Talk:Environmental movement

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Environmental movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal 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.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology: Social Movements High‑importance

	Society portal 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Untitled

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.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbooogi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms: sources?

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)[reply]

Add reference here, or where?

Sculpting Solutions: Art–Science Collaborations in Sustainability by Mrill Ingram in July-August 2012 Environment magazine.

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

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)[reply]

Article structure

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposed merge with Ecology movement

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deep green environmentalism

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)[reply]

neutrality of critisism

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

Several examples of anti-environmental bias exist throughout Wikipedia. This issue is now being discussed here. Jarble (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though this section forgot to mention many critics that pertain to the Environmental Movement for example: to being with in the Intro- the role of colonialism, capitalism, and corporations in environmental effects. I agree with the remarks on the neutrality of the criticisms of U.S. environmental movements because elitism of U.S. environmental projects is not addressed, and how U.S. environmental movements too often fail to address how environmental issues directly affect indigenous people in the U.S. and globally because of the property they reside on, something also referred to as environmental racism. The fact that even if the U.S. and other countries sign global environmental treaties they do not implement these guidelines, or how sometimes countries don't even sing these treaties such as China is not mentioned. It should be noted on the Latin America section that in recent years a crisis of murders of environmental activist has rose such as the case in Honduras with Berta Caceres and also in Asian countries. The book “First Along the River” serves as a brief history of U.S. environmental movement and elitism. Democracynow.org and TeleSurTv.net can offer some insight into the surge of killings of environmental activist, on Democracynow.org you can find a report called <ref>“How Many More? 116 Environmental Defenders Were Murdered Last Year, Mostly in Latin America” <ref> ( Marimara93 (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

Terms suggested by user:Gravuritas

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge with Ecology movement

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Environmental movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time line Comment

"The Society attracted growing support from the suburban middle-classes and influenced the passage of the Sea Birds Preservation Act in 1869". That's interesting because the Society was formed (as The Plumage League) only 20 years latter (February 1889). אביהו (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Environmental movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation Question

Why is it that we let the world face a threat we've been known was coming for more than 100 years. Can the world come together to survive together? Jorgedmngz5 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

No consensus. It does seem like a small majority of users prefer a merge, but as we all know, Consensus ain't a vote; while a poll may be necessary and can be factored, the strength of arguments would be more important. Many arguments are too reminiscent on WP:OSE (Other stuff exists). I do find the article size argument to be among the ones which even out the debate, especially Klbrain's argument that one article would not be able to sufficiently cover the environmental movement. That being said, I can see where Jargo Nautilus is coming from when it comes to discussing a diverse range of movements, which itself is a pretty strong argument.

Per the No consensus guidelines, the status quo prior to this iteration of debate shall stand until consensus changes, if it changes, and that the pages are not to be merged.
InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose merging Environmental movement into Environmentalism. I think the content in the movement can easily be explained in the context of "environmentalism", and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Environmentalism.FatalSubjectivities FatalSubjectivities (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. I think its still good to distinguish the two as this article is more about the social and political movement, whilst the other is about the ideology or set of values that underpins it. Kind of like how women's liberation movement is separate from feminism. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per above. Libcub (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The two articles are very close together in scope. I disagree with @Arcahaeoindris's comparison to the "women's liberation movement" vs "feminism". If anything, the WLM refers to a specific movement within a specific time period, which is more or less a subset of feminism, which is a wider topic that has been represented by multiple movements throughout history. On the other hand, the article "environmental movement" is not really discussing a specific movement but is instead discussing a "diverse" range of movements; which is basically what the article "environmentalism" already does. If "environmental movement" isn't discussing a specific movement, then it serves no real purpose. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment may not be helpful but note that there is also a separate article called Feminist movement to Feminism Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merging of Feminist movement into Feminism. Fourmidable (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the grounds that the combined article would be over 100k (so the claim of no problem with article size doesn't seem to to hold). The articles address an important topic best covered over several linked pages. Klbrain (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge and rationalisation. The two pages contain extensive duplications of information. The movement page is also too US biased and not adequately representative of global realities. The argument that ideologies exist as separate from those who generate them is a POV and IMO flawed in current sociological thinking. Pointing at other similar duplications does not answer the point. The rationalisation of content can address the concern re size. Tytire (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article is general, not like "women's liberation movement" that is the name of a specific movement. --Fourmidable (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the article size is massive so then it would be a section that would need to be split off ... Sebbog13 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Media, Activism, and Social Movements

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 17 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Enina24 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: KeeLgd, Marcplummer82.

— Assignment last updated by Marcplummer82 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]