Talk:Environmental organization

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Environmental organization redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Environment

This environment-related redirect is part of the WikiProject Environment 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.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles

Sociology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles

Organizations

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles

Comments

it is still an advantage to have page titles in singular, for example when you write about Greenpeace and want to mention that it is ... "an ((environmental organization))"

may I suggest you distinguish governmental or intergovernmental organizations (e.g. the IPCC) from non-governmental ones (e.g. Greenpeace). Then maybe the US EPA or the European Environment Agency could go here. -- Simon J Kissane

FWIW I agree with the above.

I moved the many external links in this "article" (right now, it's just a list of links) to a "Links" section. We will probably want Wikipedia articles on several of those--eventually, maybe all of them!

Obviously, some anti-environmentalist organizations should be listed as well. --LMS

What do you mean by anti-environmentalist organizations? Oil and chemical companies and various governments spring to mind, but I guess you have something else on your mind. --Pinkunicorn

Hidden page

Note that List of environmental organisations topics (before redirect) was redirected here, to Environmental organizations, after its AfD was closed 'no consensus', which defaults to Keep. Another editor may wish to restore it, but I think it needs work before being restored. As I noted in the AfD, it is superior to List of environmental issues in that it lists nearly four times as many articles. Anarchangel (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add quote ?

Perhaps add this quote to the page:

“

You know, when we started the World Wildlife Fund, its objective was to save endangered species from extinction, and I'm now near the end of my career and we've failed completely. We haven't saved a single endangered species. And if we'd put all that money we'd collected into condoms, we might have done some good. -Sir Peter Scott, co-founder of the WWF, in a personal conversation cited by Professor Roger Short-

”

^[1]

absolutely, The quote I heard was “You know, I have often thought that at the end of the day, we would have saved more wildlife if we had spent all WWF’s money on buying condoms.” It shows that he was thinking about it a lot. Gregkaye (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The long and the short of Roger - The Science Show - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Weird assertion

Removed the weird assertion / generalisation that environment organisations have trouble managing their finances. Cited reference was dodgy. I believe the comment is too broad to be relevant and removes neutrality of the article particularly when other content is so sparse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethel the aardvark (talk • contribs) 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed history section

I removed the history section for the following reasons 1) Gave immensely undue weight to the Sierra club, even though the history of environmentalism is very complicated and had many important actors. 2) Made the history seem much simpler than it was. 3) Relied entirely on a self published source.

I believe entirely that this article should have a history section, but I think the one that existed didn't belong on Wikipedia. I won't be able to write this section without significant research, and would appreciate someone who is knowledgeable on the topic doing so, or at least dropping off some sources. Toad02 (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted politics section

I deleted the politics section for the following reasons. 1) Was unclear exactly how environmental groups interacted with political organizations. 2) Contained a lot of unrelated information. 3) Lacked any citations.

I propose creating a section called "methods" that talks about how environmental groups do things, (including lobbying). Toad02 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many Definitions needed

The article is of course too short and not clear. What is meant by an Environmental Organization. Examples are good, but Definitions are better. This article from "The Conversation" is very useful, especially for International Governmental level. I have no time to include the useful information in the article, therefore I share it here. --Ai24 (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The long and the short of Roger - The Science Show - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[1]