck me as a promising approach, but so far I have only a superficial acquaintance with his theories. -Chelydra

Further changes to the Lenin birthday section

I decided to get fucked by my mom

Added 1980 Earth Day. Also: requests to helpful editors

This is getting a bit long. I do think what I've been adding is pretty good, but someone skilled in copy-editing might want to tighten it up a bit. Also, there are a couple of format tricks I haven't yet mastered, so this could use your help in making the footnote format consistent (I've just inserted references into the body of the text, when they ought to go at the bottom). The note on Pogo/Walt Kelly will take you to Kelly's 1970 Earth Day poster. (This is NOT the 1971 comic strip on the Pogo page.) This would make a fine addition to the page (there's been a request for more pictures) but I can't do it (yet).

THIS JUST IN! BULLETIN! LENIN AND ECOLOGY!

Guess what, gang! In American history. NOTE TOO that Lenin's discussion of Haeckel's book NOWHERE mention's ecology - the word and the concept lay dormant for a long time, probably about 60 years, after Haeckel came up with the word in the 1860s. So this isn't REALLY a connection, but it's still worth mentioning since we've devoted about 100,000 words to this argument. -Chelydra

History error

I'm not so old that I don't masturbate

Nelson quote

Nelson viewed the stabilization of the nation's population as an important aspect of environmentalism and later said: "The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become ... We have to address the population issue. The United Kingdom, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it's phony to say 'I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration.'" Nelson died in 1981.

advce

make pupils awer about the issue

Earth Day Anthem

There is an Earth Day anthem at http://www.earthdayanthem.org

Just FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.49.51 (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Lenin's birthday and Earth Day

There was a tradition in Soviet Union and now it is in Russia, that April 22 is celebrated by working as volunteers, usually cleaning parks, streets, or plant trees. In Soviet times millions of people would come out on Saturday, preceeding the date, to work and there would be slogans everywhere and motivational music. After that Saturday special day, everywhere was so incredibly clean. Nowadays not that many people come out, but still it is considered a day to clean up environment and plant trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inherentnature (talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Denis Hayes, Not DeNNis Hayes

Third occurrence of Mr. Hayes' name is misspelled with two Ns, and links to article on wrong person in the Wikipedia. 108.14.215.232 (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.--Hjal (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

John McConnell

This article begins with an un-sourced focus on John McConnell's efforts, which surely deserve mention somewhere in the body of the article, but not here and not without documentation. Benzocane (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there is plenty of McConnell information in the Equinox Earth day section, so I've let that stand. Benzocane (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Earth Week

The "Earth Week" material does not make sense so prominently displayed in an article about "Earth Day" -- both image and text at this point are pulling the article in two directions. The Philadelphia events are a side story -- or should be a separate entry. Please discuss before reverting. 71.245.182.120 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Philadelphia events were not a side story, as was evidence by CBS News' decision to focus 1/3 of its hour-long prime time national coverage of Earth Day on the events in Philadelphia. Those events were among the largest Earth Day events in the United States with an estimated 40-60,000 demonstrators on Earth Day alone and a speech from Senator Edmund Muskie (arguably the most important figure in the environmental movement at the time other than Senator Nelson himself). Philadelphia played a defining role in the first Earth Day. Therefore, that section should remain where it was. Peter54321 (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make a separate article for "Earth Week," that's fine -- and to direct readers to that article. But the idea that an entry entitled "Earth Day" immediately branches into "Earth Week" violates several Wikipedia principles at once. I'm not disputing that the Philadelphia events are important, but the formal coherence of the entry requires they not follow "The first Earth Day" section of the entry. Let's see what others think? This is also a question we could bring to the Environmental Task Force71.245.182.120 (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Benzocane (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree--I'll move the Earth Week section downward pending creation of an "Earth Week" article. Cyrusc (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It would be inappropriate to create a separate article for Earth Week, as it is no different than Earth Day (simply a longer observance). More importantly, the events in Philadelphia (which happened to be named "Week" instead of "Day") played a major role in the history of Earth Day and thus deserve to be recognized amidst Earth Day information. To speak to concerns of confusion over the two names, I will rename the section "Earth Day 1970 in Philadelphia" and mention "Earth Week" in the section. Peter54321 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Earth Week deserves its own entry and have put one there. I'll link to it from the Earth Day article. Cyrusc (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you feel it warrants a separate entry, then I see this as a good solution. Peter54321 should also consider the concerns about "parochialism" below.Benzocane (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have a fundamental disagreement here. Moving this information to a separate article effectively marginalizes this history and keeps it from being associated with the first Earth Day. My reasoning for why Earth Day 1970 in Philadelphia deserves its own substantial section in the Earth Day wiki is explained in detail above - it played a major role in the history, as is evidence by the prominence of the major environmental figures who attended the events, as well as by the media coverage it received. Is the prime time CBS News coverage not enough evidence of Philadelphia's importance in the first Earth Day? The information has been moved back. At this point, in following with Wikipedia's core principles, I would now like to invite the opinions of other members on this issue. Peter54321 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

ALL of your sources are from the Philadelphia website? Why is this the most prominently displayed bit of information in the entry? Because of part of a CBS broadcast? This renders the article less coherent and starts to smack of POV. Benzocane (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not POV - these are historical facts. To address your concern over a single source, I have added additional sources to support these facts. Your persistent efforts to remove this information suggest bias as a wikipedia editor. Peter54321 (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, the Philadelphia information needs to be below the NYC information. The fact that the NYC demonstration was larger -- and organized by the head of the national effort -- is not disputed. There are too many important environmental entries in need of editing for us to keep spinning in our ruts here.Benzocane (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Date

I thought that Earth Day is April 22. In the article's picture, it shows it as a week. Currently, is it a day or is it a week? Keyboard mouse (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a good example of why the "Earth Week" section is misplaced. The article is confusing.Benzocane (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubious article throughout, never heard of "Earth Day"

Having seen the slogan on Google about "Earth Day"??, had a look on here to see what it was exactly. The intro states... Earth Day Network, a group that wishes to become the coordinator of Earth Day globally, asserts that "Earth Day is now observed on April 22 on virtually every country on Earth". Err i'm from the UK and ain't ever heard of such a day, infact.. zero mention on any news station on TV or radio, and i just looked at a rare isolated mention of it in a UK newspaper (a column inside the 35th page) which states "things to know about Earth Day" and only lists some things that are taking place in US. Now given that its unheard of here in the UK, and given that i see no other mention of any events/gatherings outside North America, to have its "observed on virtually every country" (stated by none other the "IMPARTIAL" Earth Day Network..lol) is just a tad dubious...just a tad. The organizers/spokespeople/those with vested interest of any event exaggerate to the hilt. Wikipedia is MEANT to be about impartiality and accuracy, this article is anything but.Bononsigna (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Earth Day Flag and parochialist mentality

The displayed Earth Day Flag patterned after the United States’ flag may be honoured in the US, but the earth happens to consist of more than one country. The Earth Day Flag designed by John McConnell, a flag which is the only one mentioned in a dozen of other WP projects that I haphazardly looked up, is relegated, in this English WP article, to the section History of the Equinox Earth Day.

There may be a parochialist mentality and a logical fallacy behind this. In the following I will be using a., b. and c. for major premise, minor premise and conclusion respectively. Look at this attempted syllogism within a US setting:

a. In the US the common language is English.

b. To mark the Earth Day in the US we use a flag [“the Θ flag” ] which is modelled on our flag.

c. In the Wikipedia article in English “the Θ flag” is de rigueur.

It is a pure coincidence – from a historical point of view – that English has become the common language in the territory which today is called the United States. English can only secondarily be associated with this country. And from a linguistic point of view the country should definitely not be associated exclusively with the English language. Apart from all the other nations having English as an offcial language – English is not even official in the US ! – English has become a lingua franca for international communication. This does not mean that Ron Cobb’s flag eo ipso is an international flag.

Let's have a look at another syllogism – within a Greek setting :

a. Ron Cobb’s flag contains the sign Θ.

b. Θ is a Greek letter.

c. We should use Ron Cobb’s flag to mark the Earth Day.

Wouldn’t this be another example of a parochialist mentality ? No mention about a probable Greek propension towards 9 stripes instead of 13 on the flag, 13 [in this context] being exclusively a US symbol.

Have a look at the WP discussion pages sub voce Ancient Greek phonology, especially under Block warning to fully understand what a parochialist mentality means. We often don’t realize it from within ! Don’t let us put on blinders when producing Wikipedia !

My suggestion: Relegate Ron Cobb’s flag to the section Earth Day ecology flag, and put the flag that was designed by John McConnell on to the head of the article – in accordance with (more or less) all the other WP articles. In all these other projects the contributors may have realized that John McConnell's flag is symbolically neutral.

Whether this arrangement should be permanent or not, is quite another issue. In WP nothing is permanent !

I regularly look up articles in 7 different WP projects – depending on the subject. Many more irregularly. This English WP article was a surprise. Hirpex (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, English is the language of the USA, and was from pre-USA colonial days (Dutch hung on for a bit in New York). A fact does not need to be official to be as obvious as the Sun at midday.

But, even so, there is no need to protest the creation of an international symbol based on the flag of one country. Earth Day was invented in the USA so someone decided to make a flag for it based on the USA flag. Well? The Red Cross was founded in Switzerland, and invented a flag for itself based on the flag of that country. It is now widely accepted in much of the world, and nary a protest about 'Swiss parochialism'. Some don't like the cross, of course.

What it comes down to is; in the first place, the previous entry is wrong. And in the second place, if it were right, so what? 173.29.152.6 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Saviohrodrigues, 22 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Environmental recognition Jackson received the Genesis Award: 1995 Doris Day Music Award, given each year for animal sensitivity.[19] In 2008, a writer for the Nigeria Exchange noted, "'Earth Song' drew the world's attention to the degradation and bastardization of the earth as a fall out of various human activities".[26] "Earth Song" was written and composed by Jackson; production of the song was a collaborative effort between Jackson, David Foster and Bill Bottrell.[8] Andrae Crouch's Choir and Jackson engage in a back and forth chant as the song reaches its climatic finale.[9] Jackson's intent was to create a song that was lyrically deep yet melodically simple, so the whole world, particularly non-English-speaking fans, could sing along. He conceptualized a song that had an emotional message.[10] "Earth Song" is a ballad that incorporates elements of blues, gospel and opera. In the socially conscious track, Jackson issues a plea to God about problems ranging from war to endangered animals The Game (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please be more specific about what needs to be changed -- where does this need to go? What are those random numbers in brackets? --Darkwind (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not confuse with Earth Hour?

I cam across this article while searching for info on WWF's Earth Hour (a seperate, much bigger event on Saturday 27th March). Should there be a "Do not confuse with WWF Earth Hour" tag at the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.84.70 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)