Talk:Environmental movement#Article title

:In the interests of allowing for the ease of discussion please sign your entry.

:Please add new comments to the bottom. The "+" tag next to the "edit this page" tag will do this automatically.

40px This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbooogi.

{{small|Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}

== Criticisms: sources? ==

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

• [http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2012/July-August%202012/sculpting-abstract.html Sculpting Solutions: Art–Science Collaborations in Sustainability] by Mrill Ingram in July-August 2012 Environment magazine.

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

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

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

:Have made a few tweaks, towards further globalizing the article. Despite the helpful additions, it remains US-centric and in need of further restructuring. Some of the material in the US section may be more appropriate in the Environmental movement in the United States article. A summary of key perspectives from related articles on Australia, New Zealand and South Africa would be useful to add here, too. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

::Article structure remains rather jumbled, with broad overview information, then country-specific information, then topical information. There are, in my opinion, probably too many different -- and diverse -- subtopics included within this article at present. Reorganization needed... Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Discussion top|1=The result of this discussion was to merge Ecology movement into Environmental movement. Karmos (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}}

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

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

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

{{Discussion bottom}}

In the text it states:

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

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

In the Deep green environmentalism article, we can then put the following:

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

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

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

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

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

( Marimara93 (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC) )

user:Gravuritas gave some terms while editing. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_movement&action=history Edit History])

I googled "Rag & bone environment", I found this: [http://www.ragandbonebindery.com/green.aspx] & with "responsible care management system", this: [http://responsiblecare.americanchemistry.com/Responsible-Care-Program-Elements/Management-System-and-Certification/default.aspx]. Not sure if it is the right content. (I might add it when I have time. You can add it if you want...) -- Petorial (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

:Sorry if I was rather short & cryptic in the edit note. I thought that the claims that interest in recycling etc was new, and business's interest in environmental issues was new, were inaccurate. The responsible care management system was launched by the chemical industry in 1986, for instance. And 'Rag and Bone' men drove round the streets in the UK, buying up stuff and selling/recycling it until about 50 years ago. And re-using vehicle parts from a car-breaker used to be much more common than it is now. While many new re-use/ recycle initiatives are to be welcomed, there should be no pretending that this never happened before. The little chunk I deleted from the article was making that claim.

:Gravuritas (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

::Pardon me that I misunderstood you! I got something via googling and I thought they might be useful if they are related to the topic, but I am not confident enough to do the editing so I left a note here. Thanks for the clarification! :D -- Petorial (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I performed the merge. Very little was salvageable material—either unsourced or unsourced and biased. I'd encourage those who are interested to look back at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecology_movement&oldid=587241473|old version of the ecology movement page] and rework and find sources for unsourced material. Karmos (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on Environmental movement. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=678242745 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927003158/http://www.gis.net/~rwe/links.html to http://www.gis.net/~rwe/links.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100721082740/http://www.creationcare.org:80/resources/scripture.php to http://www.creationcare.org/resources/scripture.php

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Environmental movement. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=801780627 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140806070246/http://www.visitcumbria.com/rawnsley.htm to http://www.visitcumbria.com/rawnsley.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120602185018/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/servlet/file/store5/item740098/version1/National%20Trust%20Acts%201907-1971%20post%20Order%202005.pdf to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/servlet/file/store5/item740098/version1/National%20Trust%20Acts%201907-1971%20post%20Order%202005.pdf

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{archive bottom}}

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Fitchburg_State_University/Media,_Activism,_and_Social_Movements_(Spring_2023) | assignments = Enina24 | reviewers = KeeLgd, Marcplummer82 | start_date = 2023-01-17 | end_date = 2023-05-17 }}

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

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Cincinnati/Preparatory_Composition_(Fall_2024) | assignments = Monmon07 | start_date = 2024-08-27 | end_date = 2024-12-12 }}

— Assignment last updated by Monmon07 (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the further reading list as I find it not useful. It's rambling, US-centric, not curated, and some entries don't even contain a publication nor a URL. It might have been somewhat useful in the days when Wikipedia articles didn't have in-line citations. But nowadays it's not adding value. EMsmile (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Brinkley, Douglas. Silent Spring Revolution: John F. Kennedy, Rachel Carson, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and the Great Environmental Awakening (2022) [https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Spring-Revolution-Environmental-Awakening/dp/0063212919/ excerpt]
• Gottlieb, Robert. Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement. (Island Press, 1993(). ISBN 978-1559638326
• Guha, Ramachandra. Environmentalism: A Global History, (Longman, 1999)
• Kennedy, Emily Huddart. Eco-Types: Five Ways of Caring about the Environment (Princeton UP, 2013) Finds five responses: Eco-Engaged (highly engaged moralistic liberals); Self-Effacing (concerned, but doubt they can do much); Optimists (conservatives comfortable with today's environment); Fatalists (pessimists); and the Indifferent (who just don't care)., Longman.
• Hawken, Paul. Blessed Unrest, (Penguin., 2007)
• Martin, Laura. 2022. Wild by Design: The Rise of Ecological Restoration. (Harvard UP, 2022) ISBN 9780674979420
• Kamieniecki, Sheldon, ed. Environmental Politics in the International Arena: Movements, Parties, Organizations, and Policy, (SUNY Press, 1993) {{ISBN|0-7914-1664-X}}

• Kennedy, Emily Huddart. Eco-Types: Five Ways of Caring about the Environment (Princeton UP, 2013) Finds five responses: Eco-Engaged (highly engaged moralistic liberals); Self-Effacing (concerned, but doubt they can do much); Optimists (conservatives comfortable with today's environment); Fatalists (pessimists); and the Indifferent (who just don't care).
• Kline, Benjamin. First Along the River: A brief history of the U.S. environmental movement (4th ed. 2011)
• McCormick, John. 1995. The Global Environmental Movement, London: John Wiley.
• Rosier, Paul C. Environmental Justice in North America (Routledge, 2024) [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=60255 online book review]
• Shabecoff, Philip. A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement, (Island Press, 2003) {{ISBN|1-55963-437-5}}
• Taylor, Dorceta. The Rise of the American Conservation Movement. (Duke UP, 2016.), ISBN 978-0-8223-6198-5
• {{cite book | last=de Steiguer | first=Joseph E. | title=The origins of modern environmental thought | publisher=University of Arizona Press | location=Tucson | year=2006 | isbn=978-0-8165-2461-7 | oclc=64486430 }}
• Wapner, Paul. Environmental Activism and World Civil Politics(SUNY Press, 1996){{ISBN|0-7914-2790-0}}

EMsmile (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I notice the earlier discussion on merging this article with environmentalism from a year ago. If I had seen it then, I probably would have supported a merger. There was no consensus at the time. If we keep them separate then I think we should tighten them up and be clear why we need two articles. For example, the two history sections have a lot of overlap and essentially talk about the same thing.

I therefore suggest the move the history section from here in its entirety over to environmentalism and to just leave a link across. An alternative approach would be to try to delineate a history of "environmentalism" as distinct from a history of "environmental movement" but I really don't see how this could be done.

My approach would be to rework the two articles so that environmentalism would be the overarching parent article and environmental movement would become a daughter article which is mostly just talking about the situation by country. Perhaps even rename it to environmental movement by country. See also my comment about the previous version of "environmentalists" which I put here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Environmentalism#Move_anything_from_environmentalist?

Pinging some people who were previously involved in the merger discussion: User:FatalSubjectivities, User:Arcahaeoindris, User:Klbrain, User:Tytire, User:Sebbog13. EMsmile (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Update: I've done a bit of work on this article now in parallel with work on environmentalism. With regards to the content in the history section I noticed:

:*There was a lot of the same text under history here and in the history section of environmentalism.

:*There was a lot of content that was actually about England but written as if it was somehow global in nature. Hence this article was (like many Wikipedia articles) very much Global North focused, as if the developments in Europe and the United States were all that mattered globally.

:What I've changed now:

:*I moved the history content that was specific for the UK further down in the article into a new country section called "United Kingdom".

:*I moved history content from here to environmentalism; often times I found it was already there, i.e. the exact same content was in both articles.

:*I re-arranged it so that the main article for the history content is now environmentalism with only a small text block and link remaining here.

:This is still work in progress. I found a lot of content (in both articles) that was poorly written, unsourced, outdated, too specific for one country, essay-like from students and so forth. EMsmile (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)