Talk:Environmentalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||||
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Environmentalism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 To-do list for Environmentalism: |
edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] al gore?
suggestion: how about mentioning Al Gore, and his stance on global warming, and his movie An Inconvenient Truth, which probably had a fairly heavy impact on people's beliefs concerning global warming. may be too off-subject, just throwing that out there. 66.32.200.185 (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- He certainly has received a lot of publicity for his stance and his film and is covered elsewhere in WP. This article is for global info over the long term. Hence reference to Al Gore will skew the articles' contents to but one geographical and temporal case. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 01:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I think not. I think Gore is a pretty iconic figure in a watershed moment.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.73.132 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] envirowiki link in external links.
The link to http://www.envirowiki.info was removed from the external links section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmentalism&oldid=192919030 ). From Wikipedia:Spam is think that I've done everything correctly (I should point out that I run the site, but I think I can be objective enough about this). The only appropriate reason for removal (listed on WP:Spam) I can see, is that the website is not "truly relevant" to the article. I would disagree. It is, as far as I know, the largest wiki specifically about environmentalism, and perhaps the only one. It could be argued that as a wiki, it currently does not have enough articles/content to be relevant. I would argue that this is not correct in this instance, as envirowiki currently has almost twice the content of the permuculture wikia, which is listed in the external links of the permaculture page (there's another wiki linked from permaculture, which only has ~15 pages). --naught101 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I removed the link because it struck me as WP:Spam, and because Wikipedia is not a repository of links. As you said Envirowiki contains very little content. Its inclusion as an external link serves more to promote Envirowiki than to add content to the wikipedia article Consider this from WP:Spam "Wikipedia is not a space for...the promotion of...Web sites....If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place." Your point about the double standard with the permaculture page is a good one, but I would argue that the permaculture wiki link should be removed as well. All that said, best of luck growing your project, I just think it's a bit too early in its development to be a useful addition to this wikipedia page. --Osbojos (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- My point about the other wikis on permaculture is that this is a pattern that is repeated throughout wikipedia. I agree that the second wiki on permaculture is too short, but the permaculture wikia is a very useful tool already, even though it only contains 173 articles. Obviously we disargee on this, but I would like your opinion on what WOULD constitute enough content for envirowiki to be a useful addidtion to this page? And would you agree on me returning with the link at that point? --naught101 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- When it has enough content to be a useful addition to the wikipedia page, by all means, add it. The problem is just that if every web page weak on content but big on potential was added to wikipedia, the external links section would become useless. I have no idea how to quantify what is enough content for envirowiki to be useful, but I just don't think it's there yet. Obviously I'm not an absolute authority on this. If others disagree with me, please speak up. --Osbojos (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, will wait for further discussion from others. I would like to say that I think envirowiki currently, that is, with only 300+ pages is much more relevant to environmentalism than the "worlds most polluted places" (should be in pollution), and PEAS, which seems to have been dead for 5 years, and is only relevant to india anyway... --naught101 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have removed the two links that you mention. There are not approp to a high level (in terms of a hierarchy of importance and categorisation) article such as this. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, will wait for further discussion from others. I would like to say that I think envirowiki currently, that is, with only 300+ pages is much more relevant to environmentalism than the "worlds most polluted places" (should be in pollution), and PEAS, which seems to have been dead for 5 years, and is only relevant to india anyway... --naught101 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- When it has enough content to be a useful addition to the wikipedia page, by all means, add it. The problem is just that if every web page weak on content but big on potential was added to wikipedia, the external links section would become useless. I have no idea how to quantify what is enough content for envirowiki to be useful, but I just don't think it's there yet. Obviously I'm not an absolute authority on this. If others disagree with me, please speak up. --Osbojos (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- My point about the other wikis on permaculture is that this is a pattern that is repeated throughout wikipedia. I agree that the second wiki on permaculture is too short, but the permaculture wikia is a very useful tool already, even though it only contains 173 articles. Obviously we disargee on this, but I would like your opinion on what WOULD constitute enough content for envirowiki to be a useful addidtion to this page? And would you agree on me returning with the link at that point? --naught101 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, I agree with Osbojos. Apart from anything else, a wiki is not a reliable source, it is a tertiary or worse source, like Wikipedia. As for the other external links, I would remove all of them - none add to this article, and all are there to promote themselves. There must be tens of thousands of good web sites that are "relevant" to this article, but as Osbojos points out, we are not here to list them. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am happy with a few ext links in any article but only if approp. Without them the article can look a little, ahh, bare. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ecocide redirect
Ecocide redirects here, yet there is no mention anywhere on the page of ecocide - if it redirects here, surely it deserves some mention? Otherwise it appears that wikipedia is linking to a source of information that does not, in fact, exist. Glacialfury (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- There was an ecocide article but it was an unreferenced, unwikified stub. This is the article before it was redirected to environmentalism. It is probably worth giving it an article of its own rather than being redirected. It gets a lot of google hits but the term is not used much in academia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have resurrected ecocide from the dead. See what you tink of it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
