Talk:Earth Day/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Links to questionable material

The link (in External Links) to the "fact" sheets at is dubious, I think. I just added a note next to the link alerting readers to the political nature of the site (it's a right-wing think tank). The fact sheets are mostly anti-environmental, anti-conservationist, pro-Bush propaganda. Is removing the link too harsh? I didn't want to do that unilaterally. Justin Bailey 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the link just before that? ( It looks like a radical left-wing site (one quote from the home page of the website: "Forget Hitler, Stalin and other tyrants of the past. The culpability of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and ..."), however no label is given for it. I think if we start assigning political labels to external links, we need to do it on all of the links or on none of them. 04:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Gor Nishanov

Well... yeah. You have a point--I hadn't looked at that page, so the thought didn't occur to me. But that page is obvious in its purpose and political stance. You take one look at it, and it's obviously from a left-wing conservationsit/environmentalist standpoint. The "fact sheets" are political missives masquerading as neutral information. The page is titled "Earth Day Information Center," which it is most definitely NOT. So I felt the comment on the site's political orientation was appropriate because the intent seems to be to fleece the reader, not to inform. Justin Bailey 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's sophistry. A political slant is a political slant, regardless of how overt or covert it is (or you believe it to be.) Besides, unless you have proof that one site offered bogus facts or figures in an attempt to "fleece the readers," you don't have a leg to stand on. I checked the left-wing site and many of its claims were demostrably false and unprovable, which means your specious argument could just as easily apply to it. Looks like POV to me. An ideologically (not politically, as you wrote,) biased POV. Bargholz 05:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Anyway, the issue here is not veracity, but simply presentation. I put that parenthetical next to the link because it is not immediately obvious that the fact sheets have a right-wing bias, whereas it is HIGHLY obvious that the other site has a left-wing bias. Just a matter of alerting the reader to what is basically some ideological chicanery, that's all. Justin Bailey 15:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC) hush ur bean man

Earth Flag

The "earth flag" seems to be much more in use as a symbol, see --Kurt Jansson 21:26 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

The above link is broken, and this post is now three years old with no replies. I'm not sure to what the original poster is referring? Is there a symbol currently being used that is equally or more prevalent than the green theta? If so, an image should be added to this article. If not, then this broken link to the "earth flag" could be removed.

The link is broken because Living on Earth set up a new archive system The new site of the referenced bit is . There is no image there, only a bit of text, excerpted here:
"The Living On Earth Almanac [April 18, 1997] CURWOOD: ...The Earth flag was created in 1970 by John McConnell, an early leader in the international peace movement. It's now the universal symbol of Earth Day. Mr. McConnell had a simple design. Inspired by photos of Earth taken from space during NASA's Apollo 10 mission, he placed a picture of the planet against a dark blue background. That basic design remains unchanged today. But the Earth flag isn't the only environmental flag. In 1969, cartoonist Ron Cobb created an environmental symbol by combining the letters "E" for environment and "O" for organisms. Similar to the Greek letter theta. In 1970, Look Magazine fashioned an ecology flag. The gold colored symbol stood for Thanatos, Greek for death, to indicate a warning to the Earth's environment. The flag's stripes were green for the unspoiled land, and white for the pure air."
--Hjal 03:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The original symbol for the First Environmental Teach-In was a green Greek theta. We called this a "dead theta." It will be seen around in a few places still. The symbol of the whole Earth, popular at the time, comes from Stewart Brand who once posed the question pre-Apollo-8 "Why haven't we seen the Whole Earth?" and begat The Whole Earth Catalog. It was the Apollo-8 mission with Frank Borman who brought back the first whole Earth photos. This is very important because the Apollo 13 mission just managed to return to Earth safely and that was very much about conserving oxygen, water, etc. Our event (Long Beach) had one the North American Aviation Apollo engineers as well as Jacques Cousteau that day. (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Added note about McConnell. I have no idea who Mr. McConnell is. I can tell you that planning for the event attempted to distance itself from other movements to deliberately make a distinction from the anti-War movement, the growing feminist movement, years before the Greens and Greenpeace. Population was seen as part of the environmental movement. Paul Erlich and Garrett Hardin did have their essays in DuBell's Environmental Handbook. This did bring some criticism from the anti-war movement and the other social cause movements (e.g., civil rights, which did bring some criticism that this was a "white" movement {I am not white}). We didn't see oxygen discriminating whom inhaled it. (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Two Earth Days

The article text as it stands does not really say that there are two different Earth Days. Although it discusses the UN observance, it is added as a paragraph at the bottom of a page discussing the US event. Would it be possible to make the existance of two different days mosre clear from the outset? Gareth Hughes 20:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lenin Centenary

The date chosen for the orignal Earth Day teach-in was coincidentally the centenary of the birth of the founder of Soviet Communism, V.I. Lenin, a fact occasionally noted ominously by right-wing critics of the environmental movement.

Gamaliel, How could this factual statement directly concerning the subject of the article possibly be considered irrelevant? Anonip 00:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's irrelevant because Lenin has absolutely nothing to do with Earth Day, so it's no more of a coincidence than me sharing a birthday with Adam Ant. Gamaliel 00:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, "Irrelevant" means "unrelated to the matter at hand". The fact that the orignal Earth Day teach-in was held on the centenary of the birth of Lenin is clearly related to the subject of Earth Day, and that it has been noted ominously by right-wing critics of the environmental movement makes it significant to the subject. I believe your claim that it is not significant is POV. Anonip 01:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know what irrelevant means, thank you. Instead of explaining what random words mean, maybe you can explain why these two things are "clearly related". Please specify what connection Lenin has to Earth Day. Was the first Earth Day in the USSR? Was it originally called "People's Mandatory Environmental Celebration"? Gamaliel 01:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, "Irrelevant" was not a random word. It was the word you used to justify removing the statement quoted above. Actually, it is clear on its face that the statement is related to Earth Day. The connection of Earth Day to Lenin is that the date chosen for its original observance was the centenary of Lenin's birth. Whether this connection is significant may be doubted, but obviously some right-wing critics of the environmental movement have suggested that it is (which is significant it itself). Anonip 02:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel that this statement about Lenin is not relevant to Earth Day, using Merriam-Webster's definition: "having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand". It is hardly a coincidence that someone famous has a birthday on any given day. What significance do those "right-wing critics of the environmental movement" suggest that it has? — Knowledge Seeker 02:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is pretty clear to anyone who has paid attention to the environmental movemtn that it is chocked full of watermellons. The similarities between the philosophy and programs advocated by militant Greens and totalitarian socialism are too many to mention here. Control industry and concentrate centralized power through regulation and you can contorl the world. TDC 02:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I know I look forward every year to the annual Save a Redwood for International Socialism march. Gamaliel 03:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of that I have little doubt. TDC 03:31, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Earth Day wasn't established by militant Greens. Perhaps they advocate it, but it does not mean that everyone who advocates Earth Day is an ally of militant Greens. Although some are overzealous in their political activity, the purpose for Earth Day is not politics.--AI 00:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The article "Earth Day 1970-1995: An Information Perspective" by Fred Stoss of the Energy, Environment, and Resources Center at the University of Tennessee, published in the Electronic Green Journal (April 1995, v. 2, no. 1) includes the following: [1]

Earth Day, April 22, 1970, coincided with the 100th birthday of Vladimir Lenin, and it was also the birthday of the original environmentalist, St. Francis of Assisi, both interesting sidelights.

Obviously Mr. Stoss considered this information relevant to the subject and of interest to readers, as I do. It may not be of interest to Gamaliel or Knowledge Seeker, but that is (dare I say it) irrelevant. Their disinterest does not justify excluding this information from Wiipedia. Anonip 03:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In that case I insist the article mention that Earth Day coincides with the birthdays of Immanuel Kant, Vladimir Nabokov, Charles Mingus, Aaron Spelling, Tony Danza, and, of course, Bettie Page. Gamaliel 03:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you can find a citation that makes that point and if it a point that is shared by a sizeable minority, then yes by all means include it into the article. I apologize in advance for not holding my breath in anticipation of this momentous occasion. TDC 03:31, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
What "point" are you referring to TDC? DJ Silverfish 04:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The "point" is that no one is making hay out of the fact that Earth Day coincides with the birthdays of Immanuel Kant etc..., a large minority is, however, making the point that the first Earth Day was coincidentally the 100th anniversary of Lenin's birthday. TDC 13:46, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, If you seriously insist on including mention of those birthdays, then in the interest of comity I personally would not object. But there clearly is a difference between miscellaneous birthdays that happen to fall on the date and the centenary of Lenin's birth, which was an occasion of significant observance by the Communist world. Moreover, the connection of Earth Day to the Lenin centenary is not my own frivolous invention, but has been noted ominously by right-wing critics of the enviromental movement, as I have pointed out. Anonip 03:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to record everything that has been "noted ominously" by right wing cranks. Gamaliel 23:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
does that also extend to We are under no obligation to record everything that has been "noted ominously" by left wing cranks? TDC 23:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, because opinion can form the basis of propaganda.--AI 00:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, Nor are we obligated to defer to your opinion that this information should be excluded. Anonip.

Gamaliel, Please justify your reversion of my edit. Anonip 02:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the above material. Gamaliel 02:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AI, Please exlain the reason for your revert. Anonip 16:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anonip, the way you worded it, Earth Day becomes a controversial holiday with communistic overtones. I just edited your paragraphs to make it neutral and I changed some names to personalities who more commonly known.--AI 01:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Al, Earth Day is a controversial holiday with communistic overtones to some conservative critics. That's the whole point. My wording accurately reports this fact. It identifies the source of the POV, and does not endorse it. It is entirely consistent with Wikipedia NPOV policy. Do you see this? Anonip 02:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Additionally:
*1. Earth Day is on April 22.
*2. Lenin's Birthday is on April 22.
*3. Some conservative critics associate the two.
*4. Some critics are very biased (POV).
*4. Critic opinions are not always professional opinions.
*6. Too much credit is given to critics.
*7. Opinion can form the basis of propaganda.
*1. Earth Day is a controversial holiday with commistic overtones.
*2. Opinions should not just be accepted by default.
What do you think of my opinion (#2)?--AI 00:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"Friends of the Earth," the group that founded the Spring equinox "Earth day," promotes socialism as strongly as it does environmentalism. It advocates economic redistribution, government regulation of nearly all aspects of people's lives, communal land ownership, control of production in the hands of the masses, etc. Its main bogeymen are: "evil" corporations (especially the Fortune 500 companies,) Big Oil, Wall Street, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and (naturally,) George Bush. Its own website, the aptly named, provides ample information on its desired social model. The words of its individual members provide even more.

The original activists who organized the second "Earth Day" on April 22nd, 1970, changed their event name from "Environmental Teach-In to "Earth Day." It was held to oppose the Vietnam War and promote environmentalism. Most of the original organizers were avowed Marxists, as the rhetoric they espoused on that day makes clear. The connections between "Earth Day" and communist clap-trap cannot be denied. Any attempts to do so are dishonest, ignorant or just plain stupid. Kant, Nabokov, Mingus, Spelling, Danza et al. were not the Fathers of the Communist Revolution in The USSR. Lenin was. As the "Father" of the USSR, the country which was America's main ideological enemy at the time, Lenin's birthday was considered more "apropriate" than those of Marx or Engels to mark "Earth Day." As Anonip pointed out, April 22nd, 1970 was was the centenary of Lenin's birth, not simply the same day of the year. According to declassified Soviet documents, the KGB originated the anti-Viernam War effort in America. It was eventually picked up by a general public that thought the war was too costly, but most organized anti-war events were strongly influenced by communists. Histrionic references to "right-wing cranks" betray the hard-left bias of those who make them. Bargholz 10:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

AI; David Brower, the founder of "Friends of the Earth," was an extremely militant green. In 1952 Brower became executive director of the Sierra Club, at the time a group of some 2,000 hikers, amateur photographers and picnickers. By the time Brower was terminated as director in 1969 over his radical behavior and refusal to follow board procedures the Sierra Club had nearly 80,000 members nation wide and assets of over $3 million. The increase in funding and members was attributed to Brower's use of unorthodox and often upsetting advertising campaigns, showing the ravages of environmental exploitation on animals and the environment, a previously unused but now common device of conservationists, and his merchandising campaigns, built originally on the successful large-format photograph books. Despite his successful financial and recruiting methods, Brower's methods for campaigning for his environmental causes alienated many Sierra Club members, including Ansel Adams, who described Brower and his followers as "inquisitors". Under Brower's leadership the Sierra Club was credited with delaying or killing some $7 billion of development and construction, including proposed dams on the Grand Canyon. A fight Brower waged against a dam on the Colorado River in the canyon in 1966 led to the Sierra Club being reclassified as a political organization and as such stripped of its tax exempt status, something Brower proudly recounted in a 1990 memoir as a move he turned around on the government to elicit public sympathy. After leaving the Sierra Club in 1969 Brower went on to found the Friends of the Earth, (the organization which chartered what is now nationally observed as Earth Day.) The following is Mr. Brower in his own words.

It's Healing Time on Earth by David Brower Twelfth Annual E. F. Schumacher Lectures October 1992, Stockbridge, Massachusetts

(Described as a “sermon” by his admirers.)

"We do not have a democracy in the United States. Any country where only half of the eligible voters are registered and where only half of those who are registered vote and where only half of those who vote like their choice is not a democracy. Any country that isn't ruled by its government, that is ruled instead by the Fortune 500, isn't a democracy. And any world government that is ruled by transnational corporations isn't a democracy. Yet such is the state of our national and global governments. According to my definition, a corporation is, right now, by law, a lawyer's attempt to create something that can act like a person without a conscience. If you are a CEO or a member of the Board of Directors of a corporation that bypasses an opportunity for profit, you can be sued by the stockholders! There should at least be something written into law that says you can bypass it for sound social (Emphasis mine,) or ecological reasons. If you're asked to invest, there should be an Environmental Impact Statement on what your money is going to do to the Earth. If you're going to take over a company because it is trying to operate with a conscience and it's making all the money it can and that's why you're trying to take it over, there should certainly be an Environmental Impact Statement on that. All of these conditions should be required. We should bring this about and see if we can instill ecological conscience into corporate behavior. If that happened, I think we'd be much better off.

Remember what The New Yorker did under William Shawn? It gave an entire issue to John Hershey's (extremist,) Hiroshima. One issue, maybe it was two, to Rachel Carson's (thoroughly discredited,) Silent Spring. Three issues to Encounters with the Archdruid, John McPhee's interview with me. Again and again The New Yorker carries pieces that are hard-hitting. I haven't seen it for the past three weeks-I travel too much-but I understand that even with the new editor it's still hard-hitting. In "The Talk of the Town" this week there's apparently an article providing grounds for the impeachment of George Bush. (Emphasis mine.) They are bold. They don't give a damn what their advertisers want, but they get them anyway. Their boldness makes them a required medium for advertisers to advertise in. I wish the rest of the media would try that out. We can go back to where we've been and do better. To science and technology we can add humanity and compassion and go back. Who will do this? Well, we want some teams. We want to build restoration teams on which all the creeds are represented, all the colors, all the ages (I still want something to do), all the classes, and all the sexes. We want to build teams that are willing to put aside their favorite prejudices and get into a symbiotic, instead of an aggressive, relationship with others. We don't agree on a great many things, but we can agree that we've got to restore the damage we've done to Earth."

The deceased Mr. Brower was anything but a moderate. The anti-Vietnam War activists and greens who organized the tendentious 1970 teach-in on the centenary of Lenin's birthday were even more militant. Bargholz 11:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we get pictures of all of the aboved figures in the article, and a neutral write up of the Lenin tie-in on the main page? It's quite an interesting "coinsidence". User:Anonymous 12:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Bargholz 05:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Alleged POV wording

Zen, please explain how the wording you removed is POV. Anonip 06:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"ominously" implies something bad will happen, like the end of the world. "radical" generally is a bad word choice (given more neutral alternatives) and is POV in this context unless you are arguing earth day is a celebration primarily of "radical environmentalists"? Which I don't think can be true, so I removed it too. zen master T 06:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "ominously" implies something bad. The critics I'm referring to intend that implication. It accurately describes their POV, as does the term "radical environmentalist". Using these terms in this context does not violate NPOV, and removing them changes the meaning of the statment. Anonip 06:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should spell out exactly what those critics consider to be ominous rather than using the word generically (better to explain what you mean without that word). How is earth day relevant to "radical environmentalism" other than an original old date was Lenin's birthday? Earth day is not about radical environmentalism (if you disagree cite), please stop trying to stretch a sublte POV connection here. zen master T 07:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think Anonip should read Propaganda. Also please read my comment above on facts/opinions.--AI 00:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

UGen64, please explain your justification for reverting my edit. Anonip 07:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On irc I asked him to take a look, he said "ominously" was pointless and "radical" was POV. zen master T 07:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You got him to revert for you in order to avoid violating the "3 revert rule". Clever. Anonip 07:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I asked him to "take a look at those word choices" if he had a second. zen master T 07:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please ask him to explain himself here. Did he read my response to your/his complaint above? Anonip 07:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ugen64 went to bed I believe, leave a note on his talk page for tomorrow. zen master T 07:49, 24 Apr 2005


Do you think Ugen64 might be up yet? Anonip 16:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eddie Albert's Birthday

What's the origin of the story that the date for Earth Day was chosen because it was Eddie Albert's birthday? Anonip 19:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Curious about this. I believe that his son stated this to be the case in a biography.Mkieper 17:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


I removed two paragraphs unrelated to Earth Day. Both were speculative and unattributed. One regarding Eddie Albert and the other regarding Lenin. -- Jfricker 20:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Jfricker, I'm not sure about all the rules here, but I attributed my own recent edit concerning the factual relationship between Earth Day and the centenary of Lenin's birth in the Lenin Centenary section above. I suggest you read it before you edit anything else. Bargholz 11:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone fix the green theta. I don't have the knowhow, but it really looks stupid. --Saboteur 22:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Earth Day was created by Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, and the first Earth Day was actually started in Masdison, WI.

Weasel word

Added by User:Bargholz

April 22, 1970, is also the 100 year anniversary of Lenin's birth. Because the April 22 Earth Day was also a Vietnam War protest, and many of the protesters were aligned with North Vietnam and the Soviet Union, there are many who believe this date was chosen deliberately.

These are weasel word. Who are that "many who believe"? Consult WP:weasel for more info. Will remove if it's not clarified. Also, being anti-war doesn't mean being pro-north. See false dilemma for argument. At the same time, who are those "many of the protesters" that "were aligned with North Vietnam and the Soviet Union"? Any reliable source? __earth (Talk) 12:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

earth, if you want to research the many people who believe that Earth Day was deliberately chosen to coincide with Lenin's birth centenary, do a google search. That should keep you busy for the next ten years, provided you only research instances prior to today's date. The more people who become aware of the matching dates, the more people will come to believe it was deliberate. I've already cited and sourced McConnell and his interviewer. McConnell believes it was probably deliberate because: "In movements like this, people get mixed up with all kinds of people." His interviewer definitely believes the date was deliberate. I am not going to list and link every centrist and conservative individual or group which believes this to be the case. There are far too many of them. Two cited, sourced and unduly clarified examples for two sentences is more than enough. Wiki does not exist to satisfy your unreasonable requests and neither do I. It is not a propaganda tool for environmental extremists, is it? As I've already pointed out, if you expect me to list numerous examples for every sentence I write, then you're going to have to be consistent and demand this same ridiculous standard of every sentence on the page. That should make for a coherent, readable entry. You will NOT remove these two cited, sourced and comprehensive sentences.

Assuming anti-war doesn't mean pro-North Vietnam (a false assumption because the anti-war protesters did not oppose the North's invasion of the South,) "many" is not a synonym for "all." "MANY" (emphasis added,) of the protesters were aligned with North Vietnam and the Soviet Union." Not all. Your poor reading comprehension shouldn't be my responsibility. Learn to understand something before you criticize it. Editors like you are why Wiki is rife with factual errors and ideological bias. I've already cited and sourced Pete Seeger, who was aligned with the North. Virtually all of the student groups involved were aligned with the North. The participating "Ramparts Magazine" (which should be included, but I don't have the patience to deal with ideologues like you who want to suppress every fact they dislike,) which gave Nelson the idea to hold an environmental teach-in, was aligned with the North. Participants Paul Ehrlich and Charles Reich were aligned with the North. Participants Paul Newman (cited and sourced,) Ali McGraw, Byron Kennard and John Sax all wanted the US to lose the war. Except for Reich, Kennard and Sax, all of these examples can be cited right here at Wiki. Is that a reliable enough source for you? I'm not going to list numerous examples and sources for a single sentence. This entry would be ruined if every single statement in it included multiple examples, citations, and sources. This isn't FOX NEWS, where two sides to every point are presented. The facts I cited are not in serious contention. You object to them for purely political reasons. As I've stated before, if you expect me to cite and source every sentence I write, then you neeed to be consistent and demand the same of everyone else, especially yourself.

As you can see, I anticipated partisan attacks on my edits (particularly by you,) and already addressed all your wild accusations beforehand, in the edits themselves. The fact that you failed to notice them is again, not my responsibility. The environmental movement has as many self-interested frauds as the next movement. Greens are not Saints. The sooner you learn this, the sooner you'll stop promoting them at the expense of the truth.

By the Way, this is the trird time i've written this tedious comment. The first two times it disappeared. The last time I returned to find a fragment. I wrote it again, in an abbreviated version. If it disappears this time I don't care. I'm not going to re-write it again. I see you've responded tp the original fragment. I suppose I can respond to that as well. Bargholz 07:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE and WP:OR say otherwise about "unreasonable request". But since you have cited them, its all alright. All I wanted was citation, nothing else. The reason it was asked before it is being contested. If it wasn't contested, then the status quo is "acceptance". If you want to contest the other statements, be my guest.
As for comprehension, you need to look in the mirror. Not oppose doesn't mean support. In fact, by logic, anti-war mean anti-war, whether it is American involvement or North Vietnam invasion. See false dilemma which is a logical fallacy. And who says "many" is "all"? That a strawman argument which I didn't make. I only asked who the "many people"? But then, said later "Virtually all of the student groups involved were aligned with the North." Many or virtually all? Make up your mind.

I didn't more your comment here. Must be your own mistake. Use the history feature to check your own edit or mis-edit. Don't blame others for your own mistake. For once, stop assuming. Greens are not saint. True. I have no obligation to defend any green extremists. Apparently you are not saint too considering all those personal attacks. And its not about partisan politics. I am merely adhering to WP policies, which you ignored until the very last minute after the third party has been called it. __earth (Talk) 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

earth, expecting me to cite and source things that have already been cited and sourced is unreasonable.

Son, the anti-war protesters did NOT protest or oppose North Vietnam's invasion of South Vietnam. They wanted the North to "unite" the two countries. Every American who claimed "neutrality" (there were very few who did so,) concerning the North's invasion aided its actions. Those who stand by and do nothing aid tyranny. In any case, if you don't oppose the violent subjugation of another country, you ipso facto support it. George Orwell considered this to be axiomatic. The day either you or Wiki refute this or equal his accomplishments is the day you can spout nonsense about "false dilemmas."

You got me on the third point. I thought you implied that none of the protesters were pro-North Vietnam. My mistake.

Of course, many of the protesters were aligned with the North, but virtually all of the Student groups were. I made this very clear. You should have quit while you were ahead. Bargholz 08:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S., I never claimed, insinuated or hinted that you deleted my comments. FOR ONCE, STOP ASSUMING.

You have consistently defended the extremist nature of environmentalists featured in this entry by supporting and performing deletions of any facts that reveal their serious flaws. You consider any unflattering fact about them to be verboten and you actively try to censor any fact you dislike.

Spare me your lame attempt at sophistry concerning personal attacks. All you've added to the discussion is smarmy misdirection to conceal your little book-burning agenda. Your own attacks have been relentless yet ineffective.

You are transparently partisan and use WP policies only for personal advantage. When they're convenient for your argument you cite them and when they're inconvenient you ignore them. As I already wrote, I'd started to add my citation before your third party buddy arrived to play games. I refuted his specious criticisms and exposed his bias.

You aren't trying to improve the entry with this discussion; you're only trying to spar with me. I'm not interested. Play with yourself for awhile. Bargholz 09:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've sourced most of the other statements and will continue later. I hope you could return the my act of good faith. I won't answer to your attack anymore. If you are unable to improve the article but intend to engage in politics instead, I'm not interested. They are other places to talk about that, like kedai kopi. __earth (Talk) 08:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I caught your "stealth edit." I deleted the highly partisan and completely redundant bits about "rightists" and their alleged delusions. This is not a political site, it's an encyclopedia. You cannot add neurotic accusations of "rightist" perfidy just because your politics lean hard to the left. Likewise hard-right, extremist clap-trap has no place here. If you include any unnecessary references to alleged "rightist" nuttiness, you have to include left-wing nuttiness as well. Neither have any place in a serious entry. This is not the daily kos or Lew Rockwell's site. Likewise, you do not tag any external link with a "warning" label about right-wingers, while listing a dozen hard left sites without a "warning" label. That ploy was exposed years ago and people will notice it and delete it. I just beat them to it.

You are out of control. I can overlook your errors in form and style. I can even overlook your constant projection of your own actions. I can't overlook ideological sermonizing that ignores facts. I requested a third party the other day but haven't followed up on it. You can bet I will now. Bargholz 10:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Bargholz 10:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it's not stealthily done. It was done in a transparent manner and anybody can observe the change. I even added comments in the edit summary for your and third's party convenient. Morever, it was quoted from Time Magazine. Have you heard of Time? No? You may request a third. In fact, I've called one but if you are dissatisfied with the third person and even accused him of being biased. Whatever you want to do, you may get help WP:AMA, WP:3O or even WP:RFC. Unless you are planning of walking the talk, how about you citing your assertions for a change instead of screaming "extremist on the loose! extremist on the loose!" oh so many times? __earth (Talk) 10:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Dude," you re-inserted your political propaganda after it had been thoroughly discredited here on the discussion page. The Time writer did not cite a source for his opinion about "Rightists." (A fictional term.) He did not even say who these "rightists" were, or what their "dark mutterings" consisted of. The sentence was not substantiated in any way, shape or form. Time is not an impartial source and the usubstantiated opinions of its writers are not facts. Have you heard of editorial opinions? No? I added a source that has an actual NAME to go with the opinion that Lenin's birth centenary was chosen deliberately. There are hundreds of people connected to the site who agree with the Lenin theory and it features links to many other sources. It does NOT offer any manufactured ideological nonsense about nameless "Rightists muttering darkly." My citation source is comprehensive and meant to educate. Yours was devoid of any content and meant to indoctrinate. Mine features the actual opinions of those who believe Lenin's centenary was chosen deliberately. Yours featured second-hand hearsay with no content, much less documentation. Your political propaganda is not relevant to Earth Day. The inclusion of the belief held about Lenin's centenary is intended to inform readers of that opinion and its connection to Earth Day. It is NOT meant as an excuse for you to attack those people's opinions. Attacking the opinions of people included in entries is not the goal of Wiki. I suggest you head to some moonbat blog, where your hatred of those with different ideologies than your own will be welcomed. Spew your venom somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia, not a hate-tract.

For the last time, Wiki does not require that every innocuous sentence be cited. You are not Wiki. Adding ridiculous requests for citation on other minor points in the story in an attempt to make it look like you're only interested in "accuracy" is pathetic. You fool nobody. You are trying to insert your demented political bias into an entry on Earth Day. This entry is not a platform for you to smear "rightists." It is an encyclopedic entry. That's why nobody is going out of their way to detail the extremist nature of many of the people who promote Earth Day.

Just so you know, with the exception of what I wrote, this entire entry was plagiarized from another source. It's too bad your research skills aren't the equal of your computer operating skills. The same could be said of your writing and debating abilities. If you work on those as hard as you work on the technical stuff, you could become a terrific writer. Add as many citation requests as you want, but for the sake of the entire site, try to avoid injecting your partisan politics under an editorial guise. Bargholz 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Bargholz 23:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, is a mirror of Wikipedia. Read a disclamer at There are several other mirrors too if you need to know. In short, answer uses Wikipedia. Bet you didn't know that. Plus, you said "Time is not an impartial source and the usubstantiated opinions of its writers are not facts. Have you heard of editorial opinions? No?" but you have no qualm adding "frontpagemagazine" as a source?
Again, observe WP:OR Also, the term rightist is real. Talking about other ppl opinion, you are not respecting others opinion too. Why only add your? Never heard of WP:NPOV? And heaven's sake, you said "every innocuous sentence be cited". WP:CITE says "this means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." WP:CITE commands more authority than you. __earth (Talk) 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

earth; Like always, you're nit-picking and avoiding your factual errors. I'll explain it to you. Again. 1. The opinion stated by the Time writer did not refer to any real group or individual. He stated an unsubstantiated personal opinion and didn't cite a source - because there wasn't one. One sentence buried in a story about something else does not make an adequate source. Even if the sigle sentence weren't the writer's unsubstantiated opinion, you need to link to an entire article about the Lenin connection. There are plenty which exist, but you ignored them all in an attempt to inject your hatred of "rightists" into this entry. That's not going to fly. Who are these mythical "rightists" muttering darkly about commie plots? Not even the conservatives who do believe that the date was chosen deliberately make any mention of "plots." Even if the Lenin date story is true, that doesn't imply a plot of any kind. 2. Front Page Magazine is a source which clearly demonstrates that many people believe that Earth Day was deliberately chosen to coincide with Lenin's centenary. The story featured was quite long and very detailed. The politics of the site are irrelevant. It is a source of Lenin/Earth Day thought. Of course, where else would you find such opinion but on a conservative or anti-communist (John Birch Society, Cuban American groups, etc.) site? Your empty citation did nothing to show that many people believe the April 22 date was deliberate. The only thing it featured was the writer's (and your,) contempt for nameless, fictional "rightists." You of course have no problem providing a whole slew of unnecessary links that promote your ideology. 3. The term "rightist" is not a real term. Just because some, or even many, people use it incorrectly doesn't make it a real word. Spare me any erroneous dictionary definitions. I'm not interested. Contemporary dictionaries contain plenty of incorrect word entries. Dictionaries are not supposed to feature words the way ignorant people use them. They're supposed to list them they way they're meant to be used. Subverting lexicography in the name of descriptivism (listing words the way they are used incorrectly) defeats the whole purpose of a style manual. This has nothing to do with you, but it is why I own dictionary volumes printed before the incompetent, P.C. age. 4. Arbor Day is practiced on the last Friday of April, not the 22. It rarely falls on the 22. External links to your pet green sites aren't necessary for a bio on Arbor Day and its founder. Wiki already maintains an Arbor Day entry that duplicates the bio you linked. Your bio was a tiny part of a story dedicated to your pet cause. Readers don't need to read about Idaho conservationism when they're supposed to be linking to a Nebraskan holiday. As a Nebraskan, I don't expect Idahoans and others to read a Nebraska site just to get a snippet of information about potato farming. 5. You really don't want me to challenge every single link you've provided. Despite the fact that you chose these links for their ideological slant as much (probably more,) as for their pertinent information, I'm not interested in supressing your propaganda. You provide far more links than are necessary for this very reason but I don't care enough to challenge them. yet. Stop deleting my facts and inserting your political bias or I will challenge each and every one of your links, edits etc. that I find to be tendentious, incorrect, poorly written or unnecessary. Every one on Wiki. Based on what I've seen here, I have no doubt that all of your work is rife with errors.

We both know that what I'm saying is true. Your substitution of facts you dislike with personal ideology is inappropriate.

Your'e right. I didn't know that Answer is a "mirror" of Wiki. That would explain all the errors. Having said all that, I do think you should number the links I provided correctly. My links are not featured with the nifty little arrow-boxes. I don't know how to do that. You're good with the technical aspect of all this, while I'm not. Above all, stop inserting the ridiculous bit about "Rightists muttering darkly." It has no place in a serious piece of scholorship and I will continue to delete it every time you add it.cheers.Bargholz 05:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You said "It's too bad your research skills aren't the equal of your computer operating skills. The same could be said of your writing and debating abilities." But then your said "I didn't know that Answer is a "mirror" of Wiki." Your research skill is being condemned by your own statement. If you meant to insult ppl, you are doing a really bad job.
And no, we both do not know what you're saying is true. Refer to Fallacy of many questions for argument. That's why everything needs to be cited. Read WP:V.
  1. Have you read Catch-22? You statement is just like that. In away case, it's written in a credible periodical with reputation. Furthermore, it's written back in 1970. It's a record at that time, unlike your front page stuff.
  2. Slew? read back and see who is the one that launched all those personal attack.
  3. A conspiracy theory and paranoia that dictionary is out to brainwash the masses... Ridiculous reasoning.
  4. Oh, you're a Nebraskan now? And cmon. Read properly. The source is to verify that the day fall on the founder's birthday. If you make you happy, I'll add ([citation needed]) to it.
  5. If that's so, than I'll remove it. But while removing this, there's no need to remove the others.
  6. Oh, I want too. Wikipedia thrives on that. But first, why don't you back up your assertion first? You still have yet to respond to my request for ([citation needed]). __earth (Talk) 09:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't let facts get in the way of a debate, do you? You ignored paragraph after paragraph just to spout hypocritical insults and nonsense that have nothing to do with the reality here. THE REALITY IS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO INJECT YOUR PERSONAL OPINION INTO AN ENTRY. POV is what I believe you keep calling it. Sniff, sniff? What's that I smell? Why, it's rank hypocrisy.

Your little screed was incoherent, but I managed to read between the strident accusations and petty evasions. You have yet to tell me how the uncited, unsourced, personal opinion of a writer is in any way a relevant fact. How is this writer's deliberate attempt to denigrate "rightists" relevant to an entry on Earth Day? Why is his bigoted opinion more important than that of any other writer, including your darling John McConnell? Timothy Leary, Charles Manson and William Burroughs were writing in 1970. Maybe you should list them as sources.

You cite Wikipedia entries as though they were the final word on history and the English language, which you are barely literate in. Wrong.

Time magazine is not credible. If it were, it wouldn't have suffered two huge scandals last year for printing lies. The Fake-but-accurate Bush National Guard forgeries were defended long after they were proven to be bogus. The same goes for the Downing Street Memo. Time also took hits in its credibility with fraudulent stories about the forged (there seems to be a pattern to Time's misdeeds,) CIA memo, Joe Wilson's trip to Niger and virtually every detail of the "Plamegate" fraud. This is all irrelevant because the insulting opinion of a Time writer has nothing to do with explaining who believes in the Lenin connection and why. Nothing. Who, what, where and why are journalistic and encyclopidic standards, not: "I don't like those guys so I'm going to belittle them."

Stop mumbling about conspiracy theories, paranoia and brain-washing. You sound unhinged. Your accusations are based on your personal opinion and lack of reading comprehension skills.

Do you have a problem with Nebraska, or Nebraskans? Your plagiarized entry about Arbor Day is factually incorrect. It doesn't even match the Wiki entry on Arbor Day. How many times do I have to tell you this before it sinks into your head?

You have yet to offer a reasonable answer to why you think it's O.K. for you to edit your own ideological bias into this entry. I've refuted your lies, distortions and accusations a dozen times over on this page, yet you blithely ignore anything you don't want to hear and continue to repeat the same tired excuses. I've provided documentation for everything you requested. I've asked that you provide documentation for ONE tendentious sentence - only one - and you not only cant provide it, you refuse to even try.

The Time writer's insult of "rightists" has no bearing on this entry, no more than the insults hurled at the extreme left by "rightists." Even your screen name is biased. You just don't get it, do you? You're not in a room full of people that all share the same opinions. You're talking to someone who refuses to allow you to "shout over" everybody you disagree with. Maybe with my bold type, I can get you to understand my main point. The one you keep ignoring.

One more thing. The vast majority of people who belive that lenin's birth centenary was chosen deliberately are not "rightists darkly noting a communist trick." Please provide proof for your ridiculous claim. I want real proof, not partisan hatred. Cite it, source it and link it. You cant, because the people who believe that are far more rational and reasonable than you are.Bargholz 05:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the weasel wordy-ness of this statement. That does not mean I agree with the original stealth removal of this statement:
The choice of April 22nd, 1970 for Earth Day is exactly 100 years after Vladimir Lenin's birthday, the founding father of the Russian Communist Party.
As I noted above, under the title: Earth day stealth edit caught, documented
-Standard Mischief 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

SM, unless you don't believe that "Because the April 22 Earth Day was also a Vietnam War protest, and many of the protesters were aligned with North Vietnam and the Soviet Union, there are many who believe this date was chosen deliberately," its not a weasely statement. The teach-in was indeed a Vietnam-War protest as well as an environmental one. The name "teach-in" was borrowed from the anti-war teach-ins that were being held on campuses across the country. That many of the anti-war activists were aligned with North Vietnam and the soviet Union is indisputable. That includes many of those that took part in the nation-wide Earth day events back in 1970. Pete Seeger and the fans who attended his rally were hard-core Marxists. That many believe the date of Lenin's centenary was chosen deliberately is also indisputable. Bargholz 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, ime glad I read this exchange of rants. I now know that "Earth Day" is a Leninist plot, something I couldn't have learnt from the article alone. I feel a bitt disgusted that I once took part in "Earth Day". Froggo Zijgeb 22:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


I found out that some of statements in this article were taken from a United Nations site. Adhere to copyright, I've removed: For this reason, equinoctial Earth Day is a day of equilibrium when differences are forgotten and nature's renewal is celebrated by all. There are several others but will do it later. __earth (Talk) 08:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Much of the equinoctial Earth Day section was copied verbatim from a United Nations site. Requires rewrite. __earth (Talk) 10:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Of The April 22 Earth Day section, paragraph 1, 2 and 4 are similar to those at US Embassy in Wellington, NZ. __earth (Talk) 10:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

POV insertion

The April 22nd Earth Day section of this article is plainly POV. Students who protested the Vietnam War were all allied with the Soviet Union and North Vietnam? "Many" believe the date was chosen to coincide with Lenin's birthday?

I don't care what your viewpoint on the subject is, this isn't going to work. If you can't be mature enough to keep from inserting your own POV into the article then maybe you need to work on a different one. Now, I'm going to try to clean this stuff up and take out some of the more biased statements. Someone will probably try to revert it within five seconds of me doing so, but oh well.

Mister Mister 18:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mister, NOBODY claimed that ALL the students were ANYTHING, much less "allied" with the Soviet Union and North Vietnam. Many DO believe the date was chosen to coincide with Lenin's BIRTH CENTENARY, not his bithday - as the two links show. Your crude insinuation that NONE of the protesters were aligned with North Vietnam and the Soviet Union is simply untrue. Please provide an example of anti-Vietnam War protesters who DIDN'T want North Vietnam to win the war. Facts that you don't like aren't POV. If you cant comprehend a simple text, you have no business commenting here, much less editing entries or lecturing others about maturity.

Please explan how this is a "POV." Your assertion is asinine and baseless. It is your opinion, which you cannot bolster with fact. Please provide some proof or even evidence that what you say is true. A real example of POV is the unsubstantiated opinion about "Rightists muttering darkly." Please explain how a Time magazine writer's uncited, unsourced and unhinged personal opinion constitutes a fact. Also explain why his derogatory statement about nameless, faceless "Rightists" belongs in this entry.

Talk about POV. The only POV being foisted on readers are the Time writers', earth's and now yours. Read my comments under the "Weasel Word" heading. You should have read them before you launched into your little tirade. It would have saved you some emarrassment.Bargholz 05:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cite your sources, then. Give the credible sources for all of these accusations you're making against war protesters and the people who started Earth Day. I have read what you said under the Weasel Word discussion as well. Don't assume things about me, please. Oh, and even though I've already said this before (and it's been mentioned to you many, many times), no personal attacks. Thank you.

Mister Mister 19:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer my questions before you ask me more questions. I already cited my sources - more than were necessary for a couple of sentences. I thought you read what I wrote? Do you think the keynote speaker at the Washington DC Earth Day rally, Pete Seeger, wasn't a communist? That the fans that came to see him were aligned with the US? Maybe you think the odes he composed to communism were "rightist" plots? His recorded songs attacking the US were all in jest, is that it? Why do you suppose many people believe the 22 of April was chosen because of Lenin's birth centenary? Because anti-Vietnam War protesters WEREN'T aligned with the socialists/communists? Because NO protesters were socialist or communist? Because socialists/communists had no part in the anti-war movement? Do you discount all Wiki entries descibing the socialist anti-war groups? Do you deny that the participating Ramparts Magazine was socialist? Do you suppose these people are wild eyed fanatics who saw communist plots everywhere they looked? Talk about wild accusations. Please provide an example of a personal attack on my part. If you read what I wrote under "Weasel Words," you have no excuse for your inaccurate, hypocritical rant. Like I said, I'm not the one here with a biased, ideological "POV." I don't need to assume anything about you. I have your own words to inform me that you're a leftist who wants to censor any fact he dislikes. You ignored the rampant ideological bias in this entry to attack my tiny contribution. Who do you think you're fooling? "Don't assume things about me." You leftists always say that. How sophomoric. You people need some new material. Bargholz 22:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mister, I see you ignored my answer only to attack me like a hyena on the thread below. Why am I not surprised? The truth is anathema to people like you. Shouldn't you be out burning books or shouting down those you disagree with right now? You should read the Wiki entry on the Third Reich. Your tactics are eerily similar. Bargholz 08:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparing me to the Nazis? Smooth. I'm going to bed, because this isn't worth my time, and no, I don't have to go along with your statements when you have no sources to back them up. You can't just list frontpagemag as your source for everything and say it's 100% credible, while using op/ed articles. That's like saying Democratic Underground is a valid source for unbiased political thought. It just ISN'T.

Also, FYI, as I stated I was merely speculating in the thread below that you might have been doing that to push the user earth's opinion out of sight in favor of your own take on the dispute. That doesn't count as a personal attack, it's an honest question/observation. Saying I'm a hyena, book-burner, Nazi and that I hate the truth, though, that's a little bit different. So I'd cut it out if I were you.

Mister Mister 09:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I compared your tactics to those of the Nazis. Censoring and demonizing opponents is a tactic you share with them. I'm not surprised you chose to accuse me of a broader comparison. The intellectual dishonesty you've shown here is consistent, if nothing else.

I've already listed my sources a dozen times. They include the John McConnell interview and the Wiki entry on Opposition to the Vietnam War True to form, you've chosen to ignore them.

The Front Page Mag article was cited only to prove my sentence which stated that some people believe the Lenin centenary was chosen deliberately. It was not cited to prove or disprove that theory, as you imply. My sentence in the entry does not endorse this opinion in any way. It's disingenuous of you to insinuate otherwise. The funny thing is that I didn't want to include the Frontpage link. I only did so because earth demanded that I provide a link to a site that proves there are people who believe the Lenin centenary theory. Like I told him before, he should have quit while he was ahead.

Noting that you're an intellectually dishonest, avid censor who practices some of the same behaviour as hyenas and Nazis is an honest observation. You deliberately distorted my reason for sourcing the FPM article. Twice. Your claim that it was the only one I sourced was an outright lie. If you don't want me to note the similarity of your behaviour to that of hyenas and Nazis, stop behaving like them. If you don't want me to call you on your lying, then stop lying.

Try improving the entry instead of promoting ideology. Jeff Bargholz 03:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Not All Reaction Was Positive

Earth Day also created a backlash against environmentalism. Some student groups opposed ecological concerns because President Nixon supported them. Many Black groups and prominent black public figures were dismissive of any movement that didn't address their own narrow racial concerns. The Rise of Anti-Ecology

John Mcconnell noted that April 22 was Lenin's birthday. Earth Day Deception Senator Nelson and the event's organizers refused to change the events date for future celebrations, which caused suspicion. March Marching The rise of student opposition to the Vietnam War was coupled with a rise in student socialist groups. Opposition to the Vietnam War Many prominent groups were disbanded but the movement has been strong ever since. The anti-Vietnam War teach-ins were socialistic. Many of the defunct groups listed on the Wiki entry page were socialist. Those groups extant still are. International ANSWER is closely affiliated with CPUSA. Opposition to the Vietnam War March Marching On Being Attacked By The Left

There are some on this discussion page who are upset over this information and are working feverishly to suppress it. Facts are facts, regardless of personal opinions or ideology. The POV of these book-burners is irrelevant. The adverse reaction to Earth Day is relevant to this entry and I have included it. Bargholz 00:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We gave no thought to future "celebrations." We weren't planning a celebration; we planned a teach-in. Nothing was planned for 1971; Sen. Nelson went back to his job. (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Arbor Day Information

The paragraph concerning Arbor Day was factually inaccurate, poorly written and contradicted the separate Wiki entry for the holiday. I added a proper paragraph. Bargholz 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Can someone summarize what the dispute is all about? ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 04:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This sentence is the main point of dispute: "April 22, 1970, is also the 100 year anniversary of Lenin's birth and the Time wrote in 1970 that some noted 'that Earth Day was also Lenin's birthday, and warned that the entire happening was a Communist trick.' [15]"

Besides being grammatically incorrect and clumsy, the sentence is the product of the editor's political bias. He linked to a source that is a story praising Earth Day. Buried in the story is a sentence about unnamed "Rightists," which is uncited, unsourced and intentionally bigoted. Earth originally disingenuously included the whole sentence, but has now included only a portion of it to decieve readers into thinking that it isn't a bigoted statement and transparent POV. It reflects the unsubstantiated opinion of the Time magazine writer and is not supported by fact. More importantly, the comment was meant soley to denigrate "rightists," whoever they may be. That's why the clearly partisan "earth" included it in this entry. It has no more place in a serious entry than uncited, unsourced and extraneous insults directed at ideological leftists or centrists. Insulting hearsay about the beliefs of people who aren't even identified by name belong on a site dedicated to opinion, not fact.

It's relevant to the entry to note that that there are those who believe that April 22, 1970, was chosen deliberately because it was Lenin's birth centenary. There is no relevant reason to insult the beliefs of these people and there is certainly no reason to insult them personally. That kind of rhetoric has no place in an encyclopedic enty. There is absolutely no evidence or proof that anyone claimed a "communist trick." Not in 1970 and not since then. Earth has excluded the portion of the sentence that mentions "rightists noting darkly" in an attempt to fool casual observers into thinking the sentence is impartial and innocuous. Follow the link and you get a contumelious description of faceless "rightists." This sentence has no bearing on the subject matter.

I've linked to sources that offer examples of those who believe the date was chosen deliberately, not as a "trick," communist or otherwise, but for ideological reasons. I've provided a link to John McConnell's thoughts on the matter, which are expressed first-hand in an interview.

Earth has continually deleted any fact that he dislikes and continues to inject his political bias into the entry despite being informed that the ideological beliefs of an editor have no place in a serious entry.

He also continues to delete factual references to Arbor Day that match the Arbor Day entry in Wiki. He left it partially intact this last time in an attempt to hide the fact that he's been doing so.

Additionally, he continues to censor important comments made by the founder of the first Earth Day, John McConnell. Namely, that the organizers of the second Earth Day told McConnell that they wouldn't change the date of their event to a less contentious date because it was convenient for schools to celebrate it on April 22. This was supported in the same interview with McConnel that I linked. Earth instead insists on providing a dead link to an unsubstantiated, second-hand source that offers information that conflicts with other sources, which quote the event's organizers as stating that April 22 was chosen because Spring Break was still going on. My link is less contentious. It simply states that April 22 was more convenient for the schools, which is consistent with both of the other claims and avoids controversy and dispute.

Here is the text I provided which earth continues to delete out of partisan spite: April 22 is also the birthday of Julius Sterling Morton, the founder of Arbor Day, a national tree-planting holiday started in 1872. Arbor Day is celebrated on the last Friday of April. It has since been largely eclipsed by the more widely observed Earth Day, except in Nebraska, where it originated.

The April 22 Earth Day organizers told John McConnell that they chose that day because it would be convenient on the campuses at that time. [1] April 22, 1970, was the 100 year anniversary of Lenin's birth. Because the April 22 Earth Day was also a Vietnam War protest, and many of the protesters were aligned with North Vietnam and the Soviet Union, there are many who believe this date was chosen deliberately. [2] In an April 14, 2000 interview, McConnell said that may have been the case. He did not think that Senator Gaylord Nelson chose it for this reason, however. He stated that: "In movements like this, people get mixed up with all kinds of people.

I provided a link to a Wiki entry which offered information on the subject. Opposition to the Vietnam War See myb comments above under the heading "Not all reaction was positive."

Earth is only interested in tendentious editing and smearing anyone who disagrees with him. Bargholz 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation. And Bargholz is removing citations that don't fit his stance. Namely, all possible reasons (except all that celebrate Earth Day are communists) for choosing Apr 22 instead of March 21. Throughout the edit history, you can see him removing everything except Earth Day alleged relationship with Communism. Also, personal attacks - most have nothing to do with this page. This page is full of them. __earth (Talk) 04:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is unrelated, but I saw what you did there, Bargholz. Why would you put your post between the author's original post, and earth's post, rather than putting it underneath earth's post as per the usual way we do successive edits on talk pages? Are you trying to push his statements down so yours seem more prominent? That seems a bit rude to me, but I could just be speculating here.

Mister Mister 05:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because as I was writing my comment (it took several hours because I have a family and a life,) earth slipped his whiny accusation in. My comment was more important than his because it was meant to elucidate, not indoctrinate. I don't give a rat's fanny how "WE" usually do things. I do things honorably and with truth foremost in mind. I realize this isn't the way you do things but the rest of the world doesn't dance to your tune, son. If you don't like it, paste his drivel above mine. That seems to be the style of the left-wing censors around here. Bargholz 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would argue (and Earth Day is a new subject for me) that the sentence ""April 22, 1970, is also the 100 year anniversary of Lenin's birth and the Time wrote in 1970 that some noted 'that Earth Day was also Lenin's birthday, and warned that the entire happening was a Communist trick.' [15]" should not be included as it seems to be minority POV and in violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 05:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence could be added to "Miscellanous facts section:
  • April 22, 1970, is also the 100 year anniversary of Lenin's birth
≈ jossi ≈ t@ 05:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I appreciate your thoughtful comment. It's a breath of fresh air after dealing with the fanatics that haunt this site. I agree with you for the most part. Nobody objects to the completely unrelated factoid that the founder of Arbor Day shares a birthday with Earth day (ED.) Nobody complains about the (at least) three different reasons given by the ED organizers for choosing April 22 to celebrate their event. It stands to reason that nobody should complain about the very suspicious fact that ED coincides with lenin's birth centenary. Given the facts of the case (the socialist nature of the organizers, the choice of one specific day of significance within a hundred year period, the refusal to change the date subsequently over the objections of many environmentalists, the opinions expressed by a great many people, etc.,) there is no reason to relegate the centenary connection to the "Miscellaneous Facts" section. To do so would marginalize the connection and the opinions of all who note it. Their opinions are no less worthy than the opinions of those who think Earth Day is just plain spiffy. Also noteworthy is that Earth Day is no longer a day celebrated only by eco-fanatics. It has become a day embraced by the majority, which is what the eco-snobs wanted at first. Now many of them cry about it being coopted by President Bush, corporations, etc. It has become a day for all of us and zealots like earth and mister sister don't like that.

The connection to Lenin's centenary belongs in the main text. Honest environmentalists can handle the truth. The opinions of those who think the connection was deliberate have no bearing on the opinions of those who think otherwise. The truth is nothing to hide from. The Lenin connection in no way cheapens the intent behind ED. Censorship belongs in REAL socialist societies, not ours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bargholz (talkcontribs)

If there is speculation about the significance of the date, let the reader make the connection and speculate about its possible meaning. Asserting such minority POV is in violation of WP:NPOV#Undue eight, IMO. I would also ask that rather than engage in rethoric and verbal battles, we spend more time making the article better. I spent 30 minutes yesterday doing that, adding refereces, material, and photos. If editors of this article would spend 5 minutes in editing for every minute they debate, this article would soon become a Featured Article! ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 15:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My paragraph DOES allow the reader to speculate about the possible meaning. It impartially notes that some people feel the date is signifacant. It does not make a judgement on the possible meaning one way or another. It doesn't endorse this view and it certainly doesn't insult those who believe the connection is significant. IT IS NOT BIASED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

The same cannot be said for earth's POV, which is meant to belittle the opinions of others. Specifically, those who don't ascribe to his ideology.

I agree that the verbal jousting has been unproductive. Earth is an obvious fanatic who will continue to insert his POV no matter how many times I rub his nose in the facts. I wasted my time by trying to reason with him. You cant reason with fanatics, you can only make them angry.

The problem with editing VS debating is that every time I improve the entry with an edit, earth censors it. My paragraph concerning the Lenin speculation is the only one on that subject offered so far that improves the entry. If someone writes a better one I will support it. I will not support earth's hatemongering POV.

Jossi, I don't know how to number the external references and links. Someone has gone to the trouble to number all of them except those they dislike. The link to the Lenin speculation was tendentiously listed by name in the text, rather than being numbered like all the rest. I would number it myself if I knew how. You seem to have an honest desire to improve this entry so I'm asking you to please number and reference the external links correctly. Your effort would be much appreciated. I think your inclusion of Senator Nelson's photo was a good Idea. I would like to see John McConnell's photo as well. Other readers have expressed the same desire. He was a lifelong environmental advocate and the first person to coin the term "Earth Day." 02:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 02:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Jeff Bargholz. I had to add my name. I don't know why my signature doesn't appear. I can only assume more censorship. The underhanded dishonesty practiced by some on this page is contemptible.

Get a username! is easy and it will make it easier for you and for others. And please, lower the rethoric. It is not conducive to a civil discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 04:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi (I feel strange addressing you personally because you refuse to adress me by name,) I had a username. It doesn't work anymore. I already made that point. What you disparage as "Rhetoric" is the truth. I don't know why I bother with this site. You seem like a decent guy/gal, but you're lecturing the wrong guy. It's obvious that I'm not the one promoting a failed agenda. I'm only interested in the truth, as my contributions show. Your selective comments only make it easier for ideologues to spread their oppressive agenda. Do you really think criticizing me will make earth or "mister" (whatever his screen name is,) try to be impartial?

The discussion hasn't been civil since the attacks on me started. Please address my edits. They are what's supposed to be discussed, not my manners. 07:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Again, I typed my address. Because I know it's been censored, I have to write my name. Jeff Bargholz. The only man here that doesn't hide behind an alias.

Jossi, due NPOV, I believe it should be noted that some ppl that believe this alleged communist link and that some other ppl believe that the allegation is a conspiracy theory. The Times states that here. Between Times and Frontpagemag (Bargholz's favorite source) Times has more credibility and holds higher journalism standard. That citation has been removed by an anon (apparently Bargholz). Bargholz is calling everybody that doesn't agree with him as liars (and hatemongerers while he was the one engaging in personal attack and racist statements; Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Personal_attack_and_prejudice look here for record)
Again, all this dispute arises because he doesn't understand WP:OR, WP:CITE, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:V. In WP:CITE, it is clearly stated that "This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." Hence, his statements were removed in the first place. Only after repeatedly request did he provided citations (but only from opinion pieces that he's so much against with when the Times' piece first was cited.) I'm working through procedure. That cannot be said about him. And then, he cries of censorship. In fact, it was just procedure. Now, he wants to remove a cited source because it doesn't suit his beliefs.
Just look at his signature. Because he doesn't know how the signature works (it doesn't work with anon login), he blames "somebody else" for censoring his comment, instead of considering the chances that it might be his own mistake. This pattern is apparent from the start, just like his failure to understand WP:CITE and WP:V. He doesn't understand how Wikipedia works and when the several users try to adhere to those policies, he offer verbal abuses to the other users (liar, fanatics, nazi, etc). I've been ignoring him since a couple of days ago and just trying to get any third person in, as you have seen (and thankfully answering) my request. __earth (Talk) 03:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Earth, it's obvious that you cant justify your censorship. Instead, you try to villify me. Not exactly a substitute for scholarship. I'm right, you're wrong. Get over it. You are an inveterate liar who manufactures slander as a substitute for the truth. Four year old children lie more convincingly than you do. Jeff Bargholz. 07:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

See Jossi? He didn't login into Wikipedia with his username and hence, unable to sign his signature with his name. And he blames me for his own mistake. This is the issue. He is ignorant of Wikipedia's rules and formatting and instead of admitting mistake, he faults others and offer verbal abuses for no good reason. __earth (Talk) 07:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that editors take a short break from editing? Sometimes a few days off really helps. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 04:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

When you are ready to resume editing, please place a request at WP:RFPP. Enjoy your Sunday. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 04:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me say I'm not sure of the credibility of the following article, especially because I found it on the internet. However, if it is true, it might provide some insight into Gaylord Nelson's decision to celebrate Earth Day on April 22. Near the bottom of this article, it states that Nelson was asked during an Earth Day speech "Why are you honoring the birth of Lenin?" His response was, in a nutshell, that about 10 million people had been born on that day, and that one of them "was a person who many people consider the world's first environmentalist, Saint Francis of Assisi." However, according to Wikipedia's article and some other sites, Francis' actual birthday is unknown. Let it be known that when I first read the argument and the dispute I was of the opinion that the connection to Lenin's birthday should be noted in the article, but if this article tells the truth and Nelson did indeed say this, perhaps it was just a coincidence. Does anyone else know anything about the relation of Earth Day and St. Francis of Assisi? I realize my research was a bit hurried and imperfect, but I didn't see any other mention of St. Francis and wanted to bring it up. bizen boat 18:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

bizen boat, Senator Nelson never claimed that he is the one who personally chose April 22 as the day to hold his teach-in. He had organizers such as Denis Hayes who took care of details like this. He chose college students to organize his event because they were the main group he was trying to influence. He reasoned that if they took up the environmental cause, they would be able to espouse it more effectively than any other group. They were holding anti-war rallies on a regular basis and he knew that they could just as easily hold environmental rallies on a regular basis. College students were the most socially active group in the country at the time.

He likely refused to change the date after he learned of it's unfortunate connection to one of history's mass murderers because he didn't want public attention focused on John McConnell's Spring equinox Earth Day. A change to the ides of March would have lent weight to McConnell's prior Earth Day. In fact, any change of date at all would have lent weight to McConnell's day. Earth Day II organizers such as Hayes have said that changing the date would have caused confusion between the two Earth Days. Both Earth Day groups wanted public attention focused on their own groups, of course.

You miss the point about including the Lenin-connection school of thought in this entry. It is not meant to endorse the theory, as I have made clear. It demonstrates that many people believe this theory. Many people dislike Earth Day because of this percieved connection. World reaction to Earth Day, positive and negative, are integral parts of any entry on the subject, and so are the reasons cited by organizers for choosing such a controversial date. Jeff Bargholz Bargholz 21:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a book that may throw some light into these issues. It is called "The Morning After Earth Day: Practical Environmental Politics" by Mary Graham, pubilshed by Brookings Institution Press in 1999. Hopefully one of the interested editors may seek this book at a local library and provide some citations. [2] 23:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, there are many books with information on this subject. Unfortunately, Wiki seems to prefer citations which can be linked to web pages. This is the source of many Wiki inaccuracies. Linking to a source such as a Time Magazine article which praises Earth Day and denigrates nameless ideological opponents is a typical example, as are most of the links here to Earth Day hagiographies. None of the books I've read contradict the simple facts in my edits, not even the books critical of the Lenin connection theory. Bargholz 22:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That assertion about online sources being preferred in WP is incorrect. See WP:RS. All citaticons from books, sholarly articles, and other reputable sources are welcome. If there is an online source that passes the thershold of reputability, and that online source is not a copyvio, it will be welcome as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 23:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I will include some citations from books which are relevant to the subject. If online sources are not preferred, I suggest that they be used less often. They outnumber book references a thousand to one. The frivolous and tendentious natures of many of them are indisputable. This practice causes many people to be unfairly critical of Wiki as an accurate source of information. An encyclopedia which is edited by its readers has both advantages and drawbacks. The ideological exclusion of uncomfortable facts and inclusion of unnecessary defamation are two of the drawbacks I addressed in this entry. By improving the accuracy of this entry I'm attempting to increase its quality. An encyclopedic entry is no place for an editor's political ideology, even if the entry details an ideological event such as Earth Day. I've gone to great lengths to keep the content of my edits impartial. Some editors are flat-out incapable of remaining impartial. I appreciate the effort you've made to improve this entry. Bargholz 23:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed to become a good article due to existence of unsourced statements. Cheung1303 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Earth Day now

There's nothing in here about Earth Day after 1980. I remember it being forced upon us in school in the early 90's, and I vaguely remember Captain Planet (the character) being involved. Someone who knows things about things like that needs to add some more contemporary stuff. PolarisSLBM 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Young Republicans Slogan

Is there a source stating that the slogan for the Young Republicans was "EARTH FIRST! We'll log Earth first, other planets later!"? Google indicates that the slogan is common on bumper stickers but I haven't found anything about the Young Republicans. I find it kind of hard to believe that on face value without a source. Mythyval 04:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There is now a source provided. Hard to believe as it is, it appears to be true. Mycroft7 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Earth Day created environmentalism?

I've asked for a citation for Earth day creating environmentalism. It may well be true that the creation of Earth Day promoted environmentalism, or brought it into the public conciousness, or even created Environmentalism (with a capital E, the name of some specific movement), but it surely can't have created the idea of environmentalism, which must predate it by hundreds of years, if not thousands. Anyway, if it's correct in some sense, then it needs a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam1729 (talkcontribs) 01:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

The paragraph also contains lots of examples of weasel words. Sorry - forgot to sign the first time. Adam1729 01:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ERROR with this page!!

The "edit this page" button dosen't appear! Where did it go? Its ok in all the other pages except this?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

This page has been semi-protected to deal with vandalism. Unfortunately, you probably didn't know because the lock icon was too small. This is a issue that I do not like because it confuses new users like you. -- Hdt83 Chat 08:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Earth Day!

Happy Earth Day to everyone trying to save this planet from pollution and global warming! Bosniak 08:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

u2! __earth (Talk) 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Equinox question

Surely an equinox doesn't mean that day and night are the same length anywhere on earth. That is belied by the context in the article about the poles shifting from day to night (or night to day). I would have thought that an equinox meant that the earth changed the tilt back towards the equator, which means that at the Tropic of Cancer or Capricorn (depending on which Equinox) the day and night are of equal lenth.

No, they are the same length everywhere. The sun is directly above the equator, and hence perpendicular to the axis of rotation. In other words, half of any given latitude is in daylight, and half in darkness. See Equinox article. Mycroft7 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ice Age? Global Warming? Make up your minds.

Should we perhaps mention the wide variety of claims that have been made by Earth Day organizers? In 1970, it was an impending Ice age and global starvation with the worlds populace increasing over 7 billion. They were off by 30% and while there is starvation in the world, it is not nearly as pronounced as predicted. Let's not forget that according to the information that was being pushed on the first Earth day, we should be in an ice age right now.

(Moved above new comment to the bottom of the page, where it belongs.) It might be worthwhile to have a section for the changing focus of Earth Day over the years, although it might be little different from a history of ecology and climatology of the last four decades. But you probably shouldn't bother if your motive is an "environmentalists are stupid" agenda. Also, this is not the place for a scientific debate about climate change. Mycroft7 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"References in popular culture"

I removed the new "references in popular culture" section. It seems to me that Earth Day, and holidays in general, are too broad to have such a section be anywhere near exhaustive or particularly helpful. Consider "Christmas in popular culture" as an analogy. If you have a good argument to keep it, though, feel free to make it here and re-revert it. Mycroft7 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

An ED event in June

I recall attending an Earth Day event in the Commonwealth Institute in June some time in the middle 1990s. It was run by a MBS bunch, though I don't remember seeing Graham Wilson. Anyone know about it? I was puzzled the next year when I read about an Earth Day event on another date (which I now know was one of the original dates) also from a MBS source. 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

An ED event in June

I recall attending an Earth Day event in the Commonwealth Institute in June some time in the middle 1990s. It was run by a MBS bunch, though I don't remember seeing Graham Wilson. Anyone know about it? I was puzzled the next year when I read about an Earth Day event on another date (which I now know was one of the original dates) also from a MBS source. Froggo Zijgeb 02:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Lights Out America

Lights Out America is a new article that some of you might like to contribute to. Grundle2600 21:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Phrases such as "Americans were slurping leaded gas through massive V8 sedans" and "Industry belched out smoke and sludge with little fear of legal consequences or bad press" are certainly evocative, but they are not written in a neutral tone. I suggest a rewrite to present information in a less editorial fashion. (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of article improvements and recent rewrite

In the past two days Attoman (talk)[3] made a series of what look like good faith edits to this article that, in my opinion, removed too much encyclopedic content to stand as is, especially since no reasons were offered. There was also at least one apparent error introduced in the opening paragraph. The two bigest problems that I saw: there is no reference saying that Gaylord Nelson coined the name "Earth Day" in 1962 (although he did spur President Kennedy into greater conservation efforts then) and the section on the equinoctal Earth Day contains information that belongs in Wikipedia, although perhaps in a different article. This article has been the subject of major controversy in the past, so even though it is in need of improvement, it seems that major changes should be discussed here or should, at least, be justified with edit comments and new references. While looking at the article history, I saw that there had been a dozen IP vandal edits in the immediate past as well, all of which were quickly reverted. Perhaps this article should be semi-protected every April?--Hjal (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Attoman (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Hjal thanks for the welcome. In this particular instance I am an original source for the 1969-70 Earth Day events (not sure how I can securely prove this fact without exposing myself to people such as the conspiracy nuts I saw in earlier comments). I was one of the small group of people working in the national office.

I have not tried to duck the normal wiki process- I just don't understand it yet so have patience. I very much agree that the page should be frozen around Earth Day, given the mess it was in I'm glad it's getting some attention now.

The article was such a mess that I did a minimum clean-up. It really isn't done, its still scattered and hang dog but maybe that's how wiki articles are. I am working with the Senate Historian to try to chase down some of my fellow Earth Day cohorts and expect to have more details later this year. However I don't believe 1969-70 Original Earth Day should be over emphasized in this article. As far as the Nelson Earth Day quote I am trying to chase down the reputed Earth Day memo to JFK. I am more then willing that the reference should be removed as should the other reference (which I removed) claiming another had coined the phrase a couple months before the first Earth Day. Earth Day efforts started in 1969 we were working away with the Earth Day term and the Environmental Teach-In term from the begining which for me and the other "kids" was about October 1969.Attoman (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Attoman (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I see that all of the changes I made have been undone. The strange cast of Earth Day as a doppleganger is restored as if there were two national Earth Days in 1970 first the ghost in March and then the "other" April 22nd Earth Day. It isn't true. I'm sure there were many more then one Bill Clinon dancing at a reception in 1993 but only one of them commanded national interest and no historian worth her salt would permit such a treatment to pass review. If Wiki wants me to contribute to this particular subject as a principal source I am happy to do so. However I really don't want to rewrite those things I have done so someone needs to restore the edits I made to some place where it can continue to be developed. This needs to be completed well before Earth Day so that the present version can be replaced by something more nearl appropriate to the selebration of environmentalism held on the 22nd of April every year since 1970. Attoman (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How About Having Earth Day (Environmental Teach-In) and International Earth Day

All I know first hand about John McConnel ( JM Born 1915 David In) is that he had nothing to do with the national organization of the first Earth Day and Environmental Teach-In a national (not international) event held on April 22, 1970.

The information in the present Earth Day section clearly states that JM started Iternational Earth Day in conjunction with the UN. That's great these were two very different animals. The apparent dispute about whether Nelson or JM invented the Earth Day term can be historically resolved (I hope) but is inappropriate in an article trying to describe an historical event. Each event deserves its own space. One is distinctlyand only celebrated on April 22 and that is the one started by Gaylord Nelsonwhich I would like to see distinctly covered without reference within the body of the article to International Earth Day.

Perhaps both articles can reference the other in some single sentence way.

If we can agree on this it would set the stage for a consistent rewrite with JM's people contributing to International Earth Day and others (myself included) focused on Earth Day April 22nd. Can we get a consensus? Just how do such decisions get made and implemented? How did the Earth Day article get placed anyway? Attoman (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm going to break Earth Day into Two Articles and Stick It in the SandBox

I'll break them apart and if I don't get feedback in the Sandbox(who knows if this is the right place) I'll stick one and then the other on the Earth Day page and hope to get somebody's atention. Attoman (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It would be good to develop a consensus on the article names. I suggest Earth Day for this one (April 22) and Earth Day (equinox) for the other. Or is "equinoctial" better? Both could have a disambiguation line at the top and See also links to each other and to World Environment Day at the bottom.--Hjal (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The JM's seem to have used Equinox Earth Day within the present version so perhaps that would be best. Attoman (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Neat! I've now looked at World Environment Day (WED) a June celebration which neither refers to, acknowledges or links back to Earth Day. So to be consistent we should either separate all the Earth Days/ Environment Days or have them all link to each other. I like the fact that WED is clean and focused on its own history and future. So I would propose the same for the other two. Attoman (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Attoman (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC) I made the two versions Earth Day and Equinox Earth Day and not knowing how to put them in some place for review I just put them up and the bot booted them into history. So please look at them in the history area. Equinox Earth Day is a little lean and someone following that event may want to take it over ir at least add more history and present activities etc. I think it wouldbe good to make a new article for Equinox Earth Day, how do we do that? Attoman (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What Gaylord Nelson said about April 22 date selection

I am Gaylord Nelson's biographer, and question the mention that Fred Dutton first proposed Earth Day in a memo to President Kennedy. In all of the research for my book, "The Man From Clear Lake: Earth Day Founder Senator Gaylord Nelson," I did not hear about or run across such a memo or claim about Dutton. I will pursue it, but it needs documentation besides the site put up by his family, I believe.

As to the Lenin birthday claim this from my biography (

The right-wing John Birch Society did not like the date Nelson had chosen. April 22 was the 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Lenin, and Earth Day was nothing but an ill-disguised attempt by radicals to honor the revolutionary Communist leader, they claimed. “Subversive elements plan to make American children live in an environment that is good for them,” a Mississippi delegate to a Daughters of the American Revolution convention warned. Nelson had chosen the date as the one that could maximize participation on college campuses. He determined that the week of April 19-25 was the best bet. It did not fall during exams or spring breaks, did not conflict with religious holidays such as Easter or Passover, and was late enough in spring to have decent weather. More students were likely to be in class, and there would be less competition with other events mid-week, so he chose Wednesday, April 22. (“A Memento Mori to the Earth, Time, 4 May 1970, p. 16)

Nelson had no idea it was Lenin’s birthday, but he did some research and had a response ready when the question came up, as it did with some frequency. With only 365 days a year and 3.7 billion people in the world, every day was the birthday of ten million living people, Nelson explained. “On any given day, a lot of both good and bad people were born,” he said. “A person many consider the world’s first environmentalist, Saint Francis of Assisi, was born on April 22. So was Queen Isabella. More importantly, so was my Aunt Tillie.” His humor defused the question, but it continued to be asked, and some took it seriously. The Los Angeles City Council passed an Earth Day resolution on 20 April 1970, but only after sharp debate, and voting 8-6 for an amendment expressing “concern” about the date and a hope that the date would be changed in future years. ( ”City Council Gives Reluctant Backing to April 22 Earth Day,” Los Angeles Times, 21 April 1970) Xofferson (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Brazil's Official Aniversary of Portuguese Arrival

On April 22nd of 1500, the Portuguese explorer Pedro Álvares Cabral arrived at the current city of [[Porto Seguro in the current state of Bahia, in Brazil. This is considered officially the start up of the Portuguese colonization of Brazil. The orginal Earth Day was April 23rd, 1970 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Earth Day Network

Perhaps this article should mention Earth Day Network (it doens't have it's own article), as this moderately notable NPO was a direct offshoot of Earth Day. mwazzap 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

- Wow. Seems to me most of this article was in fact *written* by Earth Day Network (hence the one-sided-ness and the biased wording). After all: Yeah, there's where the bulk of this article pretty much came from, eh? USATODAY credits Earth Day Network for providing it. Therefore, I'd argue that either:

a) The first 1/2 of the article is a copyright violation against Earth Day Network and USATODAY.


b) The first 1/2 of this article is a chronicle of the "Glorious revolution" of Earth Day Network, and is about as propogandist as it all sounds, and belongs in a separate EDN entry with a severely worded caution about bias at the top of the article.

This stuff may count as journalistic impartiality at USAToday, but seriously, is that the goal of Wikipedia? "USAToday light"? Frankly, I was embarrassed to read this article. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia.

Evil cars "belching" smog, "Bridge Over Troubled Water", "sent the message loud and clear that citizens the world 'round wanted quick and decisive...", "The midnight ride of Denis Revere" [ok, I made that last one up]

  -tell me more, daddy!  tell me more!  
  Nope, it is way past bedtime kids!

I felt like I was reading straight from the Earth Day Network website, and then when I searched at Google, I found out that I *am* reading a giant, severely biased, word-loaded rip straight from EDN. Tisk tisk. So I guess it is OK for me to make that glorious "vanity page" about myself now? Everybody else is doing it. (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the lack of a reference to Ira Einhorn in the article?

I find it pretty unusual that there is no reference to Einhorn.

Geofferic 17:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Einhorn did his 1970 Earth Day work in Philadelphia. There were tens of thousands of local organizers. To call attention to one is to slight the others, to use Einhorn's later criminal convictions is inappropriate in the context of the original Earth Day and without meaning in 1990 (when he was long disassociated). Attoman (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Attoman

Ira Einhorn is the only name I've heard associated with Earth Day. Radio stations still try to call him up and talk to him about Earth Day and his criminal convictions, and he trys to only talk about Earth Day. He may have only been one of thousands, but only he gained any notariety. Gwar1999 (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Earth day stealth edit caught, documented

The Original Earth Day Proclomation said little about the environment. It was dedicated to the socialist ideas like targeting the evil rich and war. It was a hippy idea then and now and it is a political issue. Back then the thought was GLOBAL COOLING and the NEXT ICE AGE IS COMING. We better learn to discern the truth before these people come for our cars, houses and way of life here in America in the name of the environment. If you think I am over-reaching, think again! I discovered a flurry of uncommented edits on and around April 20, 2006 that I believe were meant to conceal the removal of the fact that the April 22nd, 1970 Environmental Teach-In that was to become Earth Day fell on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Lenin

The edit is here: And a better one is here: I have written a blog entry on this:

To the person(s) responsible: Wow, is Wikipedia that big a deal for you that you would conceal facts that make you uncomfortable? I suppose we ought to start on the revisionism history that shows that the Civil War was only about slavery, Poi Pot was a nice guy, no one feels that NASA's “Mission to Planet Earth” was a ploy to garner a larger budget, and the Kyoto Protocol is about making meaningful effective reductions in the CO2 emissions, and has nothing to do with “taxing” or “punishing” the rich nations of the world.

Thank you for rewriting Pravda for a new and brighter future!

-Standard Mischief 13:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think WIkipedia entertains conspiracy theory. __earth (Talk) 13:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The only conspiracy I see here is the effort taken to keep this fact off the article page. It looks like at least 6 different sockpuppets were used to hide the subterfuge, using various combinations of vandalism and constructive edits. I'm impressed by your effort. But I'm urging you to use your powers for good and not evil. Hiding facts to conceal the environmental extremism that may have existed back during the original Earth Day is wrong and makes your agenda look like collectivism through environmental action. -Standard Mischief 12:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey "earth" - snide remarks are no substitute for facts and logic. You were unable to refute anything Standard mischief wrote, so you resorted to empty rhetoric. You need to look up the definition of "conspiracy theory." Just don't look it up on Wikipedia. You'll probably find the wrong definition. Bargholz 05:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No. It's part of Wikipedia policy. Check out WP:ISNOT for more information. __earth (Talk) 06:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense, "Earth." You are an obvious ideologue who is trying to supress facts.Bargholz 12:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Searching WP:ISNOT, I can't seem to find “conspiracy” at all. Skimming the document, I find “Wikipedia is not censored”, furthermore, “ Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive”. 'Nuff said.
Looking at a calendar for April 1970, we see that the equinox, a logical day to have Earth Day on, fell on either the 20th or 21st , yet Earth Day is set on the 22th, which just happens to be the 100th of Lenin's Birthday. It's not like they delayed the celebration for the weekend either, as the 22th fell on a Wednesday. I have no proof that the date was picked as a stealth way to honor Lenin, but that coincidence IS nevertheless encyclopedic. -Standard Mischief 12:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Look under original research. This is not blog. It's an encyclopedia. __earth (Talk) 12:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Standard Mischief, I made some edits that noted the deliberate choice to hold the original anti-Vietnam War and environmental teach-in on Lenin's centenary. I tried to leave comments but screwed most of them up. I did leave some documentation below under the "Lenin Centenary" heading. My edit has been censored and the incorrect account of Earth day's origin is featured once again. Facts and logic are only obstacles to be overcome for the dishonest and dishonorable. Propaganda is very important to the weak minded. People who conceal their agendas do so for a reason. They know that their true agenda would be rejected by the vast majority, who prefer truth and reality to lies and fantasy. Bargholz 06:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Unlike our friend __earth, I won't edit as a sockpuppet. -Standard Mischief 12:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
wow. Do you have any proof of that? Oddly, however unlikely it is, you and Bargholz first started making edit around April 23. And both on this article. __earth (Talk) 12:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no proof that you were responsible for the sockpuppet subterfuge, but I wrote an open letter to the responsible party above, and you responded to it within 10 minutes. -Standard Mischief 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you run a IP check and see if the IP adresses are even on the same continent (the last time I check, the IP was from University of Texas. FYI, I'm currently in Asia. Alternatively, you could ask an admin to run a usercheck. In conclusion, unless you have proof (or source for that matter), I suggest you stop making false accusation or assertion. That includes your edit in Wikipedia. __earth (Talk) 14:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've not made any false accusations, I addressed my comments to the party(ies) responsible, and you alone have replied. So now you are claiming to not be the sock puppet master? And BTW, you could follow your own advice on the false accusations thingy. I see nothing but your own edits on __earth. If you are really "libertarian green" then our beliefs must be pretty close. I like the statement on sockpuppets. Oh, and check out Zombie computer. -Standard Mischief 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

earth, it's no mystery why the three of us addressed this article on the 23rd. That's the day after Earth Day. Of course, you probably have any changes flagged so you can rush in and distort the facts once again. Your agenda is clear. Bargholz 13:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And you agenda is not? All I ask for is a reliable citation and you are unable to come up with one. And cmon, please attack the point, not the person. And cmon, the more you commit to personal attack, more likely a third person will not agree with you. __earth (Talk) 13:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Earth, there is no need to get hysterical. My agenda is the truth. Yours is not. That's plain to see for anyone reading this page. If the founder of the first Earth Day, John McConnell (featured prominently in this very article,) isn't a reliable enough citation for you, then nothing is. But then, it's obvious that you will continue to elide any reference to environmentalists that is less than adoring. You didn't bother to address any of the documentation I provided below. McConnell publicly stated that Lenin's birth centenary may have been the reason that the second Earth Day was set on April 22, 1970. That fact is only inconvenient to you because it's unflattering for greens. Your projection concerning ad hominems is a juvenile attempt to influence any third party. Bargholz 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

where did you get the quotation? where is the source? Where is the proof that he said that? You still haven't sourced it. see WP:CITE because you don't seem to comprehend what citation actually is. And if you're speaking truthfully, where is the proof? Why is it so hard to give the source if you are speaking truthfully? __earth (Talk) 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, if since you still insist on name calling, I won't respond until a third party comes here. 15:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

earth, there is no need to insult my intelligence or insinuate that I'm a liar. Saya bukan orang Malaysia. I've sourced McConnell's comment. It was unnecessary of course, but it should stop you from suppressing this particular fact yet again. I notice that you don't demand sources or "proof" for any entry that flatters greens. My bit about the McConnell interview is one of the only sourced bits on the page. (It may be the only sourced bit.) Of course, we both know you aren't interested in accuracy. You have a clear ideological agenda and you will continue to push it dishonestly. Spare me any lies about name calling. You fool nobody. Bargholz 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

wow. Prejudice. Now I understand all of it. I don't have to answer to you anymore. I'm reporting all those personal attacks to the admin. __earth (Talk) 16:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Hypocrisy as well as bias. Again. I'm not surprised, as every comment you make drips with both. If you dislike prejudice, I suggest you work to end the institutionalized bigotry that bumiputras practice against hard-working ethnic Chinese and Indians, or the bigotry muslims practice against all other Malaysians. You might want to work on your radical environmental prejudice as well. It could prevent you from making so many inaccurate statements in the future. Bargholz 05:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose Malaysian affirmative action. So, there's no hypocrisy and prejudice on my side. Yours however is observable. I searched on the net for "Jeff Bargholz" and found this though I've no idea if that's you. I suggest your stop making assumption, racist remark, observe WP:Civility, apart from WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:CITE. If your observe that, perhaps you could be like Standard Mischief which has always kept up with civility despite disagreement. Nevertheless, the affirmative action has nothing to do with Earth Day, unless if you a conspiracy theory about it. __earth (Talk) 05:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Earth, once again you claim to be the victim while you're attacking me. That is hypocritical. I notice that you didn't address the oppression suffered by "infidels" in Malaysia. I don't recall making a racist remark but I do know that Malays are racially mixed. There is no Malay "race." My family is half Indonesian and none of us accuse others of racism just because they disagree with us. The false accusation of racism is commonly used to shut down all debate. If you cant counter someone's argument, just demonize them, right? You race hustlers never learn. I didn't make a connection between affirmative action and Earth Day. You did. You seem to be fond of conspiracy theories. Do you suppose those who disagree with your extremist ideology are all conspiracy theorists? I've told you before to stay on the topic of improving this entry. Not everything is about you. By the way, I write for this blog. Unlike you I don't try to distort Wiki entries to reflect my political views.Bargholz 00:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You said: "My family is half Indonesian and none of us accuse others of racism just because they disagree with us." However, you also said "there is no need to insult my intelligence or insinuate that I'm a liar. Saya bukan orang Malaysia." Is that not racism? That's not merely disagreement. And I've countered every argument of your. And it's not me who did the personal attack because somebody is unable to come up with a good reply. That's like calling all Malaysians are liars. If there's not connection, why bring it up here in an unrelated page? And what about those that disagree with your extremists views? What is so extreme about asking for citation according to WP:CITE? And who cares which blog you writes? You're not Karl Popper - you're just another person on the internet. Like you said, not everything is about you. And infidels, wow. Just to say, I have a secular point of view. I don't view any supremacist idea. Unlike this person. Is that you? User:GarywBush is somewhat like that too. Until he got into trouble with some admin. __earth (Talk) 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How many times do i have to tell you that I'm not interested in pointless arguing? This discussion page is meant to be about Earth Day, not your fragile ego. This is the last time I'm going to reply to your off-topic insults. The next time you try to bait me I'm going to ignore you. Just to make you happy, here goes; 1. Malaysia is not a race. Get over yourself. 2. Lying is a deeply ingrained part of Malay culture. I lived in Indonesia for many years and I've been all over the archipelago, including Malaysian borneo and mainland Malaysia. You are a perfect example. If you find lying offensive, stop doing it. Like I wrote, my family is half (Malay) Indonesian, so you cant snow me. 3. You have countered nothing. You're like the guy lying on the ground bleeding who says he whipped the other guy. Lies are only effective if the other person buys into them - and I'm not buying. 4. My views are not extremist. They are shared by a majority of my fellow Americans. My ideology is even more poular worldwide, particularly in the Third World, where political correctness is considered both incomprehensible and asinine by the vast, vast majority. 5. You aked if I wrote something you found with a Google search of my name. I referred you to the blog I write for so that you could get an idea of who I am. If you don't care what I write, don't Google search my name to find out about me and don't ask me if I wrote that comment with someone else's name on it. 6. Karl Popper is dead. 7. Your point of view is obvious. What have you done to aid oppressed "infidels" in your country, and why do you ridicule the idea? I figure a self-righteous guy like you must be donating a great deal of your time, money and effort to help them. (That was sarcasm.) 8. Yes, I'm Jeff Bargholz. Why do you ask? You don't care what I write, remember? Nothing I wrote promoted supremacist thought. I have no desire to suppress others. I truly wish the world's basket case countries would join the 21st century. The whole world would be much better off. If you believe all countries and cultures are equal, that's your problem. Having been to Malaysia, I know how deluded Malaysian society is concerning its imagined superiority to its neighbors. Except for Singapore of course, which is greatly envied. Reading your comments I see nothing that sets you apart from the common Malaysian cultural conceit. Which part of what I wrote did you disagree with? If you think Western Culture isn't the best I suggest you log-off, throw your computer away, ditch all your modern appurtenances and head to the desa for a traditional lifestyle. Do you think Malaysians should give up what they have and go back to living in huts and long houses? People around the world emulate Western Culture, not the other way around. There's a reason for this. If you don't like Western Culture, don't emulate it. Just don't expect the rest of the world to follow suit. 9. I don't know who GarywBush is, or why you feel the need to bring him up. As I've stated, my politically incorrect views reflect the majority view. Bogus science environmentalism does not. 10. Despite your empty threat, I'm not worried about getting into "trouble with some admin." I'm not sure why they would be upset over something I wrote on a blog, nor how they could cause me any trouble. I am sure that you'd like to see that.

Gotta go. I'm not going to engage in any more of these pointless arguments, so enjoy this comment while you can. The next time you flame me, I'm going to ignore it. Cheers. Bargholz 06:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange. You said "This discussion page is meant to be about Earth Day". But it's you that brought up things about Malaysia and "infidel" and stuff. And looks who's talking about "this is about Earth Day. So in the end, its obvious this all this not about Earth Day all for you. It about your prejudice. And you ideology is not supported by worldwide. That's just you saying trying to pat yourself on the back. And why am I lying when all I asked was citation and you're unable to do so? Usually, those that are unable to cite are lying instead.
  1. That does still doesn't stop you from being prejudice. Read racism as to why to your attitude is racism. It doesn't have to be against race. As usually, read before you write. Despite all this, yet, in your number 2, expressed racism against the Malays. You don't check what you write, do you? (nothing to do with Earth Day article - 1)
  2. That's just your prejudice. If being Malay means lying all the time, that means you'd be a liar too. If you think all Malaysians are liar, check Corruption Perceptions Index. See the difference between Malaysia and Indonesia. If you're really an Indonesian, reflect on yourselves first... (nothing to do with Earth Day article - 2)
  3. I've cited all my sources. Have you? Instead, you tried to remove them. Even a third person agrees with me. Again, cite your assertion and don't call other ppl as liar if you unable to back up your claim.
  4. Oh really? White supremacist is shared by ppl all around the world? What next? KKK is supported by majority of people? My suggestion, travel more. (nothing to do with Earth Day article - 3)
  5. A result about you supporting white supremacist really builds up a resume isn't it? (nothing to do with Earth Day article - 4)
  6. Karl Popper is dead and is read. You are alive and nobody cares. (nothing to do with Earth Day article - 5)
  7. I have more "infidel" friends than Malays or Muslims. I haven't ridicule my fellow Malaysians. You however have. (nothing to do with Earth Day article - 6)
  8. Well, Japanese is not western. And your point 8 is a great example for a third person to see your prejudice. I iterate my suggestion, travel more. (nothing to do with Earth Day article - 7)
  9. Just similar. The best thing is "my politically incorrect views reflect the majority view". nuff said. (nothing to do with Earth Day article - 8)
  10. Not an empty threat. Already been reported here and here.

In conclusion. Out of 10 points, 8 of them are irrelevant to the article. All these prove that you're not interested in improving the article. You're only interested in investing in your white superiority ideal. But it's good if you are not replying. This page is in need of a little peace. __earth (Talk) 09:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Standard Mischief, I made the edits again, but this time I did a much better job. I added the anti-Vietnam War aspect of the original teach-in and some background info on Hayes. Hayes was a radical anti-war protester at Stanford. He also thinks capitalism is bad (Except when he benefits from it,) and cars should be outlawed. Earth is already busy cencoring my edits. I'm going to contact the staff at Wiki. I suggest you do the same thing. If the connection to Arbor Day and Spring Break are pertinent, so is the connection to Lenin's centenary, which tellingly fell on a Wednesday, as you pointed out. If Leonardo DiCaprio is important enough to mention for his part in Earth Day decades later, known communist Pete Seeger's part in its creation is important. Bargholz 12:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Earth, since you obviously have no intention of discussing the facts surrounding Earth Day, I'm forced to seek arbitration. Your selective censorship adversely affects the quality of this site.Bargholz 12:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm sure the admin would consider WP:NOT. __earth (Talk) 12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I've placed a request for a third opinion. You may edit the request if you want too. It's at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements __earth (Talk) 13:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion: I'm afraid the stuff about the choice of dates smells a bit like original research. Remember that the threshold for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Currently, the disputed paragraphs read like speculation and theories; they need to be sourced. Ideally they should be something like "such and such a group (source identifying said group and showing that they hold that opinion) suggests that the day was chosen to commemorate the centenary of Lenin's birth, while others (another source showing that group's opinion) says that it was other stuff entirely" and so on. What's most in need is evidence that someone thinks that Earth Day was deliberately chosen to co-incide with Lenin's birthday (probably the most contentious point) rather than just a co-incedence being spotted later by some sort of conspiracy theorist. --Scott Wilson 15:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott, I sourced McConnell's comment that April 22, 1970, may have been chosen to coincide with the CENTENARY of Lenin's birth, not his birthday, which you claimed was the most contentious. There are far too many verifiable groups and individuals who believe this is the case to list them all. Most of them are strongly conservative sources - are you sure you think I should source them? Do you believe every statement made on Wiki should include an opposing statement, like on FOX NEWS? As the founder of the first Earth Day, McConnell is the most profound and unimpeachable source, no matter how badly some here would like to believe otherwise. To waste more space on this minor but relevant point would detract from the overall entry. There is not a single sentence I added that contains speculation. Please provide an example to the contrary. I find it highly suspect that a third party chosen by the clearly partisan earth (his entry page is rife with praise of greens, while his actions here border on fanaticism,) would demand that I source my easily verifiable facts while not demanding the same of others. The other events listed as coinciding with April 22 are incorrect and un-sourced - yet you do not demand that they be sourced. Arbor Day is not celebrated on April 22. It is celebrated on the last Friday of April, which seldom falls on the 22nd. The claim that the 22nd may have been chosen with Spring Break in mind is both wrong and un-sourced! By April 22, 1970, Spring break was largely finished. Students were back on campus in large numbers, which is why some people (including some of the event's organizers,) claim the 22nd was chosen. Others (Again, some of the event's organizers,) claim that the 22nd was chosen because Spring Break was still going on. The problems with this entry have been problems of omission. The fact that Nelson modeled the Environmental Teach-In on anti-Vietnam War teach-ins was omitted. (The term "teach-in" was coined by anti-war activists.) The fact that protesting the war was a high priority at the teach-in was omitted. (It was also an integral facet of the Spring equinox event.) The presence of Marxists and outright communists as speakers at most of the event's locations has been ommited. The extremist nature of Mr Hayes was omitted, as was his history of anti-Vietnam War activities. (He helped to lead more than 1,000 students in a campus takeover of a weapons-research laboratory while at Stanford and advocated a ban on automobiles at the 1970 teach-in.) Most importantly, that fact that the event coincided with Lenin's birth centenary was omitted while other, far more trivial, events that simply fell on the same day were featured prominently. Events that were both incorrect and unsourced. You obviously don't know what a conspiracy theory is. There is no conspiracy to link the Centenary of Lenin's birth to the 1970 teach-in. The link is the date and its plain to see. It could very easily be argued that people have conspired to obscure and deny the link - on this very page entry. The coincidence you cite was noted by McConnell and many other earnest environmentalists right away. Nelson, Hayes, et al. refused to change the date of their Earth Day for following years despite polite pleas by McConnell and others to do so.

My revisions were minor and necessary. Thay have improved the quality of this entry. Nothing you've written here rebuts this. In fact, your criticisms are extremely specious. Are you aware of the egregious flaws in your reasoning, or are they deliberate? I've been honest here and I expect an honest answer. Bargholz 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There may be a lot of sources. Pick the best one or two, and cite them. Also please note that I say that all the reasons for the choice of day should be sourced. I was merely choosing the centenary of Lenin's birth (which again, I acknowledged, if you read my comment closely) as on of the most contentious examples. --Scott Wilson 17:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My source is still cited. There is still no source listed for the Spring Break/Final Exams choice of date (not day) and the Arbor Day "reason" is still incorrect. You did not harp on the centenary of lenin's birth, you harped on his birthday. (Again, I already pointed out the difference, which you should know if you read my comment closely.) So much for honesty. Bargholz 18:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

wow, you guys seem to have lots of time...

Yeah. If you want to make a conspiracy theory, please make a more entertaining one. You know the day chosen is also the anniversary of Henry VIII's accent to the throne? Must be a protestant conspiracy! What non-sense. Use your excess energy to grind your teeth smooth like regular nut-cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asa bender (talkcontribs) 03:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


The article is protected since April, 13. Now it's the Earth Day and a lot of people will read the article and try to edit it. Notwithstanding vandalism, I think it's beneficial to unprotect the page, in the same way we unprotect featured articles when they are on the main page. I post here for a discussion before bringing this to WP:RPP. CenariumTalk 14:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to the protection being lifted if people think it's a good idea to remove it. Acalamari 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it wasn't a good idea to lift it. I came here and saw the page was blanked and somebody else reverted before I could. Good job. Probably will need protection at least all day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection has never been lift since, the vandalism threat was too high it seems. It was a unique opportunity to have good contributions, but vandalism is too overwhelming by there. CenariumTalk 09:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection, as has been done in prior years, because over two days about 30 of the 50 edits were IP vandalism, and all but one of the other 20 visible on the history list were reverts of vandalism. Even though a lot of people have this page on their watch lists, there were significant bits of vandalism on the page much of the time. If the article was improved to GA status or better, perhaps it would be easier to protect, since the more subtle vandalism and POV edits would stand out more clearly. I'm planning to split the Equinoctial Earth Day into a separate article next month.--Hjal (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC) yo mama —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[[Media:-- (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Example.oggSuperscript text

Small Text


Earth WEEK

Is it possible to add 6 more days to Earth Day to make it a Week?

no, you cant change the lenght of a day just like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokborkbokr (talkcontribs) 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

First Earth Day Birthday Source

Eddie Albert's birthday?!?! is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. Is there no other source for this? (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Albert birthday claim is unverified

Here is the original claim which cites a public wiki as a source:

  • April 22 was the birthday of actor Eddie Albert. Because of Eddie Albert's early work with environmental causes and groups, when International Earth Day was created, it was decided it must be held on April 22 because that is his birthday. [1]

--Caltrop (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Other dates for Earth Day

March 20?

i heard that march 20th is another day that earth day is celebrated, is this true?

An ED event in June

I recall attending an Earth Day event in the Commonwealth Institute in June some time in the middle 1990s. It was run by a MBS bunch, though I don't remember seeing Graham Wilson. Anyone know about it? I was puzzled the next year when I read about an Earth Day event on another date (which I now know was one of the original dates) also from a MBS source.

An Earth Day on March 28, 2009

An article in the Basingstoke Gazette newspaper (Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK) on Thursday, February 5, 2009 entitled "Residents urged to take part in lights switch-off" (p.24) talked about an Earth Day Community Project on the same day as Earth Hour (March 28, 2009). AndrewRH (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in Earth Day Network description

It seems like the Earth Day Network description is written like an advertisement-- you agree69.92.50.50 (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Theres a Clean Green Energy Day Global Energy Independence Day too!

Earth Day is fine! But Clean Energy is better! We must find sustainablke and Clean Green energy and fuels and vehicles! To stop Global warming and pollution .In the US Nikola Tesla day Jul.10th(InSerbia and Croatia) the birthdate of the great energy inventior Nikola Tesla(1856-1943) is celebrated as Global Energy Independence Day.An "Earth Day" for new and Clean Green DickZ!Andreisme (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Edson

Día de la Tierra

I don't know how "official" it is Earth Day in Spain (Día de la Tierra), but its celebration is being promoted at basic, public schools. Private TV is pushing towards its recognition, as well (documentary channels chiefly). Bruno Unna (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction needs rewriting

Quoted here: "Earth Day, celebrated April 22, is a day designed to inspire awareness and appreciation for the Earth's environment. It is held annually during both spring in the northern hemisphere and autumn in the southern hemisphere."

Ok so Earth Day is held each year during both spring and autumn... however in the previous sentance it says it is held April 22. Which is it? Once or twice a year? This needs clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it is quite clear... when it is spring in the northern hemisphere, in the southern hemisphere it is autumn, due to the tilt of the Earth's axis relative to the plane of revolution. Also, when it is summer in the northern hemisphere, in the southern hemisphere it is winter. I hope this will help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Earth Day is April 22 chosen as a good target weekend in 1969 for the 1970 event Initial team headed by Linda Billings and some other staff from Gaylord Nelson's Washington D.C. office

Attoman (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Earth Day originally called the Environmental Teach-in was patterned after the Vietnam Teach-ins and meant to focus concerns on broad environmental problems (not global warming or cooling neither of which had been well established in 1969). Denis Hayes was hired as the Spokesman for the teach-in with the responsibility to travel the college circuit nd set up operations on each participating campus and city.

Factual Error

Theta in the Earth Flag - this symbol DOES NOT represent "peace" or "warning". Theta was used because of its historic association with the Greek word “thanatos” (death), in the same way that skull and crossbones are used in modern times. The neutrality of this article is a BIG concern, it seems like it was taken out of globalist, "new world order" playbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The History section still has an NPOV tag, even though the sentences that originally prompted it have now been removed. Does anyone see anything still non-neutral about the section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Organic agriculture, Everyday is Earth day

I'd like to see more data about how organic agriculture practices help the planet's environment on the Earth day article. Also, how can manufacturers, farms, processors and consumers work to lessen environmental impacts. (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti Global Warming talk in article??? (Under History)

Hey everybody,

I have a problem with this line... --Five months before the first April 22 Earth Day, on Sunday, November 30, 1969, The New York Times carried a lengthy article by Gladwin Hill reporting on the rising hysteria of "global cooling"--

There is no citation for this line. The line does not fit the rest of the history section, but it does sounds like an attack on global warming and I think it needs to be removed immediately. This was not a reason for starting earth day.

--Everybodylol (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I did some searching and it appears that the line was vandalised in Revision as of 17:41, 27 March 2009 I can't fix the problem, can somebody please change it back??

--Everybodylol (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term American

What exactly does the phrase "Approximately 20 million Americans participated..." (in the History section)? I suspect the phrase refers to the USA. If so, this is a frequent complain from people who, like me, were born in the *continent* called America, but not in the USA. Using the name of the continent as if it was the name of a certain country doesn't help the full comprehension of the article. Bruno Unna (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is very common for a word to have several meaning that must be differentiated by context. The United States of America is commonly refered to as "America", just as the United States of Mexico is commonly called "Mexico". Citizens of the United States of America are commonly called "Americans," just as Citizens of the United States of Mexico are commonly called Mexicans. This realy doesn't seem to be a problem.

Alan.A.Mick (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Einhorn was active in ecological groups and was an icon of the counterculture, anti-establishment and anti-war movements of the 1960s and 1970s. At one time, he was a friend and contemporary of Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman. He also claimed to have been instrumental in creating Earth Day in 1970, and during the first Earth Day event, which was televised globally, Ira Einhorn was on stage as master of ceremonies, although other event organizers dispute his account.[1] He was known to some of his friends as "the Unicorn" because the name Einhorn (a German-Jewish name) means "unicorn".

Born into a middle-class Jewish family, Einhorn studied at the University of Pennsylvania and had a five-year relationship with Holly Maddux, a graduate of Bryn Mawr College who was originally from Tyler, Texas. In 1977, Maddux broke up with Einhorn. She went to New York City and became involved with Saul Lapidus. When Einhorn found out about this, he angrily called Maddux to come back to Philadelphia to retrieve her belongings. She went back to Philadelphia, but was never seen in public again.

When questioned, Einhorn told police that Maddux had left to go to the store but never came back. His alibi began to crack, however, when neighbors began to complain about a foul odor coming from Einhorn's Powelton Village apartment. Eighteen months later, Maddux's decomposing corpse was found by police in a trunk stored in a closet in Einhorn's apartment. Einhorn's bail was set at $40,000 at the request of his attorney, Arlen Specter; Einhorn was released from custody in advance of his trial by paying 10% of the bond's value, or $4,000. This bail was paid, not by Einhorn, but by Barbara Bronfman, a Montreal socialite and a member of the family that owns the Seagram liquor company.

In 1981, just days before his murder trial was to begin, Einhorn skipped bail and fled to Europe. Einhorn traveled in Europe for the next 16 years, along the way marrying a Swedish woman named Annika Flodin. Back in Pennsylvania, as Einhorn had already been arraigned, the state convicted him in absentia in 1993 for the murder of Maddux. Einhorn was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How does this not make anyone hate earth day? A cold-blooded murderer helped found it. -KC

This is known as "poisoning the well," i.e., concluding an entity must be bad because someone or something associated with it is bad.Carlaclaws (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Predictions from 1970

I'm a little troubled by the predictions from 1970 section. Given that all the predictions are sourced from a single article representing a minority viewpoint and would seem to have been selected to show Earth Day in a particular light, might they be better located under the criticism section, perhaps with mention of the context. Unless of course there is reason to think that they really do make a fair and balanced representation of Earth Day circa 1970... Jay - 24th April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In fact the relatively discursive magazine article used as a reference seems to have been distilled since it was published in 2000 into a set of talking points for right-wing commentators such as Glenn Beck. It could either be changed to “concerns at the time of the first Earth Days” with a balanced discussion of that or moved to criticisms and changed to something like “some critics have highlighted failed predictions of disasters such as global cooling made by organizers of the 1970 event”. For a bit more about the history, there is an interview with the founder Denis Hayes here: [4] Billwilson5060 (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Those selected points sound reasonable to me (since I was there, then); the world has changed since then. Global cooling and the coming Ice Age were real concerns, starvation, population. Peak Oil was taken more seriously than it is now. The Population Bomb ... the author was considered by many to be exaggerating. Your time would be better spent researching the individual points and finding RS for them, rather than assuming that they were the minority POV then. Most of the work would have to be done in libraries, though, as little of that time has been made available on-line. Newspaper archives might be a source. The Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth, too. htom (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with OtterSmith. I think the predictions could stay under their own heading if some context were added. If the article explained why these predictions weren't realized, some of the appearance of POV would be gone. It seems to me that some of these predictions were erroneous because the science behind them was flawed at the time, but others didn't occur precisely because increased awareness worldwide has slowed some adverse impacts, and even reversed a few. For example: global restrictions on certain fisheries have allowed them to recover to the point that they can again be harvested sustainably. In some places, water is much cleaner than it was in 1970. A lack of potable water was a real crisis in many places in 1970. Around the world farmers are using integrated pest management methods, and no-till, organic, and permaculture farming are all on the rise. Even in the poorest countries, farmers are being educated about sustainability. All of these things may have contributed to a reprieve from widespread famine.
At least some of the worlds' forests that were destined for destruction are now protected; others are better managed. Even the worst timber companies are required to replant trees, even if they do not plant real habitats. I could give several more examples, and provide sources if anyone needs to see them.
However, the it is clear that the predictions were selected precisely because they were so far off. If we keep the section, we need to include several predictions that were reasonably accurate.
If someone more qualified wants to undertake these changes, fine. Otherwise, I'll give it a stab myself in a few weeks if others agree.Carlaclaws (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts. It is a fact that those predictions were made. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but other predictions were made, and some were accurate. Some of the predictions that didn't come true may have been valid nonetheless based on the circumstances at the time. This information should be included.Carlaclaws (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have a citation for those other predictions, please add them to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Predictions from science should always be sceptically treated. How much skepticism is appropriate is always a problem, but to never have it is almost certain error. (Unlike predictions from politicians, whose predictions should also be treated skeptically, and perhaps more so than those of scientists.) htom (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Time magazine from 1970 suggests the issues mentioned in the predictions were not especially significant, and cooling is only mentioned alongside the emergent warming theory.[5] Billwilson5060 (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The predictions are relevant, just as the predictions in the global warming article are relevant. The fact that the Earth Day predictions failed to come true is no reason to remove them from the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested removing them as of yet, only helping keep the entry neutral by moving them and/or including some context to reflect that they have been selected in order to support a critical position. That said, if the source is questionable then removal should, of course, be an option. Hopefully embellishing the predictions to reflect their critical intent is acceptable. I like Billwillson5060's suggested additional text, which could perhaps be improved slightly by specifically identifying the article and author that compiled the list of predictions rather than referring to 'some critics' ie something along the lines of "Writing in Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey highlighted failed predictions of disasters such as global cooling made by organizers of the 1970 event...” - Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the question is how the POVs that the quotes undermine current environmental warnings and not should be presented. WP:NPOV states that "significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" should be reflected. The view that the quotes are not significant because global cooling was never a widespread threat etc has not been published in the same way as the opposite view has, which means that it doesn't get included; to merely draw the the conclusion from the Time article or other 1970 material would risk infringing WP:OR. So what I would suggest for the moment is putting the quotes in context but without any additional change. Billwilson5060 (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


FYI, the story of the Ecology Flag is dealt with in two places here, once above in the April 22 section, and below, in the history of April 22 observances. Some material is identical, but didn't remove either, in deference to those who have been editing this article for a while.

I did remove a line that seemed taken from a press release or event flier: "Earth Day 2000 sent the message loud and clear that citizens the world 'round wanted quick and decisive action on clean energy" and which is oddly phrased ("round"?) POV ("loud and clear") and is entirely uncited. There are many other uncited notations in that same section that need attention, though other sections are quite well cited and the article on the whole is very well done. Nhprman 22:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Who came up with Earth Day?

On The June 20-21st edition of This American Life, it was claimed that Julian Koenig came up with the name "Earth Day". This is supported by an article on, but there is no mention of Koenig on claims that the idea actually belonged to a man named Joe Floyd who read an article about an event that Environmental Teach-In held in 1969. Can anyone find a definitive source, preferably a independent third-party reliable source? --Mblumber (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification in the Intro Paragraph?

When the article states that Earth Day is for "appreciation for the Earth's environment" it could be misinterpreted as a holiday for Outer Space or the Solar System because that's Earth's environment, or we could simply fix this by saying appreciation for the environment on the Earth. Just a thought. Invmog (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Albert

There is a consensus on the Eddie Albert page that he played a notable role in founding Earth Day.
I confess that I'm skeptical, but I've now included this "fact" on the Earth Day page, along with citation provided.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerns around earth day 1970 section deleted

I deleted this section, since it doens't actually show a representative set of concerns around 1970, but simply repeats cherry-picked (and unsourced) quotes collected by Glenn Beck and a Reason magazine editor long after the fact for their particular editorial purposes. Might be appropriate in an article about them, but definitely not NPOV for this section.

A suitable substitute might be to look at representative mass media articles actually published during the time, and summarize major themes with specific cites of articles (instead of just picking citation-less quotes chosen to make a specific point some 30+ years later). (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Bravo on your reasoning! Say no more....

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I was uncomfortable with the list when it was added (about the day this year), but didn't see the case for removal since it is a view that has been expressed that these predictions undermine other claims. Of course, they are not representative of Earth Day c. 1970 - as a starting point there is Time magazine here [6], which mentions global cooling only alongside the emergent warming theory and is mostly about air and water pollution without (IIRC) any of the quotes mentioned, or an interview with the founder here [7]. Billwilson5060 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


make pupils awer about the issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Earth Day Network

I am wondering why Earth Day Network does not have its own article page? Other major international environmental groups have their own Wikipedia articles, ex. WWF. There seems to be limited content on the organization under this article (for example, there is no reference to what the organization actually does, including its campaigns such as Athletes for the Earth and Billion Acts of Green). The information that is presented centers more on the organization anyway. In the context of this article, it probably would be better to establish the link between Earth Day and Earth Day Network and then send users to a separate, more exhaustive article on Earth Day Network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


Jeez! When I added a bit to, and slightly rearranged (mainly for grammar and common sense) the Lenin-birthday segment, and threw in some stuff about the run-up and aftermath of the 1970 observance, I had NO idea there was all this discussion raging behind my ass.

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 the stuff about Reds and Greens, most of which I rewrote or added a couple of weeks ago, really doesn't belong here. I took it out. As you can see from my last note here, I do think it's a significant discussion, well worth including in an appropriate spot in Wikipedia - possibly under Green politics (or green politics with a small G), which I haven't checked out yet. The point is that the Lenin's birthday issue is, and always was, more a trivia item than a central point - until someone can prove otherwise, for example by finding a substantial clue in documents dating back to the planning of the first Earth Day and setting the date. But even if the coincidence was remarked on by any Earth Day organizers at the time, and even if they actually made a point of setting the date to coincide with the Lenin centenary, I'd STILL dispute its significance! Is that because I'm an idiot or a Leninist (or both)? No, it's because I'd attribute it to meaningless revolutionary posturing, which was almost universally indulged in by everyone who was playing around with (substitute "engaged in" if you prefer) politics at that particular moment. It would have been intended as an inside joke. It would almost certainly not, however, have been a genuinely Leninist inside joke, because actual Leninists were as rare as hen's teeth among American political activists at that time, other than a few Old Left labor organizers and CPUSA types who probably would have regarded Earth Day as a petit bourgeois distraction from the main issues of supporting Moscow and Hanoi (and Havana etc) in their struggle against capitalist aggression (I'm putting words in their mouths). Communists didn't even like the uprising in France in 1968, in which a lot of workers as well as students were trying to overthrow the government - it was too spontaneous. Earth Day probably would have been beneath contempt. SDS didn't even like Earth Day! [8]

I would not discourage right-wing Wikipedians from using articles to red-bait environmentalists. But red-baiting is an evolved art form, with its own traditions and standards. It shouldn't be done haphazardly, or it's pointless name-calling. To see how to do it well, and learn by example, check out The Schwarz Report, named in honor of Dr. Fred Schawrz, published by the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade (founded 1953) - they can be contacted at P.O. Box 129, Manitou Spring, CO 80829, phone (719) 685-9043. I am not endorsing their point of view, just saying I think they do a good job and sometimes come up with some substantial burbs arguments, and they have a grasp of the philosophical issues too. - Chelydra

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).


Guess what, gang! In drifting around the 'net I somehow found myself comtemplating an on-line translation of Lenin's philosophical polemic, Empiro-Criticism and Materialism (I think I was searching for Haeckel) and there it is - EVIDENCE of an indirect connection between Lenin and ecology! Ernst Haeckel is the guy who coined the word ecology - in 1899 or so Haeckel wrote The Riddle of the Universe, an exercise in popular science writing that had a huge impact on public opinion, according to Lenin - Lenin had a lot of left-handed (what other kind would you expect from him?) compliments for Haeckel, even devoting a chapter to a near-endorsement of Haeckel's book, on the grounds that it took a strong stand in favor of materialism and natural science, as opposed to the sort of airy-fairy "New Age" thinking being promoted by Lenin's target, Ernst Mach (himself a scientist, but a bit of a mystic). So there we go!

However, I still think that any evidence of a conscious attempt by Earth Day's organizers to keep their date on Lenin's 100th birthday should be dismissed as irrelevant radical posturing, like the waving of Viet Cong flags and such, which was quite fashionable and quite meaningless at that moment 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 remember celebrating Earth Day before I went into the USMC, so it started (perhaps not by a Senator eager to lead the parade that was already marching) in 1967 or 1968.

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.

Earth Day Anthem

There is an Earth Day anthem at

Just FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (talkcontribs) 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. (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. (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.[2] 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?[3] 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)
I agree with Benzocane and others that the insistence on overemphasizing Philadelphia and the removal of sourced information pertaining to Hayes begins to look like POV edits and compromises the article. SlipperyN (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad we were able to reach a compromise. I'm not sure there has been any removal of sourced information, but I do know that there is considerable debate over the respective contributions and credit taken/given for work on the first and subsequent Earth Days. If I can find some online sources, I'll add them. Peter54321 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


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)

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? (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The Red Cross flag is not in use in Muslim countries (nor in Israel) – not even in (constitutionally) secular Turkey. Who thought of such a “detail” in Henri Dunant’s days ? Today, we tend to think more globally – like the ecologists.:-)
Cyrusc who swapped the two flags created by Ron Cobb, probably misunderstood my arguments. I would still advocate the consultation of some other WP projects to see which flag is the dominant one.
And I have nothing against the fact that John McConnell is also a US citizen. Hirpex (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Saviohrodrigues, 22 April 2010


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 (talk) 15:43, 22 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 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)

I think:
"It is now observed in 175 countries, and coordinated by the nonprofit Earth Day Network, according to whom Earth Day is now 'the largest secular holiday in the world, celebrated by more than a half billion people every year.'[30] Environmental groups have sought to make Earth Day into a day of action which changes human behavior and provokes policy changes.[31]"
should be changed. From their website they state "More than 1 billion people now participate in Earth Day activities each year, making it the largest civic observance in the world.". From which is very different to what is state in the article. There is probably something done in the UK it's just probably small. -- (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ira Einhorn

Why no mention at all of Ira Einhorn in the article? — Loadmaster (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. While some of a certain persuasion may doubt Ira's involvement in the murder he's accused of (based solely on a claim by Ira that the whole situation was a CIA frame-job), it is not only widely-accepted that Ira was involved in the creation of Earth Day in 1970, but it has been suggested that those who dispute this have motive not to include him in historical accounts. This Earth Day article would be more complete and more accurate if Ira's involvement was included somewhere. (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, the lack of any information about Einhorn puzzles me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I added two very brief mentions of Ira Einhorn (one mentioning him in the larger context, and one mentioning him in context with other notable participants in the Philadelphia rally where he spoke) and they were edited out by Fat & Happy with a note that it was "unsourced". I'm adding them back in with a source. Wikiwriter80132 —Preceding undated comment added 03:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC).

Earth Day Anthem?

On what basis was this anthem section included today? There's no citation for it's established use beyond what appears to be a link to the blog of its creator. Lacking some external source demonstrating this 'anthem' is accepted as a common element of the Earth Day movement, I strongly advocate this subsection's removal.
K10wnstaz (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Who deleted my edit today?

I don't know how you can tell the story of "Earth Day" without acknowledging how massively in error the founders were in their basic understanding of the natural systems about which they pontificated with an air of such unimpeachable authority. I take it I have offended some of the "faithful", who've succeeded in locking me out of editing this propaganda piece for the time being.

Trust me. I am not going away.

I reprint my edit here.

Another criticism has focused on the exaggerated claims made by leading environmentalists during Earth Day ceremonies which the passage of time have shown to be untrue. Some of the more prominent examples from the very first Earth Day in 1970 include:

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”

• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Critics believe that the tendency of environmental activists to engage in scientifically unsupported claims to advance radical social agendas deprive the environmental movement of the credibility it needs to foster a more reasoned and less politicized consideration of environmental issues.

Lockforward (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Lockforward

I don't see any recent edits from you on this page (at least not within the past 500 edits). If you have a point of view to push however, we are unlikely to put in this edit. However, if this article truly is biased, we will rewrite it.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, the original edit was here, with a typo corrected here, apparently both before User:Lockforward registered, then reverted here. While interesting, for Wikipedia purposes it would probably be considered original reserch and synthesis. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Also WP:NPOV.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The list originated with Ron Bailey of Reason Magazine, and there was some discussion about it at that time of year in 2009 - this is in the archives. Billwilson5060 (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Reason magazine "was named one of the 50 best magazines in 2003 and 2004 by the Chicago Tribune.[1][2]" Csww22 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Simply including quotes like that is undue weight. Several quotes alone does not an article section make. See WP:MOS.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's NPOV policy states: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." Csww22 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you take a look at WP:UNDUE? In any case, your edit does not comply with our manual of style - there are better ways to convey those points of view.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Broken link for footnote 6, possible replacement

The article by Timothy Brown that was linked at the US State Department website doesn't exist anymore, but the text is still available at a US embassy URL. I just now retrieved it -

Since the article is protected, I can't fix this. It would be nice to fix this without a great deal of delay.

David Roknich (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fat&Happy (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

George Lois versus Julian Koenig

I notice there is some edit warring going on around this issue.

So what's the status? Does This American Life constitute a source valid enough to replace Lois with Koenig, or what? Jordan Bettis (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted the fact that Koenig had any involvement in the Earth Day discussion. It was more likely his ad partner. Really, the origin is unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraglasstalk1 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The origin was in spring of 1968; fixed in my memory because I walked about the MSU campus handing out daisies with my girl friend. That summer I left for the USMC (fixing the year) and didn't get to do that again with her. Who started it ... in those days we did things without designated leaders. My guess is that it was an outgrowth of the California flower, love, and lust fests. htom (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs table for when Earth Day is scheduled in future years

Knowing well in advance when celebrations are planned can add to synergy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Table not needed. This is an encyclopedia, not a community calendar. Besides, it's easy enough to remember: It's on the birthday of V.I. Lenin, enslaver of millions. — QuicksilverT @ 14:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the table is not really needed. It's going to be on the same date every year for a while, and this is mentioned clearly in the lead. But, QS, I'm picking up a distinct "troll" vibe from your posts. Please be civil. Thanks. Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Earth Day ideas:

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If you need some ideas on what to do about Earth Day, this song is pretty helpful (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"allegedly pioneered" in the lead

Lovin' the "..allegedly pioneered by John McConnell..." in the lead section. Is there any hope that this allegation will be adjudicated in some manner such that the good name of Mr. McConnell is not at risk of being sullied unfairly? Unless there is some sourcing to the dispute, which surely is a candidate to be covered, can we remove the 'allegedly' from that statement. The Earth Day proclamation ([[9]]) signed by many notables seems like pretty good word that McConnell was at least one of the early influencers in the topic.Cander0000 (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty bad. But most of the article focuses on Gaylord Nelson as the founder. I'm not sure what role John MacConnell played. I don't have time to find out at the moment, but I thought I would at least respond. Buttonwillowite (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 April 2012

The original Earth Day in 1970 was celebrated on the centennial anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Lenin.

Nicholsda (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Danger High voltage! 22:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2012 - "Earth Day ecology flag" section

Under the "Earth Day ecology flag" section, the Earth Day symbol is repeatedly referred to as a theta. Instead, it should probably be mentioned that it is reminiscent of a theta, and then - from there on - referred to solely as the Earth Day symbol. Without a source to indicate that the theta is an appropriate replacement, I would also remove the section reading, 'Theta would later become associated with Earth Day, which is appropriate due to the fact that theta is the eighth letter of the Greek alphabet and there are eight letters in "Earth Day".' because as far as this reader can tell, this exists as an speculative attempt to reach for an association between the two symbols (other than their similar display).

Plusperturbatio (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Plusperturbatio, I've made a couple edits that are approximately what you asked for. I didn't change "theta" over to Earth Day Symbol, because it's called the Ecology Symbol in the image caption. Which of these is the correct name? Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes, Ecology Symbol seems to be correct. [Drawing of Ecology Symbol] - I searched for a more relevant url, however that appears to be the best copy of the original drawing that I could find this morning; I think your edits are sufficient, though - the clarification that it looks much like a theta but is strictly not one was the only item I thought really needed to be changed. Thank you! Plusperturbatio (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks for making the request! It's a shame the article had to be protected, but I suppose it stopped some vandalism.. Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

See Chemists Celebrate Earth Day. Not independently notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


There are a lot of pictures of white males here. Can we get at least one image focussing on a person of color? Just a thought. Buttonwillowite (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: No. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for you to push a point of view. Just stick to facts and be sure they can be backed up with reliable sources. — QuicksilverT @ 14:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Not including a world-wide perspective is also pushing a point of view. There are supposedly 175 countries that participate, but I don't see any representation of this in the images. Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
More generally, for such a monstrously worldwide event, the text focuses too much on the US. Onanoff (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)