Talk:Earth First!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Earth First! article.
Article policies
Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Start This page is rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article is rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

This article seems too based in favor of Earth First. -Joseph (Talk) 12:39, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

And how! I was at first decided to nominate the entire article for deletion, but I think it needs to be more hands-off. Would anyone informed care to add some criticism to this article? I'd do it myself, if dealing with tree-huggers didn't make my gut react badly. Dave1898 02:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is competely and irredeemably biased. Your NPOV warning was even deleted. I've reinserted it.--12.74.187.177 05:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, actually it's pretty neutral, at least more so than your edits labelling them terrorists. Please don't. If you really want to discuss it, start a new section on this talk page and list some specific reasons. Otherwise I'm removing the tag tomorrow. The Ungovernable Force 05:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If dealing with 'tree-huggers' make's your gut react badly, you're opinions are most likely biased. Compared to the statements by and against earthfirsters, this article is one of the most objective discussions of the movement I've come across. As simply a name used to rally persons behind environmental causes, participants' 'morality' ranges across the spectrum.--Un wiki 19:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. There is no mention of their eco-terrorist tactic of tree spiking designed to kill. maim or injure innocent people lawfully going about their jobs. The article is hardly the makings of balanced presentation and reads more like choc-o-block copy of Earth First's website. --12.74.187.177 05:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Made edits to give a more NPOV. Needs cleaning up, but for now I have removed the npov tag.I already forgot 11:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It is still very biased, and uses Weasel words, for example: "Enraged at the sell-out by mainstream enviros during the RARE II (the Forest Service's Roadless Area and Review Evaluation) meetings, the activists envisaged a revolutionary movement to set aside multi-million acre ecological preserves all across the United States."
"Sell-out" is a very biased term. Also, there is no mention whatsoever about the lawsuits that have been brought against Earth First members, or arrests for "terrorist" actions (police terms, not mine) and for spiking of trees and so forth. I refuse to edit, because admins with an agenda just come along and delete everything without any just cause. 76.185.123.23 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged deaths

The charge that Earth First! caused three deaths must be presented as one POV. Actually, even presenting it at all, without any supporting reference, is dubious, but I'm assuming good faith until someone can add a citation. JamesMLane 14:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical about this claim, as I've read many books discussing Earth (including critical ones) and have never seen this specific claim. Also it's generally understood tree-spiking targets the milling side of things, not the loggers. I'm not sure what James meant by a citation -- if he meant a counter-citation...well it's hard to dispute something when you have nothing cited to dispute. Unless someone expresses something to the contrary (e.g. a citation or good reason not to), and given the clear POV in it's initial wording ("As part of thier ecodefense program they have been directly responsible for the death of people. Three loggers were murdered in Northern California as a result of "spiking" the trees they were cutting down. These tactics are deplorable. Murder is NOT justifiable for any cause."), I'm strongly inclined to remove it. Mahonia 10:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No, by a citation I meant support for the assertion that opponents had made this charge. An example would be a link to newspaper article in which Hoggish Greedly, the chairman of the Environmental Exploiters Association, is quoted as saying that three loggers died. I raised this point almost two months ago, and no citation has been forthcoming. Accordingly, I'll now delete the passage. If Hoggish or one of his ilk actually did make the charge, it can certainly be restored to the article, but only if presented as a charge (not stated as a fact) and supported by a citation. JamesMLane 16:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It may help, you say lower that the action update is not online. Anyone wanting to do the research could go to http://www.eco-action.org/efau/aulast.html I no longer have access so I can't fix the site navigation, but if you go to the link 'download' you can get archives of the whole lot. Well 1997 to 2000 anyway. The complete mirror includes images too.

If Ive done this wrong can someone put it in the right place in the discussion? Thanks Andy

I don't think it matters if you are "very skeptical about this claim" Mahonia, what matters are the facts. I have worked in a logging mill, and run a portable mill on site myself and I can tell you that spikes could very easily cause serious injury to the operator. Carbide teeth are braised on and when they hit a spike it can cause them to fly off at a very high rate of speed, effectively turning them into shrapnel. If one where to hit someone's eye or the temple, or the neck, serious injury or death is possible. A man at the mill I worked at was working the saw when it hit a very large (antique) nail and two teeth lodged into his cheek and arm. He was rushed to the hospital, and was ok after some stitches, but he could have lost an eye or worse. Also, hitting a spike with a very large chain saw could easily send the blade into the legs, neck or face... again causing injury or death. So... spiking trees is a VERY serious act, a crime, regardless of whether you are operating a chain saw or a mill.76.185.123.23 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That is not doubted (after all thats the point, isnt it - a spiked tree is worthless/dangerous for milling thus remains uncut?), but is not the point here. The point is whether spiking done by EF caused injury or death, who says so, and whether reliable sources can be found for these claims. Also "These tactics are deplorable. Murder is NOT justifiable for any cause" is just an opinion and has no place in an encyclopedia --84.159.140.98 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earth First! in the UK

Please source. The roadcamps were not an earth First movement and it looks like you have claimed that things having nothing to do with this group were in fact done by this Earth First. Please therefore source the claims you make in the section or it will be removed, SqueakBox 23:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

> how can you source something that's not necessarily been written about! I'll just go and remove myself.

Wow that was quick, I only did the first edit of the articl a few min ago. I do agree that there is maybe a bit more involved histry and the name Earth First! is associated with all the actions mentioned. Ceratinly groups who call them seleves Earth First have participated in all the actions mentioned. Tywford down was initally started by members of earth first, (I knew the instigators and I attended). Certainly a large number of the participants at these protests subscribed to EF action update and attended Earth First! gathering.

I'm thinking of moveing this section to a seperate article documenting the history of environmental direct action in the UK. Still not sure of the best title. I'll try and souce, but it may take some time, it being xmas.

--Pfafrich 23:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

see my book Earth First! and the anti-roads movement for evidence of EF!/roads protest link

--Derek Wall80.189.21.163 21:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Earth First! in Britain is made up of the individuals and groups that decide they are part of it, so it's hard to say things like "things having nothing to do with this group", because it's not as simple as being a group.

From personal involvement in road protest (& other stuff) throughout the 90s, there were Earth First!ers and groups involved in anti-road camps. Of course there were other people who didn't define themselves as EF!ers involved too. No-one has made a claim that they were an EF! thing I think, so no-one need get touchy about it I hope. If you want sources, well it's kinda tricky for something which is so recent/current and (luckily?) has had relatively few academic/journalistic interpretations. Check out the EF! Action Update for huge numbers of sources, unfortunately not online though some articles will be on Weed's anti-roads pages; also Do or Die.

I think we need to separate Earth First! from the wider 'Direct Action Movement'. Whilst EF! is a non-membership organisation, there are particular EF! groups about the place who do have meetings and plan as group etc. EF! was not really involved with the Mnachester Airpost campaign, although many people who were there had been in EF! groups and all were of the Direct Action philosophy. There was a Manchester EF! group which did do some actions to support the campaign, but these were minor and fairly ineffective. These people are easy to separate from the protestors as they went home to their own beds at night rather than living in the trees. The anti-GM campaign though was a big EF! campaign, possibly the last that the movement as a distinct group has undertaken. Although not the only people campaigning against GM thier clandestine nightime raids on test crops was a distinct EF! tactic that marked them out from Greenpeace, Genetic Ploughshares and the other organisations. Another point is the the EF! publication Action Update just prints what it wants. Many of the actions listed are not carried out by actual EF! groups, but by other similar groups. As someone on the edge of the movement in the late 1990s I'd be happy to collaborate on improving this article. Martin Porter

> Ah. Well, it's all as clear as mud, but then everything's subjective, eh. There were many many EF!ers involved in the Manchester Airport campaign - some of them went home to their beds at night (not that that's a bad thing - diverse lives and commitments and all that), and others moved to the camps and lived in trees. So it's in fact simplistic to divide people by what kind of bed they sleep in!! Saying support actions were "fairly ineffective" might be your take, but we could say that the diversity of lots of actions, camp-based or off-site, together, make an effective campaign... The EF!AU prints what it wants, as does all media (with their own advertising-influenced etc biases) - 'cos an action's in it, doesn't mean it's been claimed: compare it with a mainstream newspaper...

Good to have someone to help. I agree that the position of earth first is confusing. As a way of trying to get the relative contributions of the different groups correct, I've created another page Environmental direct action in the United Kingdom, which is currently an orphan page, with much the same content as here. Ideally the page could describe the history of the movement from the 1990's onwards, without making it specifically Earth First! related. The time seems right to document history of this important movement. --Salix alba (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'll try and get cracking on this. The problem is going to be references. As I've said I would value my own experiences above EF! publications but that's not really on! I think the three main strands I'll look at first are (in the order of their appearance) EF!, the anti-roads movement and Reclaim the Streets. I don't really know how to divide up the subject but I suppose methods of organisation, tactics and ideology are the main ones. The first two are relatively easy to define, the latter isn't. Martin TheSoupdragon 10:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

> Yes it is on. Primary source material is at least as valid as something that someone's got a publishing deal for - of course there may be more divergent opinions, but that's only 'cos there's more of them, rather than just the one that's got the academic/publishing contacts!

I think I would also recommend we separate EF! in Britain from EF! in the US. As people have already said it's hard to discuss British EF! without bringing in other british movements, whilst the connections with the US are extremely tenuous. their is also something of an ideological difference - in the US EF! was initially 'rednecks for wilderness' and latterly very much identified with Deep Ecology, which has only been of periferal relevance in the UK.TheSoupdragon 13:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

> agree.

[edit] research paper

I have been working on a paper regarding, what some consider radical environmentalism verses conservative environmentalism. This had lead me to researching Earth First! and the Sierra Club. I originally thought Earth First! to be extreme,therefore, a radical organization. After reading numerous articles, viewing the Biscuit protest videos and reading Derek Wall's book "Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movement Radical environmentalism and comparative social movements" I must say I would have to complete more research just to make an unbiased judgement. I sure political and government officials and big corporations would say different. I am not saying ecotage is always the right tactic but were would the United States be without sabotage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.242.30 (talk • contribs)


[edit] Fall Creek/Red Cloud Thunder Tree-Village

Anyone know about the above protest/tree-village? There is some content at Category:Tree Village which is about to be speedy deleted. I've copied some content to Tree sitting and a complete copy to my user space at User:Salix alba/Tree Village. If anyone knows more about these protests, with sources, they may be worth an individual article. --Salix alba (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorists? No

Please see similar discussion on the ELF and ALF talk pages. The consensus is to not label these groups as terrorists. I didn't revert your last edit because I don't want this to be an edit war. I did add a fact tag to at least draw attention to the fact that that specific claim is disputed. But I highly suggest you revert yourself.

It is not our place to label groups as terrorists. You can say that "Such and such has called Earth First! terrorists" but you can't say they are terrorists. Again, we don't even label al-Qaeda terrorists. Your edits are not neutral (and in my opinion are inaccurate). Earth First! has not hurt anyone purposefully (and perhaps not even accidentally, as the tree spiking injury talked about on that page may not have even been by an environmentalist). I seriously doubt anyone has ever died as a result of EF! actions. It's ridiculous to call them terrorists. And modern EF! doesn't even do sabotage anymore--that's the ELF's domain. And again, we don't even label ELF as terrorists, and you have to agree that EF! is tame compared to ELF. The Ungovernable Force 07:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't restore the terrorist thing without a reliable source. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
How about:
  • "Violence and the Environment: The Case of 'Earth First!' ," Martha F. Lee, Autumn 1995, Journal of Terrorism and Political Violence, (London)
  • "Eco-terrorism sweeps the American west / Bryan Denson and James Long.," Bryan Denson, (The Oregonian, 1999.)
  • Taylor, Bron, 1998. Religion, Violence and Radical Environmentalism: From Earth First! to the Unabomber to the Earth Liberation Front, Terrorism and Political Violence 10(4):1-42
  • "Protesters Carry the Fight to Executives' Homes", ALEX MARKELS, December 7, 2003, New York Times
(more are easy to find) n.b. EF! has disavowed terrorist tactics, Judi Bari and Darryl Cherneyand were vindicated, and most of the viable charges are from the 1980s and early 1990s in any case, but there are plenty of "reliable sources" calling it a terrorist org, even if they're wrong. Your POV shames Wikipedia and environmentalism. -- User:Anonymous_for_fear_of_reprisal 08:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever my POV is, I'm glad you don't agree with it. [1] SlimVirgin (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, but I do [2] -- User:Anonymous_for_fear_of_reprisal 08:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Still, we can't label them as terrorists. You can say who has, but you can't say they are. The Ungovernable Force 08:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You are of course correct. Just making a point about drive-by reverts by biased editors, willfully ignorant of the facts (unwilling to do a simple Google search before reverting), especially those with dangerously sharp admin tools. -- User:Anonymous_for_fear_of_reprisal 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't have any admin tools since I'm not an admin (and I was the first to revert it). Anyway, it wasn't "drive-by" or inherently biased (even if I do think it's incorrect). I have al-Qaeda watched so I can do the same thing, even though I think they are terrorists. I also don't go and call the US Army terrorists on their page, even though I feel that way. I was also largely responsible for getting rid of the label of "hate group" from the Westboro Baptist Church page, even though I think they are. This is a matter of neutrality. Anyways, I know quite a bit about Earth First! and have done a school project on them in fact. They are not terrorists by any stretch of the imagination. Criminals yes, but terrorists no. That term has lost all meaning by being cheapened and applied to every Dick and Jane who does anything that goes against the status quo. It's the new "communism" to be applied against any enemy you have. But in terms of it's real meaning, Earth First can't be called terrorists. The worst of their actions included destroying logging equipment and making tree's unusable by spiking them (and they virtually always warned loggers that they had done so). They did not use violence to cause terror, they used property destruction to hit the pockets of developers. Even if you consider destroying property to be violent, they are very, very, very mild terrorists (which is overused anyway, like I said). The Ungovernable Force 09:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is both inconsistent and beside the point. To summarize: 1) You claim a background of neutrality toward groups that you admittedly don't like; 2) You claim to know something about Earth First!; 3) You claim the word "terrorist" has lost its meaning through overuse; 4) You state the opinion that Earth First! cannot or should not be called terrorists, based on your own original research, while admitting or alleging that they are "criminals"; and finally 5) You state they could in fact be terrorists, though "mild" ones. I would suggest that you review the logic of your argument. However, it is beside the point because your opinion and/or original research about whether or not EF! is a terrorist organiztion is irrelevant here. Wikipedia reports on the opinions of reliable sources, such as those in the citations above. And in any case, they statement would not be "EF is a terrorist organization" but "The FBI called EF a terrorist organization in 19xx" or some such. Note that I haven't edited the article -- I find this a tempest in a teapot -- I'm just supplying information. -- -- User:Anonymous_for_fear_of_reprisal 22:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with "The FBI called EF a terrorist organization in 19xx" as long as there is a source. I was debating about the edits that were actually made to the article (which did not say who considered them terrorists, but merely pulled the label out of thin air). As to your other points
  • 1: There is a difference between having an opinion and remaining neutral while editing an encyclopedia, which is what I was trying to demonstrate. Just because I think George W. Bush is just as bad as if not worse than Osama bin Laden in terms of his terrorist activity, I would never put something like that in an encyclopedia article that aims for neutrality. Everyone has opinions, so does that mean we should abandon the policies regarding neutrality here? No, it means we need to admit our biases and try to put them aside while editing pages. I don't label any groups/individuals as terrorists because it is inherently biased and violates neutrality.
  • 2: Yes, I do.
  • 3: Yes, I did. I've even written an essay on the subject.
  • 4: I agree, it is irrelevant. Again, my main reason for saying they should not be considered terrrorists was and still remains that it is not neutral for wikipedia to say "X is a terrorist" unless it says "Y says X is a terrorist (Appropriate citation)" regardless of whether I think X is a terrorist or not. That further information was merely a side point in case someone decided to overlook the main issue (which happens a lot). I felt that if someone won't listen to the appeal to neutrality, I could at least show them why it doesn't make sense to label this specific group terrorists, even if we did do it for others (which we don't). And yes, I admit that EF!ers often engages in criminal activity. So did MLK Jr, but few would call him a terrorist. This is exactly what I mean when I say the term terrorist has lost it's meaning--any time someone breaks the law to further a political cause it is conflated with terrorism, which is BS in my opinion.
  • 5: I purposefully prefaced that with "even if you consider destroying property to be violent..." because I do not believe that property destruction is anywhere near as violent as many of the legal activities in this society. I was making a consession to people who might not agree with my own ethical views regarding property and it's destruction in certain circumstances. The Ungovernable Force 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are terrorists, they're listed AS Single Issue Terrorists/Domestic Terrorists by the FBI and the US Dept. of Homeland Security. Martial Law 04:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the southern California tractor bomber, known as Riccardo

I've removed the anon addition (most notably the southern California tractor bomber, known as Riccardo), I could not find anything relavant in google, the closest was [3] but that turn out to be a fictional character in and RPG. --82.138.219.137 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard about it, so it's probably not "most [notable]". I'd guess it's a joke. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time magazine Forest Defenders

Time magazine has a photo essay TIME: Forest Defenders with 9 slides of various forest protests. Probably not worth including in main article but worth a look. One interesting caption: The Bush Administration has opened areas of Oregon's Siskiyou National Forest for logging, despite being sued by the governers of Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and California under the National Environmental Protection Act..

Maybe there is a need for a more general article on anit-logging protest, as its not just EF which does this. --Salix alba (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of references in media outlets/trivia

I removed the list that originally started at the bottom of the article. If anyone objects go ahead and rv the change and lets discussed the reasons for keeping the list. --I already forgot 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Although I cleaned it up and moved it from the bottom the article, I agree with the removal. Arbitrary bits of trivia don't seem helpful for understanding the topic. Burlywood 20:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why no link up with Green anarchism?

Just curious why EF isn't linked to Green anarchism? Seems like a fruitful connection. I'd call EF! one of Eco-anarchism's leading exponents. --Dylanfly 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point I connected it both ways....Albion moonlight 08:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorists? No - again.

Re: the arguments a while back about labelling EF as "terrorists", versus simply noting that other organizations have labelled them as "terrorists" - I think there's a third option.

If, say, the FBI labels them "terrorists", the article can report that fact - i.e., the fact that the FBI labels them such - but only if it also provides in sufficient detail the FBI's proof or reasons for labelling them such, if they happen to have any; and then examines the proof provided by the FBI, making points countering the FBI's proof if there are any.

Flat-out labelling is always misleading, and I hope that tactic never infiltrates Wikipedia to turn us into yet another propaganda tool. However, if someone has e.g. really truly blown something up, and was actually convicted of it, and an organization has publicly declared their support of this person's action, and the FBI has made the argument that because of that declaration of public support they consider the organization to be "terrorist", that's useful info to have in the article, as long as the full disclosure of why is in there.

If, however, someone has e.g. only been accused of blowing something up, or if the organization has not publicly declared their support of something despite the FBI's assertion that they have, or the FBI is simply labelling without offering any proof whatsoever; or, if the FBI is only labelling them as "terrorist" because some members have been proven to also be members of a completely different organization that goes around performing legal demonstrations at animal testing labs; or if the organization hasn't publicly said anything, but they're being labelled because some self-identified "members" or "fellow-travellers" have personally advocated violence; then while it is still useful information to report that the "FBI labels them terrorists", all of the counter-arguments should be put forward in the article to provide full disclosure to the reader.

And all while obeying WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're workin' pretty hard there to rationalize away the "terrorist" label, but unfortunatly they fit the description (child molester don't think they are doing anything wrong either). See the argument over at the ELF article for discusstion. Proxy User (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Most governments fit "the" definition as well. Murderbike (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This 'famous' FBI ref is talking about the ELF, a radical group that came out of EF. The EF movement is not mentioned as being eco-terrorists anywhere.  Channel ®    17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, please note that the government of China presently labels the Dalai Lama a terrorist. I'm sure Aung Sun Soo Kyi is labelled a terrorist in Burma. I'm sure the French justified blowing up the Rainbow Warrior because it was involved in terrorism. Meanwhile, supposed IRA "terorists" had complete freedom of movement in the US while their organization was involved in bombings in London. If you would like to write "Earth First was declared a terrorist organization by the FBI in a memorandum dated X.X.XX", and give the proper reference, providing balance with statements from other people disputing that to illustrate that the "terorist" definition is in dispute, then you've given us a great factual statement that's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. But "EF are terrorists" is not even remotely WP:NPOV. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)