This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
According to its advocates, which include the Earth Liberation Front and similar terrorist groups ... [it] requires neither violence nor any direct confrontation with police, politicians, or other authority ...
The use of the term "terrorism" alongside the claim that ecotage does not require violence makes this sentence contradictory. Terrorism is also a term that it is almost impossible to deploy neutrally.
Dirtbiscuit 05:56, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This article is pretty terrible (no offence). I have worked a definition based on an academic article... Would love to delete the rest and perhaps give examples of actions of enivironmental sabotage. This is not the place to argue the terrorist vs sabotage vs civil disobedience distinctions, merely a place to acknowledge the debate... --
Shg3 (
talk)
20:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Why does "monkeywrenching" redirect here? Monkeywrenching is a term that can refer to economic or political sabotage (and often does in common usage). This redirect isn't really appropriate. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.90.217.181 (
talk)
09:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The result was no consensus. One editor relied on the FBI, which, as another editor pointed out, is
OR and potentially biased. Another editor suggested several articles to merge this one into, but there was no consensus as to where this article should be merged and there wasn't a sufficient analysis of
RSes to determine what an appropriate merge would be.
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
17:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FBI does not make ecotage different to eco-terrorism.
[1] "Using the ideology of fighting for the environment, eco-terrorists direct their aggression against state institutions, corporations, businesses and individuals. In doing so, they
hit the economy and civil liberties. The catalog of their activities includes such methods of action as: demonstrations, roadblocks, occupation of buildings intimidation, sabotage (so-called ecotage 15) including destruction of machines, releasing animals used for experiments, scientific experiments, bred for leather and fur and planting explosive charges in headquarters of biotechnological corporations, near homes of their directors, beatings, blowing up laboratories and sending threats to people conducting scientific research with the use of animals"
[2]Geysirhead (
talk)
15:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)reply
It seems like the FBI would have a fairly obvious ulterior motive in expanding the term "eco-terrorism" to include as much as possible. Also, if one uses your quote to expand the definition of ecoterrorism to "things the FBI says eco-terrorists do," then wouldn't demonstrations and roadblocks also constitute ecoterrorism? That seems like an absurd result
71.47.201.37 (
talk)
22:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
the FBI is onliy one source, who has plenty of reason to be against radical environementalism. Also, the definition of 'terrorism' is 'the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.'. Eco-Sabotage does not subscibe to this definition, as it is (subjectively) non violent ,is not used for intimidation and it is not against civilians. In the interest of staying objective and impartial, we should not merge these two!
J Readd (
talk)
19:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Support merge proposal; if there are shades of difference between the two topics then they can be discussed on one page. Such difference do seem to rely on POV. The current
Ecotage article seems to be a discussion not of the topic of environmentally-inspired terrorism in general, but rather a discussion of the use of this term in the context of the
Earth Liberation Front, using a subset of examples from
Timeline of Earth Liberation Front actions. For reasons of
context and overlap, a merge to
Eco-terrorism (but maintaining a separate section) would help readers. Alternatively, a merge to
Earth Liberation Front might be possible, given that the use of the term seems to focus on the activities of this group.
Klbrain (
talk)
09:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.