Talk:Deep Green Resistance

Relevance

This article needs work, especially in the "Beliefs" section. The last paragraph in said section mentions transgender/LGBT issues, which is irrelevant to the main goals and core beliefs of the organization. Perhaps this paragraph could be moved to the "Criticism" section. Try to keep the topic relevant to the organization's fundamental beliefs. This change would also further ensure the neutrality of this article, as it's not a core belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.114.132 (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct on that. The article has had problems for years, but earlier this year it turned to total shit when a bunch of inaccurate and highly POV material and terms were added. Take this passage for example, which is not even backed by the cited source (emphasis added): "Regarding advocacy for dictatorship, eco-terrorism and genocide Bron Taylor argues in Resistance: Do the Ends Justify the Means? that "radical tactics tend to be counterproductive" in winning the general public." Um, DGR might be a bunch of eco-radicals who advocate for the violent collapse of civilization, but they have never, to my knowledge, advocated for dictatorship and genocide. It should also be noted that's when some of the Criticism section was altered with similar POV language not reflected by the source material and moved to the Beliefs section, which you rightly point out needs some serious work. The fourth paragraph down in that section is a good example.

This is what it looked like prior to edits starting in April 2020, when it was located in the Criticism section:

Opponents of Deep Green Resistance further claim that DGR, which predicts massive numbers of human deaths during the forthcoming "crash" of civilization, does not offer a feasible or desirable alternative human lifestyle in seeking to accelerate this crash. Keith and Jensen have both acknowledged this unpleasant reality; however, they have repeatedly claimed that the crash is inevitable (and will only result in more suffering the longer it is delayed) and that they are merely warning of—and trying to prepare the world for—these forthcoming deaths and possible wide-scale violence. Jensen has stated that if activists do not wish to participate in the physical work of accelerating this crash, they, at the very least, should locally prepare and "set up committees to eliminate or, if appropriate, channel the (additional) violence that might break out."

This is what it looks like now in the Beliefs section, notice the change in tone and POV language:

Critics point out that DGR does not offer a feasible method for accelerating the massive numbers of human deaths predicted, but Keith and Jensen contend that while the reality of them not being actually able to slaughter millions of people is unpleasant, an apocalypse is inevitable anyway and delaying mass murder will only result in more suffering and that they are merely trying to prepare the world for the forthcoming death and wide-scale violence. Jensen states that if activists do not wish to participate in terrorism and murder, they, at the very least, should prepare to set up local committees to reduce or channel the additional violence.

The sourcing for that passage is also problematic, and predate these changes. I don't think Therightplanet.com qualifies as a reliable source for such claims.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

edits based on personal beliefs, not reliable sources

C.J. Griffin states that, in their opinion, "These independent sources do a piss poor job of providing proper context. To simply state in the lead that the group supports "violence" is WAY too vague, and could give readers unfamiliar with the group the false impression that they endorse atrocities including mass murder and genocide." Neither the source nor the article text suggests that DGR proponents advocate carrying out mass murder directly. However, the article so far does not mention the criticism of deep ecology movements that actually bringing about the collapse of industrial civilization, the stated goal of DGR, would lead to the death of billions of humans. I do not think we should soften wording to avoid what you are reading into the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that the sources do not state "DGR proponents advocate carrying out mass murder" directly, but the term "violence" with no further context strongly implies "direct violence against humans," which they are not advocating. I don't believe I'm reading anything into this. In fact the previous version you prefer states "The organization advocates sabotage and violence..." (emphasis mine) which is an even stronger suggestion to lay readers that DGR not only supports sabotage (against infrastructure), but also violence (against humans). I believe including sabotage or even something more blatant like "critical attacks on infrastructure" (as Jensen discusses in the DW source) would be sufficient and more accurate as to the kind of underground actions they advocate. To quote Jensen from the DW article: "We talk in DGR about critical attacks on infrastructure. So let's define violence too: is it violence to destroy a piece of infrastructure [as long as] no humans die?" Regarding criticism of deep ecology movements in general, and speculation that billions would die if the goals of DGR and others were carried out, I'm not sure that would be appropriate for the article unless sources state that DGR's proposals would directly result in this, and of course this would need a rebuttal that DGR believes (rightly or wrongly) that their above ground actions, including widespread ecosystem restoration (which could provide ecosystem services), would mitigate any mass mortality that could result from the collapse of industrial capitalism. To quote Jensen again: "There are only around 35,000 people in my county now, and there were about 18,000 prior to the arrival of civilization, and they actually lived a really good life here. They didn't have refrigerators, but they didn't need them, because you don't need a refrigerator if you've got rivers full of salmon. But we don't have rivers full of salmon, so we have painted ourselves into a terrible corner." Whether directly or indirectly, it is my understanding that DGR doesn't advocate for the taking of human life, therefore the article should not suggest that they do.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Sabotage and violence" is what the cited source says. I do not think it's necessary to specify exactly what type of violence is advocated; I would not use jargon like "critical attacks" but perhaps there is some other wording that gets across what their proposal is. It's bizarre that there are more RS talking about the group's anodyne transphobic viewpoints than their extreme goals but I guess that's what it is. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is my problem with including this source alone and its claim that DGR advocates "sabotage and violence", when material from Jensen's interview with Deutsche Welle, also a reliable source, can also be added to provide the proper context: they are specifically talking about underground activities which target infrastructure and property while avoiding any loss of human life.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how you could seriously disrupt infrastructure or destroy industrial civilization without taking lives. For example, many RS say that power outages cause deaths. Even if you believe no one will die of starvation, many health conditions are deadly without modern medicine. How are type 1 diabetics and people with ectopic pregnancy or deadly but treatable cancers gonna live after the apocalypse? It seems like you are saying is it more blameworthy to kill people directly than indirectly via destroying the infrastructure they need to live, and you think that should be reflected in the article by softening the language used in RS. Interviews regardless of where they are published are not independent sources, do not demonstrate due weight, and can only be cited for the interviewee's POV. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin's arguments to err on the side of the caution are the more convincing. "Violence" decontextualized certainly implies violence against humans. The entire WP article Violence attests to this (and never mentions, for example, sabotage). The group and often Jensen specifically have even clarified that human fatalities are not the goal (e.g., even specifically mentioning that defense against violence and harm reduction are crucial). Buidhe, your assertion that the The organization advocates... violence is patently untrue; if anything, the opposite is the case. Even if their tactics would indeed be highly likely to result in indirect violence, the statement that they advocate violence is still not true. Wolfdog (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Violence actually has a broader definition than the Wikipedia article suggests. Here is your daily reminder that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

From what I've seen, there seems to be a lack of sources talking about what the group believes rather than what its leader says. I would say we should stay closer to what sources say and if they SAY they oppose violence against humans, we should report that, no matter how ridiculous and unachievable that might be when conjoined with their other goals. As an analogy, anti-abortionists SAY they care about the unborn, but their caring seems to stop once the baby is born since they aren't out there adopting unwanted children in numbers comparable to the number of abortions, but this criticism isn't mentioned in how we report on their beliefs. Let's be specific so as to not lead the reader to unsourced conclusions, nor critique their views (unless sourced) no matter how self-contradictory. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by WikiProject Anthropology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)