Talk:Radical environmentalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Regarding injury or death:

From: "Testimony of Representative Frank D. Riggs before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime". Link provided below.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/35016.htm

" ... The results of monkeywrenching vary. Most of the time it causes the cessation of logging activities. Often times it causes property damage. In Ukiah, California, which is in my Congressional District, it killed a logger. Too many times these activities have caused grave injury and even the loss of life. Many a rigger, logger and treefeller have suffered injury because of a severed hydraulic line or tree spike. Yet the Earth First! website and the Earth First! Journal actually advertise and sell Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching."

The conclusion also states this:

"The systematic, organized ecoterrorism of Earth First! and other militant organizations must stop. Lives have been lost. Too many communities have been damaged. Too much time has been wasted. These organizations are a threat to every American who dares to think differently than they do."

However, no specific names, dates or incidents are provided for verification. Further, the opening paragraphs put the Representative on record with industrial and business interests. Logging is characterised as follows:

"The North Coast is known for its abundance of Redwood and Douglas Fir forests. Today, as in generations past, men and women come to this place to make a living as foresters and loggers and mill workers. These environmental stewards manage the forests with love for the environment and rational science to provide wood for our nation and a future for their children."

I was raised in Coos County, Oregon. The experience there is that when the trees are cut down, the mills close and people are laid off. This was accelerated in the 80s by mass cutting and export of logs to Japanese customers who were stockpiling them in under ocean storage sites. For the last decade unemployment in Coos County has topped 20% due to the efforts of these "environmental stewards".

In my view, Representative Riggs is not a creditable source for allegations of death resulting from Earth First "terrorist" activities" without supporting specifics that are verifable.

user:mirwin

[edit] ABC

From an ABC new site, Heather Maher is presented as an investigative journalist who has investigated and written about ecoterrorism. She states no injury or deaths have occurred. Link to full chat below:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/chat_maherecoterror102799.html

Heather Maher at 2:16pm ET "ELF and other groups who practice economic sabotage to prevent the destruction of wild spaces have made it clear that they never want to harm a life, human or non-human. They plan their activities at night, when people are not around. Though a few incidents have come close to harming people, there has never been a human injury or death from any of their actions. As to whether or not a human casualty WOULD stop their plans, I'm not in a position to speculate, but I would think they wouldn't want that to happen anymore than we do."

user:mirwin

[edit] Essay

http://www.tidepool.org/hp/hpterror.cfm This essay seems to be written by an environmentalist opposed to terrorism tactics and also claims no injuries or deaths to date.

user:mirwin

[edit] Oregon

From: http://www.rdrop.com/~pjw/dianereport.html "Report on Terrorism and Task Forces 1/11/01 Diane Lane, Portland, OR"

"In September of 1999, the Oregonian did a four part series entitled, "Crimes in the name of the environment. Eco-Terrorism Sweeps the American West." According to this lengthy report, "Arson, bombings and sabotage in the name of saving the environment and its creatures have swept the American West over the last two decades and Oregon is increasingly the center of it all. At least 100 major acts of such destruction have occurred in the West since 1980, causing $42.8 million in damages." The newspaper based such statements on its examination of police, government, and court files. Most of the incidents involve arson, some using incendiary devices and pipe bombs to destroy property such as the Vail Ski Resort because of its plans to expand, which could have a harmful affect on the lynx. No one was harmed or killed in any of these acts of so called eco-terrrorism."

"It is interesting to note that although all of the law enforcement personnel, politicians and business owners interviewed and quoted in the Oregonian series expressed grave concern for the damage to property, there was no evidence of concern regarding the activists who were injured or killed in their quest to protect natural resources such as the death of David Chain, an Earth First! activist who died when a Pacific Lumber Company logger felled a nearby tree, and the bombing of Judi Bari. which shattered her pelvis and damaged her spine."

This article has a lengthy bibliography with many online links. Most dated within the last 5 years.

user:mirwin

Heck, the FBI even tried to claim that Judi Bari built the bomb that blew up under her in her car. See http://forests.org/archive/america/unmyjudi.htm -- Zoe

Would a reference to the Tom Clancy novel Rainbow Six (which featured environmental extremists), be appropriate? - erznegel

[edit] Edits

I edited the sentence that said To date no one has been killed as a result of an ELF or ALF action, though murders have been attempted by these groups. because this is impossible. The ELF and ALF explicitly state that killing or injuring human or non-human life is to be avoided, so if anyone did try to murder someone in the name of the environment (such as the unabomber) they could not claim to represent the ELF or ALF because they violated the basic guidelines of both groups. This is not to say radical environmentalists have not attempted to murder people (like alluded to above, the Unabomber did kill people), just that the ELF and ALF have not.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.238.53 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Cs

Michael Crichton is a novelist, and as such any use of his statements as criticism is the logical error rgument from authority, as he is not a qualified person but merely a known person. Even were that not the case, the article linked to stated quite clearly that he gave no cites or explanation for his figures - in other words, he pulled them out of thin air. This was not made clear in the addition to the article: Instead of "Michael Crichton said '(quote)' but it is clear this is complete bollocks and he is talking out of his ass" the quote was given as though there were some sort of substance to it. While this might be interesting trivia on the Crichton article, it is not relevant here.

Ann Coulter wrote a book criticizing Liberals, not Radicals, her book is not even close to germaine here.

The Religion and Nature pdf was not linked to directly, I'm guessing that was a decision for accessibility? At any rate, it is by Bron Taylor and this may indeed be legitimate criticism which merits inclusion. the paragaph which was supposedly sourced by this pdf mentions "those who profit from resource extraction of various sorts", along with a lot of names they call radical environmentalists. I see none of this in the pdf - if I am missing it, please let me know. The paragraph also mentioned "other environmentalists as well as a wide variety of religious actors, social justice advocates, and political theorists. " Bron Taylor is religious, but is he an "actor"? Please clarify what the heck is meant by "religious actor" because all that comes to my mind is someone performing in a Miracle play. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Crichton is a published writer with a point of view on the topic. That makes him relevant. --Uncle Ed 14:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
1) Nonsense, this is false authority 2) your use of his quote is highly misleading. I note you have only addressed the novelist who writes techno-thrillers for a living, and not the other points. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's an appeal to false authority, and that is important if this was a discussion on the validity of radical environmentalism, but this is an encyclopedia. I'd say it counts as mentionable. I personally disagree with a lot of it, especially since (as mentioned above) he doesn't give any real evidence to support his claims. But he is notable, having written a novel about radical environmentalists and the link, however flawed the reasoning is, should be included. The Ungovernable Force 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think, KC, you are confusing Wikipedia policy on citing sources with Appeal to authority: Allow me to quote from Logical fallacies:
  • Referencing scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal. "Science (in the form of an article in a prestigious journal) says X, therefore X is so".
If Wikipedia used this as a standard, there would be no articles on science. On the contrary, as Dr. C. points out (re: global warming) and FM points out (re: evolution and intelligent desigin), Wikipedia relies heavily on peer-reviewed journal articles for sources.
For matters less scholarly than hard science, any published author with a point of view may be sourced. --Uncle Ed 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not confusing them, I linked directly to the logical fallacies article. That a flaw in logic isn't a Wikipolicy does not suddenly make the logic flawless.
You're comparing apples to oranges when you compare a peer-reviewed journal being used as a source for a scientific article to using Crichton here. Crichton has no expertise in environmentalism whatsoever. He's not an expert. And the link is not to a "peer reviewed" or even reviewed paper anywhere, it was a toss-off comment that he made, with no explanation. He's a novelist not an expert. Umberto Eco is the only novelist I can think of who is an expert, and he's an expert medievalist. Crichton doesn't even have a relevant degree, let alone any expertise. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources,

  • An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.

So it's not against policy to put in Crichton's opinions about the environmentalist movement, in an article about environmentalism. It's 2 to 1 on keeping the material, so the burden is on you to explain why his point of view should be deleted. --Uncle Ed 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, NPOV says:

  • All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one; and,
  • NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

I see no reason to exclude Crichton's point of view about environmentalism, other than the distaste that some environmentalists might have for it. --Uncle Ed 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Response in section Crichton below. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crichton

As I said, I find it irrelevant, but will certainly go with consensus on this one. Do you plan to reword the entry to include the criticism in the second quote, or no? Previous content was:

  • Michael Crichton calls environmentalism an false "religion"[2] which he criticizes for discouraging the use of DDT in anti-malaria campaigns. [3]
  • REF 2: Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. [1]
  • REF 3: [2]

KillerChihuahua?!? 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely this topic has enough coverage that we can find someone more qualified to use as a source? I'm not saying that Crichton's views aren't WP:V, obviously they are, but I too question the relevance. Chuck Norris may have an opinion on this too, but surely expert opinions are better to use than celebrity opinions. Friday (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
one would think there would be an enormous amount of criticism, but I haven't found much, and none that I consider worthy of inclusion. If you find any though, please add it. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm open to any wording of the criticism. If you'll put it back it won't "count against" a 3RR violation, you know. (It might even be deemed a "credit" ;-)
I'm trying to stick to 1RR these days, so I hesitate to stick it back in myself till 24 hours pass. Anyway, what's the hurry? We can work on it in talk or on a subpage like Radical environmentalism/opposition, if we are actually collaborating! --Uncle Ed 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Ref 3 is the bare link. I would prefer at the very least an indication of what it is -
And for the content itself, perhaps something like: "which he criticizes for discouraging the use of DDT in anti-malaria campaigns. He has been strongly criticised for not providing a source or justification for these claims.[3]
I would be open to expanding the claims he makes, as the article on the interview certainly has more. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a more fundamental issue with the Crichton quotes, and that is their relevance to an article on radical environmentalism. The issues he is talking about are mainstream ones, not radical ones. There's nothing radical about campaigning against DDT. The link only uses the term "radical" to describe Crichton's claims. Guettarda 17:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was not relevant, Ed and The Ungovernable Force seem to think its appropriate, so I bowed to their opinion. Now Friday and Guettarda have voiced concerns, so I am not so sure where we stand with the inclusion of the Crichton content. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not relevant to this article. Crichton says nothing about Radical Environmentalism. He is talking about environmentalism, generally. Why would we include it here? Sunray 06:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and Nature

Moving forward: I could not find support for the content in the pdf, as I stated above in 3C's. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

If it's true that there aren't many sources on this, how bout merging with Environmentalism? Is "radical environmentalism" some verifiably distinct movement, or is it just a label applies to some of the fringes of the broader movement? Friday (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See deep ecology; this might be considered a qualitative difference between mainstream environmentalist movements and "radical" ones. Graft 17:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
As it stands the article seems to be meant to cover techniques of direct action, which may or may not coincide with the philosophy of deep ecology. I don't think you can lump violent animals rights vegans with "back to the Pleistocene" types, except insofar as they are both outside of the mainstream. I'm not sure the title is neutral - how does one objectively define a "radical"? (Usually it's "someone whose philosophy I can't relate to", isn't it?). Guettarda 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Friday that it's a general criticism which Crichton is making. I got the idea from reading Wikipedia's article on Anne Coulter's Godless. It appears Coulter is not the only one branding POVs as constituting a "religion" of sorts.

Move without prejudice to Environmentalism or Environmental movement then? No, Environmental movement is supposed to merged to Environmentalism too. Okay, I'm willing to help, but only if no one's planning to doubt my NPOVness in advance. ;-) --Uncle Ed 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Radical environmentalism has become a popular term. Deep ecology is considered radical environmentalist, as are groups like ELF/ALF, and to some extent Earth First! especially. The Ungovernable Force 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What bothers me is how to define "radical". The I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach doesn't really work. Is Greenpeace radical? Is PETA? What about the "environmental" groups that are basically astroturfing by the oil industry ("Greening Earth" and the like). It's pretty radical for an environmental group to be pro-industry. How does one define membership in this group without violating NPOV? Guettarda 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That's the biggest problem. I don't think it's a reason to not have an article though. We could make part of the article about how it is used in political ways by different groups for different reasons. It's like ecoterrorism, but we still have an article on that. The Ungovernable Force 02:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually it looks like there are some good academic sources out there. Guettarda 03:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not support a merge. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Is it really right to replaced a statement sourced in the academic literature with unsourced statements and call it "one person's view"? Guettarda 14:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are concerned that I moved some text from the lead. You find Bron Taylor's take on radical environmentalism compelling and you are trying to bring sourced material to a contentious topic. Have I got that right?
I was somewhat surprised that you wouldn't immediately see what I was doing from my edit summary. But perhaps it was too cryptic. Let me explain at more length. The article is in a very poor state at present. We need to identify what is wrong with it and how to start to make it a better article. The lead is a good place to start. Here's some guidance on writing a lead section. A good lead provides an "accessible overview." Here's a brief summary:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles).

You will notice that I moved Taylor's material further down in the article. I also took the quote out of the footnote and placed it in the article. In fact, I think Taylor's view should become a section because it is a major point of view on the subject. However, it is just one point of view. We need to balance it with other points of view, such as the FBI on one hand ("ecoterrorism") and the views of people within the movement. My rewrite of the lead sentence was intended to make it neutral. I'm going to restore that and expand on it. Would you be willing to work collaboratively on this? Sunray 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What you did it take what was a sourced statement and turn it into "Taylor says" - in effect, discounting the only published source into a fringe position. If it is a fringe position, that's fine - I'm no expert on this. But I am working from the most comprehensive academic source I am find. So changing it to "Taylor says" is wrong.
As for the so-called "FBI view" and "that of people within the movement" - please source these views if you believe they should be in the article. Neutrality does not involve balancing a sourced view point with unsourced opinions. That isn't acceptable. Guettarda 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
In addition, if you change sacred entity to "sacrosant" you need to provide a new reference for the section. And lay off the patronising language - contrary to what you may think, I'm not stupid. Guettarda 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem pretty steamed up about this. Perhaps you could calm down and re-read the guidelines I gave above on writing a good lead. The ground rule is this: write a definitional statement that provides the reader with an explanation of the topic at hand. In no way do I want to reproduce the view of an author, however academically respectable or authoritative. It seems you have misread what I've been trying to do. I've said that I think Taylor's view is important — important enough to have a section devoted to it — but his is not the only view. To say in our lead that "Radical environmentalism is thus and so, because so and so says" is just bad form. Take a look at any of the Featured articles if you doubt this. Right now my blood pressure is rising, so I am going to take a break from this article for awhile. Sunray 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. You win. I'm not willing the edit-war, but the article clearly violates NPOV. Guettarda 18:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporting cites are acceptable and necessary in articles that cover controversial topics. Period. There is no policy, guideline or convention that says otherwise. FeloniousMonk 16:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

  • Definition of Radical environmentalism - this needs to be based on cited sources. As discussed above #Merge.3F. I began with one who appears to be one of the major authorities on the movement(s); the idea is supported by others. I haven't found all the sources, but we need a real definition or defintions.
  • History - this is unsourced. Does the movement really start with Greenpeace? Does Greenpeace actually fit the definition of RE? (Of course, we need a definition/definitions).
  • New religious movement - This paragraph clearly violates NPOV by presenting a misleading take on the facts. This does not appear to be Taylor's "pet theory". As it is currently presented it suggests that this is outside of the mainstream. This is highly misleading. Guettarda 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the final - my concern would be mostly whether those within the movement would accept theirs as a religious movement or not. If not, this suggests presentation of Taylor's view, even if it has mainstream or academic acceptance, should be tempered by (sourced) claims to the contrary. Here is a reviewer with some experience with EF! questioning Taylor's thesis, incidentally. Graft 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Taylor's view should be tempered with alternative interpretations. All sourced views should be presented. We should not have "Taylor's view" in one paragraph, "Devall's view" in another section, "Jay Roger's" view in a third, in a "he said, she said" fight. I wrote the lead with what was available last night, working from what I could find in academic sources. Devall concludes "In summary, the deep, long-range ecology movement is not intended as an institutionalized religious movement. It is not in competition with institutionalized religion. It is not a "new religious movement." If we have to characterize the movement in these terms, it is a movement seeking a spiritual/ecocentric paradigm shift." My initial wording wasn't balanced (it was late, I was sleepy) and I qualifed it in my revert. But presenting it as "Taylor says" is far less balanced - not only does Duvall say "Certainly Taylor is not the first academic to search for religious motivations in the ecology movement." - but Martha Lee also makes this case in Earth First!: Environmental Apocalypse. Guettarda 22:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New religious movement

Obviously the great Taylor hasn't met too many American Indians, eh? (Or Hindus or Buddhists either, for that matter). What is needed here is balance. The views of a lone looney should not drive the article. •Jim62sch• 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Go find some other loonies, equally prominent and germaine. I'm beginning to see why Ed was going to put in Crichton quotes. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What am I doing here? Oh, I thought you said "need more Moonies", yuk yuk ;-) --Uncle Ed 15:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Grin. Only if they come with verifiable cites!!! (Are you verifiable?) KillerChihuahua?!? 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You mean, am I for real? I don't know about you, buddy, but I sure am. ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
*lol* Avoid self references! KillerChihuahua?!? 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the article forward

As was raised earlier, we still need a set of good definitions as to what RE is. From what I can find we have:

  • Taylor's definition, which is that RE is either a "new religious movement" or possesses the key characteristics of one.
    • Devall's partial rebuttal to Taylor's position
  • Lee's apparently more extreme definition, but I only have access to Taylor's rebuttal to Lee.

I am not of the opinion that Taylor's position is the only position that should be included, but I think we need some sort of a definition. Right now, we only have Taylor's opinion on the page as to what RE is (although it's split into two sections). Does anyone else have a definition, or is it all "I know it when I see it"?

BTW - is there something equivalent to the ISI Scientific Citation Index for social sciences? Guettarda 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is seriously proposing that Environmentalism is an actual religious movement. Rather, Michael Crichton critiques environmentalism (or "radical environmentalism") as being akin to (or the equivalent of) a religious movement. (Recall Ann Coulter's analogy of modern American Liberalism as a "godless religion".
I daresay both Coulter and Crichton are reasoning by analogy in their respective critiques. --Uncle Ed 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Taylor is claiming explicity that it's a religious movement, and that spiritual beliefs and practices are important to nearly all radical environmentalists. Graft 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
So what we really need here are two definitions: radical enviromentalism and religion. •Jim62sch• 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Are radical environmentalists modern druids, as depicted in Tom Clancy's novel Rainbow Six? --Uncle Ed 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Some are, no doubt. Sunray 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there are three angles we should be covering in the article:

  1. What radical environmentalists say about themselves.
  2. What opposing groups say about them (e.g., the FBI)
  3. The spiritual viewpoint.

If we do it well, it could become a fairly strong article. The trick will be sorting through copious information and winnowing it down to a readable article. Sunray 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the part about beginning with what they say about themselves. While I don't know what you mean by "spiritual viewpoint", I do agree than critical (or opposing) views should come next. --Uncle Ed 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
By spiritual viewpoint, I meant the New religious movement perspective put forward by Taylor and others. Sunray 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, I'd like to lay a little crowbar across #2. The FBI might have a lot to say about so-called ecoterrorists, and there might be an intersection between radical environmentalists and "ecoterrorists", but they are not the same thing; drawing such an equivalence is like making one between Islamists and Muslim terrorists. A number of "ecoterrorists" might be inspired by and driven by radical environmentalist beliefs, and discussion of ecoterrorism is therefore warranted in the article, but we shouldn't make equivalences (although, that said, the FBI obviously does, e.g. by blowing up Judi Bari). Similarly with environmentalists. If Crichton wants to label all environmentalists as "radical", fine; but his critique of the former by painting them as radicals should not be construed as a comment on the people being discussed here. Graft 00:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What Graft said. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, agreed. There is a fair amount of written material, though, that suggests that the FBI doesn't make fine distinctions between radical environmentalists and ecoterrorists. Moreover within the movement, there is considerable debate on the use of "ecoterrorist" methods (for example, over whether property damage is an acceptable form of protest). There is some evidence that corporations are not above committing covert acts of "ecoterrorism" so that radical environmentalists will take the blame, and there is abundant evidence that "goon squads" comprised of seemingly aggrieved workers (e.g., logging industry workers who say things like "these protesters want to destroy our way of life...") committing violence against radical environmentalists. The media is manipulated by both sides (all sides) in this struggle. I totally agree with your comment about Crichton, which suggests we have to make very clear distinctions (even if the FBI and, at times, the media, do not). Sunray 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

We need to improve the definition of radical environmentalism. Here's a definition from an earlier version of this article;

"[Radical] environmentalists take the position that traditional methods of social change like political lobbying, public awareness campaigns, and the like are insufficient for achieving necessary changes in the relationship between humans and the environment. As such, radical environmentalists resort to non-traditional forms of activism."

I would tend to re-write it along the following lines:

Radical environmentalists take the position that traditional methods of social change are insufficient for achieving necessary changes in the relationship between humans and the environment. Instead of methods such as political lobbying and public awareness campaigns, radical environmentalists resort to non-traditional forms of activism, such as direct action.

Thoughts? Sunray 04:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, that wasn't very clear. I should have referred to the lead paragraph. The sentence above could become the second sentence in the lead. The first, currently reads as: "Radical environmentalism is a movement which views the current environmental crisis as an attack on the natural world, which it considers to be sacrosanct." I'm not all that happy with this as a definition of radical environmentalism, but haven't found a better statement out there (actually I haven't found any). Anyone else have anything? Sunray 19:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an incredibly difficult article to source. :( KillerChihuahua?!? 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It is that. Sunray 07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral?

The first paragraph doesn't seem clear to me. It seems to me two separate things are being discussed. The first idea is Radical Environmentalism which seeks to "overthrow of current Western ideas of religion and philosophy". - thats radical The second idea is Militant Environmentalism which uses direct action etc thats militant. Perhaps those are not the correct terms but the article seems to imply that they are more or less the same thing. A group could be either radical, militant or both. KAM 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've sorted out the problem. When referring to the movement, it would be very different to referre to the groups within, as they don't reflect the movement in the same way it represents itself through speech and education. I'm trying to say that basically the radical groups now are all pretty much using direct action at the moment, despite the fact this doesn't actually relate to the ideology of RE, which as Jeff Luers argues was born after human existence.TomLovesCake 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)