Talk:Ecofascism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Neutrality dispute
See Discussion. If anyone cares to do this article in a intelligent way that is not 50% nazi quotes please feel free. The dangerous sides of ecoterrorism can be covered in the ecoterrorism article. And the nazi belief in animal rights can be covered in the Facism/ Nation socailist article, As are their beliefs in banning abortion and other issues valid to today's politcal landscape. I Hope someone with greater authority/knowledge of editing can remove this article as ti serves no purpose. Its topics are fragmented from others and is mroe a politcal rant then a intelligent non-bias article. All articles on wikipedia must be held up to a high degree of fareness. This article by showing one side and stating opinion as fact as breached this trust and untill someone can vastly rework it There is no reason for this to be in a encyclopedia. Please take this kind of arguement to a politics forum not a refrence source. See discussion. this page is (was) so incredibly biased and poorly written that I deleted the info. If anyone wants to edit it to be less of a rant and more of an article, go ahead.
Will anyone complain if I add the POV template? Sinatra Fonzarelli 07:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Removing this page if someone wants to cover the dangerous sides of ecoterrorism they should do it in the eco terrorism article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.31.11.162 (talk • contribs).
I'm going to need some specific and actionable criticism from people willing to help work on the article if the dispute header is to stay... Sam Spade 15:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quotes section
As far as I can see the last two quotes listed (from the Earth First! Newsletter and the Stewart Brand Whole Earth Catalogue) aren't specifically related to Ecofascism, but rather to the misanthropic strands of deep ecology and the anti-technological beliefs of primitivism respectively. Both of these are often labelled as Ecofascist philosophies by opponents, but are, in my opinion, not strictly speaking relevant, and only serve to further cloud an already foggy issue. If no-one objects I will remove both of these quotes and replace them with more directly relevant quotations pertaining to Ecofascist philosophy. --Belzub, 22 April 2006, 17:02 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced reference
Who are the "some" who have accused John Michell of ecofascism? If not sourced, this sentence should be deleted.Rodparkes 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV check, worldwide view
This article seems to be biased against environmentalists, and contains guilt by association and/or stereotyping of environmentalists as Nazis. It seems to proclaim associations that aren't true, and to make prejudicial insinuations. To provide an analogy, it reminds me of the derision of communism and the stereotyping of many things as being communist. I suggest this article be reviewed by both pro-environmentalists and anti-environmentalists. --Wykypydya 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The article does need some sources for some of its assertions. Beyond that this appears a far more NPOV article than older versions, which were badly worded and may have implied that ecofascism and radical environmentalism were the same thing. The current version is more nuanced and gives a pretty accurate overview of what contexts the term is used, at least in the intro. Some of the specific examples of modern accusations need sources and there are some statements, such as the one that says the Nazis were at the forefront of conservation, that are debatable at best or possibly factually untrue. The main problem I can see other than that is the examples of modern accusations of ecofascism mix accusations coming from opponents of environmentalism on the right (who see deep ecology and concerns over population growth as ecofascist) and those coming from the political left (who see Third Way, David Icke etc. as ecofascist) without identifying the source of the accusations. Dragomiloff 03:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
