Talk:Eco-terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Eco-terrorism is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Carlos?

What does the final section ("On the 18 January 1982, in France, unidentifed attackers fired five rockets at the nuclear central Superphenix. Years later, Chaïm Nissim, former ecologist deputy from nearby Geneva, linked to the terrorist Carlos, admitted to the crime") have to do with eco-terrorism? What was the MOTIVE of that terrorist act? --Jamiem 14:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was in the process of rewording it, but I just took it out instead. If someone feels the need to add it back, please provide more information and try to reword it a little. MrHen. 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV again

Because "eco-terrorism" is a loaded word, I NPOVed.

I think that this article should be about what people mean when they say "eco-terror," and that it should compare these meanings to "animal liberation," "state terror," "property destruction," "sabotage" and "direct action."

The use of "ecoterror" is by centrists, right-wingers, and the FBI. It is inherently POV. It can be discussed, but as a propaganda term. FBI and others monitor environmentalists for "ecoterror" acts that include banner hanging, consensus meetings, and nonviolent civil disobedience (traffic obstruction, blockading).

What is Rush Limbaugh doing here? If this were an article about neo-con radio hosts I would understand but as he has no expertise in any field pertaining to this article I cannot see a point in having such a large piece of it devoted to him.

Have made several changes through the article, including removing the Limbaugh section in its entirety - if content from it can be rescued and integrated into the rest of the article it may be of use but I felt devoting an entire section to it was rather over the top. I would propose that for eco-terrorism, rather than - as was the case - attempting to definitively say "X is eco-terrorism, Y is not eco-terrorism", we should simply report the use of these terms by appropriate sources. --Black Butterfly 00:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

According to my research, ecoterrorism might be a biased word, but it's also a movement:
Additionally, making an article NPOV based on the fact that the title is a "loaded word" is not a reason to blame the article. In a similar sense, should the word Anarchy be NPOV? Your argument appears illegitimate, as this would create an infinitely regressive precedent as to what is and is not a "loaded" word. Certainly your proposition is acceptable, but is this really addressed by the NPOV header? I understand that there are various definitions of what ecoterrorism is, but the article certainly appears to be relying on the definitions provided to determine the differences. Furthermore, I don't think NPOV is even the correct dispute regarding this article. There does not seem to be any biased position stated in the article. At best, there is incorrect information as to what is and what is not "ecoterrorism." Oscabat 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia documents, and when a word by itself is POV, it still can be described in NPOV. As such, it does not violate the NPOV policy of wikipedia. Kim van der Linde at venus 06:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
NPOV is about self-identification. No one self-identifies as an eco-terrorist. It's a pejorative term used to leverage opinion against activists who employ a variety of strategies in their environmentalist work. Howecer, It is in use and whith greater frequency (like "reds" or "pinkos" during the Cold War) so it should of course be in Wikipedia. But maybe having it redirect to a page with a more NPOV title would be worth exploring. (Though "pinko" has its own page, as do a number of racial slurs...) – Morganfitzp 07:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Homophobia, Pseudo science, Racism, the pressent page is perfectly in line with similar articles on other words. J.Ring 01:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder: Eco-terrorism is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Domestic Terrorism Section as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." [is this about innocent property or is any property that destroys ecology considered innocent because it is property.12M$ and they need to invent a terrorism. screw wiki for liking to feauture the fassism.77.251.179.188 08:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflation of Earth First! and other groups

Could you all please not conflate my dear Earth First! with ELF? There are Elves who are EarthFirst!ers, but it is only the FBI that thinks that the generally legal activities of EarthFirst! are eco-terror, and there are many EarthFirst!ers who take explicit positions against property destruction/violence.

Also, to say "member" of ELF or ALF or EarthFirst! is inaccurate as none of these groups have membership. You can subscribe to the EarthFirst! journal, if you'd like, or you can burn down condominiums and spraypaint "ELF" all over the place, but in neither case is there an organization to join or dues to pay. If you want to be an EarthFirst!er, you just have to put the earth first in your life (i.e. adopt biocentrism), and if you want to be a ELF/ALF participant, you just have to have a good lawyer and disrespect for the law.

--Defenestrate 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't deny that EF! used to be a lot more radical though, and the ELF probably came about as an offshoot of the group when EF! began mainstreaming. The ELF are more militant than even the old EF! though. Anyways, just thought I would comment. And you're right, neither group has formal membership, and the ELF especially cannot be called and organization. The Ungovernable Force 08:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The article incorrectly paraphrased FBI assessment of ELF. I have corrected this and cited the actual FBI testimony from the FBI website to clarify. Previously, the article had stated that FBI said ELF was the "most dangerous". However, testimony by Jarboe in 2001 called ELF the "most active". In fact, it clearly states that, right wing domestic terrorist threats became the "most dangerous" during the 90's, and that now ELF and ALF emerging as a serious threat.

I also agree with the statements about how ecoterrorism is a propaganda term. It would be best to discuss most of the actual issues in the ALF and ELF articles themselves. It's difficult since the term is so widely used, yet tossed around so informally. There is certainly no consensus on even what the word "terrorism" means. The United Nations, US FBI, US State Department, and US Department of Defense all have different definitions.--Teej 07:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to find a less propganda term. If you call eco-terrorism a propoganda term, then the article is missing non-propoganda terms entirely. "eco-defender" is as much, if not more of a propoganda term PLUS it is less common. Personally, I feel eco-terroism is quite appropriate. No matter whose definition of terrorist you use, someone who illegally uses fear (terror), threats, violence, and damage to other's property in order to forward a political agenda, pretty much fits. "Eco-defender", the second most common word, glosses over all of that which makes it even worse propoganda and also implies that the "eco-defenders" are defending, or are on the defensive, when they are clearly on the offensive. IreverentReverend 13:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Depends on how you look at it. Just like most other "terrorist" groups. Most people say that Palestinian suicide bombers are the agressors, but when you consider that they are horribly repressed by the Israeli government (in what amounts to state terrorism, their actions seem more defensive in nature. Some disagree, and it all goes back to how you look at it. I personally consider the elf and alf to be defensive in their actions (not to say I support them fully) because I consider third-party self-defence valid, and the ELF and ALF are clearly third-party defenders of animals and the environment. The Ungovernable Force 08:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how the palestinians are being repressed when a regular Israeli has stricter laws and far more red tape. Epl18 07:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The term ecoterrorism is a propaganda term, and only that. It is not legitimate under any frame of analysis to call someone who opposes ecological devastation with their own body a "terrorist" - nor someone who merely damages property - they may be a saboteur or arsonist but if they don't take life, they aren't a terrorist, period. Note even the CIA, only the FBI would disagree with that position, and we don't yet take an FBIPOV here. So this should be heavily moderated.

The idea that someone has to die for it to be terrorism reflects a poor understanding of terrorism and the efforts to define it. Many definitions require death, but far from all do. Just as many definitions consider property damage to be terrorism, even if death was not intended. See below. --Xinoph 07:30, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Ecotage is a fair term. So is terrist. But no one calls themsELVES an Ecoterrorist, it's only others that do so. And the idea that the French government was in some way responding to "ecoterrorism" by blowing up the Greenpeace boat (which was on its way to disrupt a nuclear test) is mad, and was ruled madness by a French court.

This article must be a bit harsher on those who use the term "ecoterrorism", and effectively explain it only as a propaganda term which confuses both the idea of ecological protection, and of terrorism. EofT

Essentially "ecoterrorism" is what everyone else calls them and "terrist" is their own term for themselves. Calling it "only propaganda" is your own POV, and an attempt to discredit the term. "eco-terrorism' return [1] 12,400 while "terrist" return 766 [2] (with wikipedia as the top 2). M123 17:54, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Allowing the Wiki to reflect a blatant oxymoron such as "eco-terrorism" is ridiculous. There is no violence against any person whatsoever involved in ecotage and, therefore, there cannot be any violence against a subset of persons (namely, civillians). This entry is an oxymoron, at best, and a more accurate soci-political discussion must include the fact that it is also used as a propaganda tool by the multinational resource extraction and refining corporations against which most ecotage occurs. Bangarang

Violence against a person is not necessary for it to be considered terrorism. See my comment below. --Xinoph 03:58, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I think that it needs to be mentioned, regardless of the accuracy. There is no dispute that many people consider ecoterrorism to be a valid label for direct action in the name of the environment or animal liberation. Therefore, the term "ecoterrorist" needs to have an article and be explained. There also needs to be criticism of the term's use as well, and make no mistake, I would criticize it myself. The Ungovernable Force 08:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Truth be told, there is no univeral definition for terrorist. It's something like pornography. We can't define it but we know it when we see it. Some acceptable definitions include sentances such as "use or threatened use of force against non combatants designed to bring about political or social change." Burning down farms and blowing up university buildings certiantly fits into this category. To say that an organization is not a terrorist once simply based on the fact that they don't directly kill anyone or themselves is a farce. Slimdavey 00:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

American Heritage provides the following...

ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

RK, is there an example you have in mind when you say ecoterrorism has included actual murder? Evercat 21:54, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Suggested title: environmentalist direct action, with redirects from both ecoterrorism and ecotage. That would allow us to matter-of-factly describe all aspects of environmental direct action without falling victim to semantic disputes. Martin 23:13, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Evercat 23:15, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea. eco-terrorism is a term that is used often in mainstream press and culture, and for Wikipedia to redirect it to another term is to ignore the term at the behest of those who disagree with it, and this is not NPOV. Perhaps having environmentalist direct action and ecotage in the "See Also" section would be more appropriate.--Xinoph 04:01, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, who considers Greenpeace a terrorist organisation? --snoyes 03:23, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't know of any mainstream groups in the US that hold such a position. Perhaps some non US government? For the life of me, I know of no Greenpeace actions that intended to hurt humans, so unless someone can provide some details, I think that this particular claim can be removed. RK 23:52, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

The following has been copied here from my talk page: (RK)

OK. I'm trying to work on the article towards NPOV - I think calling non-violent action "terrorism" is too strong. Maybe the article should only mention actual destructive, dangerous or threatening acts, and note that there is a contrast between these and non-violent acts...

The FBI's definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social goals". So ecoterrorism does seem to be a valid term. RK

Also, do you have an example of an ecoterrorist murder? The page you gave says no deaths due to ecoterrorism in the U.S. - is there an example abroad? Evercat 22:11, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So far there has been only two actual killings by ecoterrorists. (See the end of the second link, and the middle of the third link.) However, there was an attempt to mass-murder researchers by the so-called "Justice Department", which sent out letters to scientists... containing razor blades dipped in poison. Enclosed letters stated that the intent was to wound and kill. A few other extremist groups are now openly preaching arson and killing, and giving instructions on how to make molotov #########. RK 02:47, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
ACTS OF ECOTERRORISM BY RADICAL ENVIROMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS. SECOND SESSION JUNE 9, 1998
Excerpt from the above website: Another group, espousing some sort of tie to Earth First!, spiked a tree. When the tree was milled at a now-defunct sawmill in Cloverdale, California, also in my congressional district, the spike actually killed a mill worker when the saw made contact with the spike.

[edit] PETA does not give money to ALF or ELF

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals does not give any financial support to ALF or ELF. I removed the false information about PETA. Also, the ALF and ELF do not engage in violence. Destroying property is not considered violence.

You are absolutely crazy. You don't have to kill or injure somebody to be considered a terrorist. And yeah, PETA has given money to ALF and ELF. That is a fact. This article is pure garbage seeming to endorse acts of violence.--1 March 2007 SN

Um, yeah it is. If you blow up my car, that's violent. I'm putting PETA back in because there is a source that links them, at least financially to the ALF. --Bonus Onus 18:38, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

"We did it, we did it. We gave $1,500 to the ELF for a specific program," said PETA President Lisa Lange. [[3]] plain_regular_ham 15:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
The President of PETA is Ingrid Newkirk Stancel 01:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, excuse me...I see her now also referred to as, "vice president of communications". Her title aside, do you claim that she did not say it? Otherwise, help me to prevent the above section title from being made into a false statement. plain_regular_ham 20:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe "fox news", and I especially don't trust a "news" organization that can't even get PETA's President right. And why would PETA give money to the ELF and not the ALF? ELF is the Earth Liberation Front, while the ALF is the Animal Liberation Front. It would make more sense if PETA donated to ALF. So I do claim that she never said such a thing unless you can bring up a reliable source that is not the original article from fox news. Stancel 18:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
And another thing, I think it was cowardly of you to change what I said. That is called censorship. Stancel 18:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Try here. [4] or here [5]. One would have to stretch every philosophical imagining in the book to state that PETA "does not give money to ALF or ELF". You should look gratefully upon my edits before as proofreading. In any case, though, I stated below that "I stand corrected". I will let your lie stand as long as it is not in the article itself.
And another thing, I see your 'cowardly' comment as a weak provocation. We are talking about a section title, not a sneaky attempt to misrepresent you. I already provided my 'mea culpa', so let's not get carried away with feigned indignance. plain_regular_ham 20:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Just had to fix the header for this section. It was simply untrue and should not be stated anywhere. plain_regular_ham 13:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Still I see no cause to amend the title of this section into a lie. plain_regular_ham 20:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Whether or not a statement is true, it is inappropriate for one person to edit the remarks of another on this discussion board. If you disagree, then say so, but the only remarks we each may edit are our own. Personally, I think it is pretty clear that PETA supports eco-terrorism but I absolutely support the right of other people to say different (even though it isn't true). --JonGwynne 20:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I stand corrected. I absolutely support the right of other people to say different (even though it isn't true){in discussion}.plain_regular_ham 19:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

wait one second... PETA doesnt even deny giving money to alf and elf. take a look at their tax forms sometime, they donate TONS of money to ecoterrorists, and admit it. IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on the subject but I wanted to link a Testimony before the Senate that clearly ties PETA to some interesting group financially. Read it how you want.Senate Testimony

[edit] Reason for NPOV header

Spleeman inserted the NPOV header on the page for the following reason:

"Many environmentalists view the use of the term eco-terrorism as a propaganda-driven attempt to associate the widespread use of nonviolent civil disobedience by environmentalists with the more contentious acts of property damage or vandalism, and to link acts of vandalism with notions of terrorism." That's why, Bill. -- Spleeman 11:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 11:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)) Thank you. Please use my user name, William, or WMC. You appear to be asserting that the very page name itself is NPOV. Is that so? After all, the reason you've put in is a disclaimer right in the intro text of the page. Incidentally (to avoid confusion) I agree with the text above - I just don't think it makes the page N-NPOV.

Yes, what I meant was that the eco-terrorism title is itself controversial, and I was trying to use the quote to support that. I agree with the quote as well. Come to think of it, perhaps a "controversial" warning would be more appropriate than a NPOV warning. Spleeman

I copied that particular paragraph from the entry on eco-terrorism at Disinfopedia (I hope that's OK under the GNU FDL). Seems to me to be quite a big deal to put up an NPOV warning, although I agree that the article does need some work. There have been some good suggestions made in the discussion above about how it could be improved - perhaps you should have a go at editing the article towards neutrality.? See propaganda, doublespeak and neologism for some food for thought. Dirtbiscuit 12:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually, having looked at Wikipedia:Controversial_issue, even a "controversial" warning seems a bit heavy handed - this page hasn't exactly been a hotbed of debate (yet). And that's kind of nice if you want to quietly work away at an article without getting drawn some ideologically driven edit war! Dirtbiscuit 12:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The text below refers to a previous draft, still available by google but not currently a live entry in the Wikipedia.

This article should be deleted, period. It's POV by nature; the term "eco-terrorism" is straight from FBI propaganda. Why don't we just have the FBI article moved to State Terrorism to even the score? I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss the term "eco-terrorism" somewhere, but this doesn't seem the right way to do it... --Tothebarricades.tk 22:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph that Spleeman quoted above to trim it down a bit to make it easier to read and combined it with the paragraph that was immediately below it. I think this version is a little more NPOV and do not consider it to have lost any meaning. It just sounds more technical.  ;) MrHen. 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Greenpeace from this entry, please

I work for Greenpeace and I'm astounded that the Wikipedia is being used to promote the right wing fringe suggestion that we're a terrorist organisation.

"right wing fringe suggestion" - Can you back that assertion up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.73.127 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Greenpeace was founded on the principle of non-violence and 'bearing witness' of environmental destruction.

Non-violence is a part of our mission statement:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/extra/?item_id=4265&language_id=en

We always have been and always will remain strictly non-violent in all our endeavours. Our reputation of non-violence and peaceful direct action is widely known, and this is one aspect of Greenpeace our supporters value most. We believe violence is counter productive to the cause of stopping environmental destruction, and we believe violence is morally wrong. This sort of accusation is particularly offensive when you consider that we ourselves have been the victims of officially sanctioned terrorism, such as when the Rainbow Warrior was blown up by French secret agents, murdering one of our crew members.

To say "Some groups believe Greenpeace to be a terrorist organisation" may be technically true: we've heard that from the High North Alliance and Ron Arnold, (both of whom have a political agenda behind the accusation) but including such a statement in the Wikipedia is the journalistic equivalent of insisting that the phrase "Some groups believe that Henry Kissenger and Queen Elizabeth are responsible for the world's ###### trade" in an entry on opium simply because Lyndon Larouche says so. Same level of credibility.

Unless somebody can document a case of Greenpeace using terrorism, please remove our name from this entry.

--brian fitzgerald bfitzgerald [at!] int.greenpeace.org

From [6]
"On September 22, the charitable oversight group Public Interest Watch filed a complaint with the IRS charging Greenpeace with making such illegal transfers. In a report entitled “Green-Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits,” Public Interest Watch found that Greenpeace Fund, a 501(c)(3) transferred over $10 million in exempt funds to non-exempt Greenpeace organizations such as Greenpeace, Inc., between 1998 and 2000. The Canadian equivalent of the IRS recently denied Greenpeace tax-exempt status because it determined its activities were not wholly charitable.
Greenpeace, Inc. and other non-exempt Greenpeace entities benefitting from these transfers have committed numerous acts of eco-terrorism. They have blockaded a U.S. naval base, broken into the central control building of a nuclear power station in England, overrun the Exxon Mobil corporate headquarters in Texas, and rammed a ship into the French sailboat competing in the 2003 America’s Cup, permanently damaging the vessel.
In April 2002, Greenpeace activists forcibly boarded a cargo ship in Florida carrying Brazilian wood. In connection with this incident, federal prosecutors obtained an indictment against Greenpeace this July for violating an 1872 law prohibiting the unauthorized boarding of “any vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination.” The trial in this case is scheduled for December in Miami."
I'd be interested, Brian, in how you would respond to this. Your claim is countered by other claims. Why should we believe you? plain_regular_ham 14:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how do you stretch the definition of eco-terrorism to include the blocade of a naval base? What was the nature of the blocade that involved violence or intimidation? Breaking into a nuclear power plant may be illegal, dangerous and stupid but I also don't immediately see the threat or intimidation that this action represented... what did they do after they broke in? I'm not saying that Greenpeace is squeaky-clean, but some of these accusations do seem to be a bit thin. --JonGwynne 20:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Hard to say. I wasn't there. Admittedly they aren't all super-aggressive examples, but ramming boats or overrunning headquarters of companies are not exactly passive either. This was entered to have Brian reconsider the notion of removing Greenpeace entirely from the page. If they engaged in one act of eco-terrorism, they are right at home here. plain_regular_ham 20:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree, but there is a grey area here which would include certain illegal but not violently aggressive behavior that at least some of the examples fit better than "eco-terrorism". I mean "overrunning corporate headquarters", that could be something as innocuous as staging a quiet "sit in" in the company's lobby. I doubt anyone would consider that a "terrorist act". I'm not categorically opposed to mentioning any group here but I think you've got your work cut out for you if you want Greenpeace to stay... can you come up with some examples of violent behavior designed to intimidate and coerce people? --JonGwynne 00:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Ham is quoting from an article by Marc Levin of the "American Freedom Center". Levin's article happens to be the first link to appear if you Google for "Greenpeace" and "eco-terrorism". There has already been a fairly exhaustive (or at least exhausting!) debate about this topic at Talk:Greenpeace. To recap what I've said there, Levin's article simply assembles a collection of dubious, poorly evidenced claims from various industry front groups, conservative think-tanks and PR professionals; these include the Center for Consumer Freedom (food, alcohol and tobacco industry funded), Public Interest Watch (industry funded, but refuse to disclose specifics) and Nick Nichols (formerly of Nichols-Dezenhall, now Dezenhall Resources).
Not only that, Levin's article is out of date. You don't need to look any further than the Wikipedia article on Greenpeace to find that the 2003 indictment was thrown out of court. In fact, Google "greenpeace" and "indictment", and guess what comes up as the first link? That same Wikipedia article! For more background to the case, see [7] and [8].
Anyone editing this article would do well to look at who it is that is applying the "eco-terrorist" label to particular groups, who their sources are and who is funding them before repeating their claims. See [9], [10] for starters. Dirtbiscuit 09:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence and acts of war." from Terrorism

Are any of Greenpeace's acts consistent with the above definition? I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to find evidence for "acts that are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack)", unlawful acts, acts that disregard the safety of civilians, and acts that are intended to create fear. That said I doubt that it will be consistent with all the elements of Wikipedia's definition of eco-terrorism.

Who claims that Greenpeace is eco-terrorist organisation? If numerous credible sources do, it might be valuable to mention this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.73.127 (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wise Use movement

The entry on the Wise Use movement describes it as "a loose affiliation of activists opposed to the environmental movement". "Anti-environmentalist" is probably a more neutral adjective than "anti-environmental". Dirtbiscuit 05:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I object to "anti-environmentalist" too, since environmentalist is a loaded and misused term. I would merely provide a link, and let the readers decide for themselves. --H. CHENEY 15:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm, H. Are you sure it isn't the 'anti' prefix that suggests 'loaded' to you?. After all, declaring someone anti-this or that often implies that they are opposed to a fundamental societal value (Anti-American, for instance).
I would suggest that using 'anti-environmentalist' to describe Ron Arnold & Wise Use is not too far removed from using 'anti-smoking' to describe the tobacco control lobby. Arnold, in his essay [Overcoming Ideology], refers repeatedly to environmentalism and environmentalists in describing a particular ideology to which he is clearly opposed, and defines Wise Use as a movement which has formed in opposition to environmentalism. He appears to view environmentalism as a social wrong in much the same way that others view smoking as a wrong.
As such, it seems to me both reasonable and usefully descriptive to retain this adjective in the article. Compared to "eco-terrorist", environmentalist is a term that both supporters and opponents of the ideology it describes seem to be able to live with.
BTW, thank you for discussing rather than reverting. If only people did that more often! Dirtbiscuit 13:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe the term anti-environmentalist fits the Wise Use movement either. Just as environmentalism isn't always anti-business, not being against responsible economic use of the environment doesn't make you anti-environmentalist. It is possible to be against neither the environment nor big business. They are not necessarily opposing forces - in fact I would argue that both could accomplish their goals if they only worked together more often. Note that the only use of the term "anti-environmentalist" in the Wise Use article itself comes from the Greenpeace book about them, which can hardly be considered a neutral source (it may even be the ultimate origin of the label).

Moreover, I don't believe that "anti-environmentalist" suggests opposition to the fundamentalist values of environmentalism per se, but that they are against environmentalists - two very different things. Similarly, the term anti-big business doesn't mean you don't believe in capitalism, or even that you disagree with the fundamental principles of big business - only that you are against big business. See the difference? It's a fine one, but important. I think the self-defined mission of the Wise Use movement is responsible use of the environment by the business community, not to act as an antithetical force to environmentalists. Therefore we shouldn't use it as a label for them here in an encyclopedia. Just because one doesn't follow traditional views on conservation of the environment doesn't mean one is anti-environmentalist.--Xinoph 03:09, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disinfopedia

H.Cheney, why have you removed a link to the Disinfopedia article, which balances the SPLC report? I find it disturbing that you are doing this while accusing others of censorship. Dirtbiscuit 18:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What you are saying is, it's all right to link to biased Disinfopedia articles here, but linking to related NPOV Wikipedia articles in tree sitting is unacceptable. Please try to be more neutral. --H. CHENEY 18:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actually no, I haven't made any comment about whether articles should only link to neutral sources. In fact, I doubt whether that is possible. As I've explained elsewhere and at some length, the 'See also' link from tree sitting to eco-terrorism implied definition, and a definition which is contentious. The Disinfopedia link is an external link to an article which has the same title, so that problem doesn't arise. Dirtbiscuit 19:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I find it somewhat strange that a simple link to the Disinfopedia article - which I initiated - has been removed on the grounds the article is biased. Surely Wikipedia includes plenty of links to external articles/sites that someone will find biased. Surely it is up to readers to decide whether the Disinfopedia article is biased ... and I would have thought that part of the role of Wikipedia (and other wikis) is to help make it easy for readers to find information so they can make up their own minds.
(For example, in Disinfopedia there are numerous external links to articles, books, organisations etc that I and other readers might find 'biased' - such as Ron Arnold's - but I think including them makes the articles more useful for readers). --Bob Burton 11:48, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Many Definitions Fit Ecoterrorism

There are many, many definitions of terrorism that do not require human beings to be the target, or for the intended result to be any person's death or injury. The US Department of Defense defines terrorism as:

the unlawful use of - or threatened use of - force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

Meanwhile, Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as:

premediated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The FBI defines terrorism as:

The unlawful use of or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

So really the FBI definition does not vary greatly from the legal one or that used by the DoD, and is not extreme. In fact by two of the three definitions ecoterrorism fits, if not the legal definition. Moreover, it is important that this legal definition is not for the crime of terrorism, but rather the legal definition of terrorism that the Secretary of State shall use in categorizing incidents. --Xinoph 03:52, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Not so. The FBI and DoD definitions vary very much with the legal definition because of the inclusion of damage to property. Many, but not all "eco-terrorists" do damage to property, but not violence to people. The noncombatant tag also greatly changes things, though perhaps this is not as relevant here.

I must point out that tree spiking and firebombing McDonald's restaurants is not technically an attack on a person, but neither was flying a plane into the WTC. It is just the poor janitor in the McDonalds or the man who is nearly decapitated by a broken saw blade (thanks tree spikers), or the inhabitants of the WTC who might disagree with the "We only attack things, not people" philosophy. plain_regular_ham 14:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I could also point out that damage to property isn't necessarily the end goal for "eco terrorists". They damage property in order to intimidate people through threat of injury or death. The example that Ham used above, some tree-spiker may try to argue that he isn't injuring people by spiking trees but it is intimidating and threatening ("terrorizing" would be another word) to people and an attempt to modify their behavior through this threat of violence against them.--JonGwynne 00:55, 6

May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think a big part of eco-terrorism is that it is designed to attract public attention. This differentiates it from monkey-wrenching, and other borderline activity that can be similar. So it definitely is intended to be threatening and visible. Bonus Onus 01:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

As regards definitions, we are all on very dodgy ground. "Terrorism" has been used recently as a loaded term, designed to influence by association (cf the USA PATRIOT act) and has maybe not settled into the language yet sufficiently to allow a definition acceptable to all. However "subnational groups" in the second of the above three proposed definitions sets it out from the other two. It suggests that actions perpetuated by the government of a nation are somehow different in kind from those performed by other bodies. (cf the IRA in 1920, and the IRA in 1970). loony@altern.org 81.250.195.107 20:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Paragraph

This paragraph:

Further, some people hold that clearcutting, strip-mining and other destructive resource extraction activities are true eco-terrorism, battling against such activities is considered by such people to be more akin to self-defense or defense of one's home, than to be terrorism. In many countries—notably the United States—self-defense, defense of a one's home or a loved one, can be held to be a valid legal defence to a charge of a crime. Thus, some people consider vandalism, active resistance, crime or even violence in defense of their ecosystem to be moral, ethical, and legally defensible.

This argument, though some may make it, seems like quite a stretch (burning down a housing development is self defense because the housing development was hurting your "loved one" (the environment)) and it certainly shouldn't be in the opener to this article. IMHO, if we keep this paragraph at all, we should move it down the page a lot to a section called "defense of eco-terorism" or something like that. Bonus Onus 03:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PETA

According to The Record, the only incidents involving PETA involved pie, or monetary support. I wouldn't call that working "openly" with eco-terrorists. It is close, but i would still leave PETA out of here, just to keep balance. If anyone can find evidence of a more direct link, perhaps we could make the change. --Bonus Onus 04:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

JonGwynne, that article you cited was hardly neutral, but at least its a step in the right direction. I guess we can leave PETA in for now. --Bonus Onus 05:02, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
It seems PETA has made its way back in, not only in reference to its financial link, but directly under the four groups labeled as eco-terrorism. Although it may be radical, and some of its members may support eco-terrorism, the group itself is not a terrorist group per se--its mission statement does not include violence--and it should be taken off the paragraph listing the main groups. I completely agree with including it further down where it is financially linked to eco-terrorism. Bonus Onus 21:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

PETA admits giving money to elf/ALF/ josh harper/rod coronodo... if PETA admits it, why is it even contended? they gave money to the groups the desirve space in the article. IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

also, can we change the text from saying largely legal help to largley financial help? it is much more common for peta to give people money than they are to give them a lawyer, from what I have seen... IreverentReverend 4 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

Non-violent ??? I recently heard on the news that they intended to go to some KFCs and piss and shit on the food in the buffet counters. 65.163.112.74 18:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert War

Guys, lets compromise. Stop making your edits so blatant, and stop reverting without posting on the talk page. --Bonus Onus 01:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] "Associated with?"

I don't get it... violence and vandalism aren't "associated with eco-terrorism", they *are* eco-terrorism. Right?--JonGwynne 02:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, true, but i think "generally associated" makes this sentence better. people who call treesitting and other forms of nonviolent protest "ecoterrorism" are trying to make a connection in peoples minds between treesitting and things like violence, arson, and vandalism. It is all about associations. Also, just for NPOV sake it is better not to make any absolutes. and i'm not implying anything here, its just from an editorial perspective that im making this change. --Bonus Onus 03:19, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but there is a problem: In the paragraph in question, we're talking about "real" eco-terrorism. I think it is made pretty clear elsewhere that non-violence acts aren't terroristic in nature and that those who try to pretend otherwise are wrong for doing it. However, when specifically discussing acts of overt violence, they can't be "associated" with terrorism as if they are somehow separate from it, it must be clear that violence when committed to serve a political end *is* terrorism.--JonGwynne 03:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok, looks good. I like the wording on that edit. -Bonus Onus 20:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV Tag

Does anyone object to the removal of the NPOV tag? Have we finally gotten the article to a point where nobody can object to what it says? I'll give this a week... if no one objects, I'll remove the tag.--JonGwynne 06:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, i think things are better. why dont you go ahead and remove it. --Bonus Onus 17:55, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
It has been more than a week and no one has objected so... out it goes... --JonGwynne 20:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I read the entire discussion page, was intrigued by the debate, and saw that there was room for a fresh eye to do some minor edits for flow. I attempted in good faith to keep all the substance on both sides. If I have failed, please see if it can be improved before reverting. --Niku 03:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the edit. I think it looks better than it did before. I made one small change and fixed the spacing. --JonGwynne 07:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The "Alternative View" section

It is unsupported, undocumented and completely pointless. There is no discussion of who it is who refers to themselves as "eco defenders", what the term means and whether it, or these claims, have any credibility or not... The section seems to be an attempt by militant environmentalists (or their apologists) to rationalize violent and destructive activities by pretending that they are are somehow in service of some noble case. I'm removing it (again) and anyone who wants to restore it had best be prepared to offer some support for these claims as well as a logical argument as to why the unquantified and uncorroborated claims attributed to unknown, anonymous and possible non-existant individuals is even relevant. --JonGwynne 19:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)) The section makes sense, but it offends your POV. Restored.
(William M. Connolley 20:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)) And please mark your reverts as such.
--Niku 22:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) If William can document the term "eco defender" on this talk page then it is a relevant addition to the existing discussion. However the alternative view section was redundant in that it followed a more thorough treatment of the same view, so I integrated the content of William's addition into the other section, and tried to make the discussion of the view a bit more consise.
WMC is not one to document or support his claims - he comes from tbe "because I said so, that's why" school of argument. Notice that he didn't support his restoral of the information. Still, I think in the new context you've given it, it isn't objectionable so it can stay. --JonGwynne 05:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Thanks to Niku. Since you're restored essentially all the text and re-arranged it, I'm happy.
Still, documentation of the usage of the term eco-defender is still appropriate; other controversial facts on this page have been argued and either documented or removed as well. Why don't you google it and give us a couple examples and then we can all move on? --Niku 13:16, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

He asks us to, "· look at the definitions of the words, "eco is short for eco-system, and Webster's definition of terrorism is the political use of terror and intimidation. If you put those two together, ·you start to see companies that are destroying and polluting as eco-terrorists. I like to think of myself more as an eco-defender."[11]

Eco-defenders are disjointed, have varying degrees of motivation, and all have different ideas of how environmental concerns should be addressed. from: Confessions of an Eco-Warrior by Dave Foreman, 1993, ISBN 051788058X. See also: Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching same author, 1993, ISBN 0963775103. Vsmith 15:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And here we see the rationalizations provided by criminals for their actions... --JonGwynne 02:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your POV is obvious. Wikipedia is not the place to push it. Kaibabsquirrel 04:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How is it POV to describe someone who commits crimes as a "criminal"? --JonGwynne 16:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wrong question, the question is how is it not POV to deliberately try to remove mention of the use of the term "eco-defenders" when it is well documented? Kaibabsquirrel 21:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The term "eco-defender" is merely the opinion of those who commit criminal acts and then try to rationalize them by claiming that these crimes are committed in the defense of the environment. Can you prove any examples of serious, mainstream use of this term? Also, why is my question wrong? You said I'm trying to push my POV with the statement I made about eco-terrorists who commit crimes being criminals. I think I'm entitled to an answer to the question: how does calling someone who commits crimes a "criminal" fit into the category of POV? --JonGwynne 22:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. This is an article about those to whom the term "ecoterrorism" is applied, therefore it would be appropriate to include references to what they call themselves in the article, regardless of whether there is any "mainstream" use of the term. Regarding your other question, your post was in response to a quote from Dave Foreman and was in the context of your not wanting the eco-defender reference mentioned in the article. Leaving aside the question of whether somebody whose only crime was to write a book and give a copy of it to an undercover FBI agent provocateur deserves to be called a criminal in the first place, it's POV when the criminal label is used as a reason to exclude pertinent material from the article. Kaibabsquirrel 01:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not someone "deserves" to be called a criminal is POV and irrelevant. A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. That is the only objective, neutral definition of the word. --JonGwynne 19:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge with Environmentalist wacko, Econazi and Ecoterrorist

Surely a "see also" link will suffice? Limbaugh didn't coin the term "eco-terrorist". Dirtbiscuit 09:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The term "eco-terrorism" is a neologism... So are "environmentalist wacko" and "econazi". I don't see a reason to split the concept into two articles just because two (or three) of the words were coined by one man. Why should Limbaugh's use of the terms get an article by itself? -Willmcw 22:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I see a reason. Rush's is a right wing response to the action by the left. In the scheme of eco-terrorism the Limbaugh stuff is pretty unimportant and therefore it would completely marginalized here and so I think it should remain there. gren グレン 11:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why Limbaugh, one example of someone who uses the term, is accorded one-half of the length of this article. A one-sentance comment would have sufficed. This tells us a lot about Rush, but not much about eco-terrorism.

[edit] External criticism

I've written some criticism of this page at my blog: http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/ Chuck0 22:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Controversial"

I agree with the inclusion of the term "controversial" in the introduction, but think it should be in the first sentence, i.e., "Eco-terrorism is a controversial term that some people...." or something similar. In my experience - and I admit I could be wrong - this term is almost entirely used by American conservatives who are antagonistic to the environmentalist/ecologist/animal rights/welfare movements in general. Monkeywrenching or criminal damage, which appears make up the majority of what these people call 'eco-terrorism,' can in no neutral, objective and uncontroversial way be considered terrorism - so the nature of the term should be flagged up immediately. JF Mephisto 03:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's defined by the FBI not by you. They decide what's terrorism and what isn't. It's a defenition used in legal terms by the FBI. It shouldn't be controversial as much as the term "negligent manslaughter" is controversial. 70.162.43.130 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To note that the FBI most certainly do not have a monopoly on defining what is or what isn't terrorism. Their definition is notable, but this is a world-wide encyclopedia. Can we find any other country that has a definition of eco-terrorism? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free Willzyx

I included that as part of Ecoterrorism in fiction. Since the episode involved the ALF, I just thought it would be appropriate to add it to the list.

[edit] Moved FBI's definition to the top

I probably should have posted here before I did it, but I moved the FBI definition to the top. For all the controversy around the label eco-terrorism, the FBI's definition is quite complete, the official definition of a government body, and the most relevant from a law enforcement standpoint. If someone comes to this Wiki page, they're going to want to know the FBI definition, however they feel about the label. Might as well put it up front. I also provided a reference for the FBI's definition. Mgunn 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Controversial?

Why is this considered a "controversial term?" The FBI uses it as a legal definition to describe certain crimes and criminals. It's like saying someone who murders somebody is offended by being called a "murderer." Also I don't see any citation or references for it. I don't see any articles or reputable discussions about the term being offensive to consider having that fragment of the article in there. If someone does something that falls under the umbrella of eco-terrorism, they'll be labelled an eco-terrorist. Who cares if they're offended? It's not relavant to the article. People are always going to be offended by terms, it's human nature, and it's a pretty obvious assumption that people who think they're doing the right thing shouldn't be labelled what they think is an offensive term. In summation, this is not a controversial term, it's a term. It's used by the FBI to describe certain crimes and regardless of the criminals opinion on the subject that's how they're going to be labelled. 70.162.43.130 02:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also I find the statement that property and things cannot feel terror so "eco-sabotage" is a better word quite nonsensical. As stated earlier the 9/11 terrorists didn't attack people, they attacked a building, people were just colateral casulties. I also think destroying someones property might lead to the person being terrified therefore it fits the categorical definition of terrorism. This article needs to be cleaned up. There are too many rebuttals in sections when a clearly unbiased account is given. E.g., when defining the term used by the FBI there is a random paragraph devoted to why indirect human harming acts should be considered eco-sabotage. Someone doesn't have to be physically harmed by an act to suffer from it.70.162.43.130 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eco Extremists

I nearly fell out of my chair when reading this from above: "Also, the ALF and ELF do not engage in violence. Destroying property is not considered violence." The flaming ignorance of the left is beyond belief.

What the fucking hell are you on ?! Destroying property is considered violence, as defined under all laws. Dont worry though, they got a nice padded cell for ya. Also sig your statements, etc.65.163.112.128 (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Read that again, he was agreeing with you Mad031683 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and wasn't it incivil? BTW, it may be of interest to note that in UK crime statistics crimes against property do not come under the heading of crimes of violence.[12] So destroying property is not violence "as defined under all laws". S'pose it's the padded cell for me... Itsmejudith (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] FBI Ops

There is one ongoing operation going on. It is Operation Backfire (FBI). This is designed to take out Eco-Terrorists, Eco-nuts and other environmentalists. I hava consulted police on this, and seen the article here. Want to be a loon, they got a padded cell for ya ! 65.163.112.74 18:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Controversial

Can anyone source that the term is really controversial? Mainstreme media, etc.? If not, I think the OP looks much better condensed Larklight (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed the controversial tag. Larklight (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guys Refs

We need to reference the groups that have been called "eco-terrorists"!. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of groups who have said to of been accused of being "eco-terrorists" but don't have a reference, to be added back when they do have a ref

[edit] Conventional Definition

I re-inserted them, and added citation needed tags. Taking them out looks (though I'm sure it isn't) like POV. I'd be willing to give you fairly good odds that most of them have been accused thus. Larklight (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya point taken, that was a little extreme, I'm a little doubtful about PETA and greenpeace, but we'll see. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Referenced one. Wasn't too hard, I expect most can be found pritty quickly. Larklight (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed Greenpeace as unsourced. BTW Conventional definition is not very informative as a section heading. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] to be put into article

*[Corps of the Biology Guards/Корпус Стражей Биологической Науки (CBG/КСБН) - inter-university organisation to fight eco-vandalism and eco-terrorism]

added into reference section, I don't have time to move into article right now, but it's there. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See Also

The laundry list of "groups accused" in the See Also section doesn't seem to fit with this or most articles. Can't we work these into the text, or simply ensure they're in the Category:Eco-terrorism? -- Tom Ketchum 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greenpeace

Theres nothing wrong with the sources that I used. News.com.au is a well established news website. Plus it wasnt just the Whaling Association, it was also the Environment Minister Ian Campbell. Also in the FBI article, it is stated that "Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe". This shows that the FBI considers Greenpeace to be the "pioneer" of these eco-terrorism tactics. --SilverOrion (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there's nothing wrong with the sources at all. They just don't say anything about Greenpeace being ecoterrorist. At all. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe".
  • Japan Whaling Association president Keiichi Nakajima (Keiichi Nakajima) accused the Sea Shepherds of "eco-terrorism and said the deregistration of the Farley Mowat gave the ship official status as a pirate vessel.

Dont let your opinions get in the way. --SilverOrion (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Note it says that they were "disaffected members" that formed a new group. I.e. they left Greenpeace to form another body. They were separate from Greenpeace. Greenpeace's strategy and theirs were not identical. That is why the split occurred. Therefore the source is explicitly not defining Greenpeace as ecoterrorist. If you read it again, you will notice that it does not even say that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was ecoterrorist. It says that after they began the activities listed, acts of ecoterrorism occurred. B follows A does not mean that A is an instance of B. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, Sea Shepard != Greenpeace. The groups employ different tactics. --Salix alba (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


What about the FBI source then?--SilverOrion (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Another source: "The Danish branch of Greenpeace, the international environmental campaigning organization, was charged yesterday (11 May 2005) under laws adopted to implement UN and EU law on the financing of acts of terrorism. The acts in question occurred on 13 October 2003 when Greenpeace activists staged a protest against the widespread use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in animal feed on Danish farms"http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/1214/9/--SilverOrion (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Link does not contain th word "Danish". Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Link seems to be wrong one, http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/jun/04greenpeace.htm, http://www.libertysecurity.org/article283.html and better, the latter considers the terrorism question in detail and seems to conclude its not. --Salix alba (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly an interesting question. In this age, it has become standard practice -- especially for governments and law-enforcement -- to call those who protest on pretty much any grounds "terrorists". This is the root of much of the controversy regarding this neologism and therefore this article. The FBI has given a "formal" definition: "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.". Thus, there are several key elements:

  1. Violence + Crime
  2. Against "innocents" or property
  3. Sub-national
  4. Environmental/AR
  5. PR/Symbolic

In my view, Greenpeace fails to meet the first of these (Violence), although that could be argued, and they also failed to meet the second, as they (in the cases discussed) are targeting whalers. The tree-spiking cases are (in my view) similar, but for different reasons -- they are violent, but lack the PR/symbolic value, as is the case with much "monkey-wrenching".

But this is just my opinion, clearly we need to rely on reliable sources here, rather than our own interpretations. In the first citation (news.com.au), we could say "The President of the Japan Whaling Association has accused the Sea Shepherds of eco-terrorism", but there is no quote vis. Greenpeace. The FBI document address "disaffected members" of Greenpeace forming Sea Shepherd who then cut drift nets. But taken apart, the sentence in question says "Since 1977 acts of eco-terrorism have occurred", noting that the formation of Sea Shepherd occurred then. The implied/alleged causal relationship is from Sea Shepherd to eco-terrorism, not Greenpeace.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on one side or the other of this. I just think we need to be careful. If we lard Greenpeace in here, then pretty soon someone's going to be arguing about putting the Sierra Club in, and the whole thing will become meaningless. My approach is that since the term has largely been defined and used by law-enforcement, we should (figuratively) let them decide who is in and who isn't, via their press-releases and whatnot. If an organization calls themselves "ecotagers" or whatever, but are not otherwise identified by law enforcement, I think they should stay out. But sticking someone in here because you don't like their tactics is wrong, as is leaving someone out because you sympathize with their aims. -- Tom Ketchum 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is not for us to state whether Greenpeace is an eco-terrorist orginisation, for that would be Original Research, we can mearly say what others have concluded. --Salix alba (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sorry for the trouble. Thanks for the input --SilverOrion (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Whether allegations have been made against Greenpeace

A user has requested comment on politics for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCpol list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


Do the comments reported in sources 11 and 12 constitute an allegation that Greenpeace is ecoterrorist?

  • Can you give links? Sources can allege that Greenpeace is an ecoterrorist; Wikipedia cannot. Life.temp (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)