Jump to content

Talk:Survivalism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

points have been addressed

looks like some of my points have been addressed - good job on the revisions Redblayd 00:42, 15 February 2005 (UTC)

Coining the term

I believe I've seen Kurt Saxon take credit for coining the term 'survivalist'. Is there verification for this? — Morning star 18:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only in Saxon's writings. I don't know if there's any outside verification for this or not. It's probably a matter of tracking down when and where the term first appeared. Kaibabsquirrel 06:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Survivalist movements outside of North America?

Do they exist in any other affluent countries? Obviously in third and fourth world countries, some of the preoccupations of survivalists are very real parts of life, but I was wondering in particular if there are survivalist movements in Europe, Australia, New Zealand or Japan?

-- It is primarily a North American movement. However, although the middle east exhibit some form of protective measures, it is largely a militant movement. The line is blurry, the Japanese build buildings which can survive earthquakes and there are some mild security measure ever since the underground subway toxic bombings. Whether or not this is considered a survivalist measure or an adaptive one it is hard to verify. I would suspect America would be more akin to survivalism due to intense paranoia over years and decades of isolationism Raddicks 13:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Possibly I misconstrue Raddicks intended meaning, but the assertion that survivalism is more "American" because of intense paranoia and years of isolationism makes the whole mindset appear irrational. If that impression was intended, then I'd have to dispute it. Certainly there are survivalist groups and individuals whose mindsets are rather irrational; the same could be said of any broad categorization ("there is no cause so right you can't find a fool following it"). In my experience the majority of "survivalists" (which I define as persons concerned with their ability to survive and thrive after a disaster of whatever sort, who take proactive measures to prepare) are largely rational in their concerns. It is indisputable that disasters both natural and man-made do indeed occur (Katrina, Hugo, 9/11 and Three-Mile Island for examples), and even a cursory examination of disaster aftermaths displays the fragility of much of our modern infrastructure. Nor does it take a great deal of research to determine that people who were well-prepared (not just materially, but also mindset and skills) fared FAR better than those who were not. I have met survivalists who are British, Swedish, Australian, Canadian, Phillipino and "other"...and the underlying theme has always been concern about providing for and protecting their families in times of crisis: a very rational mindset indeed. -Goshin, Jan1 2006

historically, people all over the world HAD to be what could be considered survivalists. obviously, people had to know how to hunt, fish, and trap, and know how to be prepared for bad weather, etc. if they didn't know how to do these things, they would die, plain and simple. however, they wouldn't have labelled themselves as "survivalists"- this was just the way they HAD to live. Gringo300 09:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I knew a couple of avowed survivalists in Britain back in the Cold War days (one used to write magazine articles on the subject, I forget his name), but I'd guess one reason why there weren't many in Britain at that time was simply because there wasn't really anywhere to hide from a nuclear war. America is huge and large parts of the country would be barely affected, but few places in Britain would be more than a couple of dozen miles from a target and almost everywhere would be down-wind of one. The same probably applies to most of Europe. Mark Grant 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

indigenous peoples

historically, native americans indians, eskimos, and aleuts were what could have been considered survivalists, but obviously many of them are now "modernized" like a lot of other people have also become. Gringo300 09:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Group Deletion

Why is reference to a group like the Zombie Squad deleted? It is a legitimate not for profit that covers much of the same type of material as the Alpha Rubicon without seeming like they are trying to overthrow the government. I know the premise of zombies confuses some but they are getting young people to prepare so the reach is much further. --BenWoodruff 15:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me any mention of Zombie Survival belongs only in the fiction or pop-culture section of the article. Dragomiloff 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


Is Alpha Rubicon advocating overthrowing the Government? I thought many of their members were government employees. I know some of their material is used in Government training classes. Might wanna be careful about throwing around that kind of accusation. Peace/Love/Harmony 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC) DaisyPicker
Pulled --BenWoodruff 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


"racist or white supremacist beliefs."

The article states that "An extreme and marginal fringe of survivalism has racist or white supremacist beliefs." The statement "marginal" needs to be qualified by concrete statistics. Otherwise I'm going to add a "citation needed" tag. I say this because the stereotype of survivalist militias (and non-militia survivalist individuals) is that many of them are white, who may not be white supremacist but are at least racist or "xenophobic" towards other ethnicities and nationalities (post-9/11 America and the anti-Islam movement obviously sparked a rise in American survivalism, given all the purchases of "emergency supplies"). As the stereotype goes, many of them anticipate a race war, hence the widespread sales of the Turner Diaries at all the gun shows of the time that many survivalists attended. Ok, like I said this is a stereotype, but it's the most common portrayal of survivalists that I've seen in texts, media, pop culture, etc. Therefore, if the article is going to contradict this and say that such a population is only "marginal" among survivalists, the idea of this being "marginal" must be backed up with statistics. If it is not, I'm going to add a "citation needed" tag, which will inevitably progess to a deletion of the words "and marginal" if no citation is added. Simply put, "marginal" is a weasel word that must be either deleted or backed up with statistics.



ok nobody has responded so i assume nobody has a problem.... im making the change

160.39.211.133 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


In other words, you can't come up with any citations to support your assertion that survivalists are racist, xenophobic, etc, other than your (again, uncited) assertion regarding "widespread sales of the Turner Diaries at all the gun shows of the time that many survivalists attended"...

And thus, having "proved" to your own satisfaction that survivalists in fact meet the stereotype you cherish, you dispute---with weasely games---any objections to this blackguarding.

Wikipedia hypocrisy at its finest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.22.147 (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur! Your logic is astounding, to wit: "Survivalists attend gun shows. The book The Turner Diaries is sold at guns shows. Ipso facto, survivalists are racists." Please wake up to the reality of survivalism and survivalists, most of whom are NOT racists! Please don't confuse pop culture/television stereotypes with reality. Trasel (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

People who HOPE society breaks down

Did anyone notice that there was a palpable sense of dissapointment among many of the survivalists when Y2K failed to bring society to its knees? In fact, Y2K failed to even inconvenience society - it was a non-event.

I think it is one thing to prudently prepare for a disaster, such as a hurricane, or to conservatively place ones assets so as to be immune from a financial panic. It is quite another to stockpile two years worth of navy beans and then sit on top of them with an arsenal of weapons hoping upon hope that society will collapse so you can lord it over everyone. There is an anti-social, pathological aspect to many of these people that I think bears mentioning in the article. george 11:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I've been reading SurvivalBlog (the most popular survivalist blog) daily since its inception in 2005, and I haven't seen ANY letters or articles from anyone that professes to hope or wish for a collapse. If anything, survivalists realize just how "nasty, brurtish, and short" life would be, post-TEOTWAWKi, so they dread it. The fact that someone prepares for different circumstanes doesn't ipso facto mean that they WANT them to happen--not any more than someone who buys car insurance "hopes" to be in a car wreck. Trasel - 9 July 2007, 7:48 PM EST

In the Media

Should we also include humorous interpretations of this idealogy, such as Dale Gribble in King of the Hill? Mwv2 17:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

--

I think that would open up the Wiki to flame wars and revert wars. Since survivalism is almost a religion to some people, that would be akin to opening up the wiki page on Catholicism to "humorous interpretations" such as the movie The Life of Brian. (Which earned a blasphemy rating from the Catholic church.) Although some survivalists poke fun at themselves (I have read that some enjoyed the Burt Gummer character in the movie Tremors), most would be offended. So my vote is NO. - Trasel 16:23 27 July, 2007 (EST)

Reteater

Reteater (a newly created page) redirects to this page, but there is no discussion on the page about what it has to do with Survivalism. Any ideas why? Jons63 (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the following as auto re-directs, assuming they might be search phrases: retreater, retreatist, and reteater. The last was added simply as a likely typo error. -- Jeff Trasel 1739 EST 23 Dec 07.

I flagged two statements which appear to be unsupported or possibly just conjecture. Can anyone support these with a substantive citation? Thanks. Trasel (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since more than a week went by without anyone coming to the defense of these unsourced comments, nor was any source/citation added, I went ahead and deleted them. Trasel (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


I've identified three additional statements that need support (see flags), in an attempt to reduce the amount of conjecture and/or opinion in this section. Please add citations if you can locate some that specifically mention survivalists.Trasel (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Another unsourced statement was added to the description of David Brin's novel "The Postman". Source? Thanks,Trasel (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An e-mail from Brin is the source. This is the from Zombie squad forum. http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2509&sid=93f71c2ab5ec23aa981c954cfe8694f0

Yeah, I know it's a double post, but I thought I should have a seperate post for this thread.

After reading The Postman, I actually contacted David Brin to find out why survivalists were the antagonist of his book, versus some other group. Here's is my email to him:

Tomcat wrote: I just started reading your novel, The Postman last night, and so far I have found it much more enjoyable than the film. One thing I was most surprised about in your book was that the Holnists were survivalists, instead of a militia as in the movie. After reading an article about the book, I learned that you said that the book was, to an extent, an anti-survivalist book.

My question is simply why? What about the survivalist movement concerned you or motivated to use them as an antagonist of that magnitude? I understand that the militia idea used in the film was pretty non-existent in 1985, but I am curious as to your reasons for making this novel an anti-survivalist work.

I eagerly await your response.

Sincerely, Tomcat


David Brin wrote: Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting message. It truly is gratifying when people write, and I always try to answer.

I certainly appreciate the encouragement.

I will append a general update below, but as for the survivalist issue, I don't think you may be recalling very well the NASTY emotional thread that underlay a lot of that movement, in the 80s. The tone was very much the way I protrayed it, leading eventually to the rationalizations of Timothy McVeigh.

This is NOT to say that survival training and preparedness are twisted, in themselves! I comsider myself to be adefinite member of that side of it, a real boy scout... which is why I was able to separate the two meanings of "militia". Two meanings that are real opposites.

With best wishes, for a confident and ambitious 21st Century,

David Brin www.davidbrin.com

Tags

article may require cleanup

represent a worldwide

additional citations for verification


Zombie Nonsense

I am dismayed to see references to "Zombie Apocalypse" repeatedly creeping in to this article. Survivalism is rooted in rational thought. To mix something that could never happen (reanimation of dead people and animals) into a discussion of real world threats does survivalism a huge dis-service and discredits the entire movement. The "Zombie" crowd is fixated on a piece of fiction. While it surely deserves its own wiki page, it is NOT survivalism! Trasel (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I inadvertently added it back in without even looking at the history of the article or talk page, but I tell you what, I have firearms, ammo, food, and water stockpiled specifically in case of zombies. 12.107.188.5 (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree that we do no want zombie nonsense cluttering up this article. There already is an article about a zombie apocalypse as a fictional concept. One exception we might want to consider for the popular culture section is the film 28 Days Later. First, it has a very strong survivalist theme. Secondly, it isn't actually a zombie movie as the backstory is about a viral infection (not reanimated dead people) causing the breakdown of society. Surv1v4l1st (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit curious here. Are we talking about Zombie Squad? They are a non-profit .org, internationaly recognized for preparing people for disasters using zombies as a metaphor. They do this because while a tornado may be immediately important to someone in the midwest, a hurricane is more important to someone on the east coast. It is impossible to predict what disaster will fall on someone so it falls to a fictional threat that everyone can relate to. To not include an .org that has thousands of members from around the globe is ridiculous. Sapanther (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This is deflecting the discussion away from the original point: Survivalism is rooted in rational thought. To mix something that could never happen (reanimation of dead people and animals) into a discussion of real world threats does survivalism a huge dis-service and discredits the entire movement. The fact that someone operates not for profit and has ",org" at the end of their URL has no bearing, since you could make the same argument for the Church of Satan being included in a wiki page on Mainstream Religions. Leave the zombie fictional musings over at their own pages, and in the apocalyptic fiction page. The recent news headlines (economic and flu pandemic, for example), have borne out some key survivalist predictions. But reanimation of necrotic tissue and dead people walking around and hunting the living won't be happening anytime soon. Let's not mix fiction with reality, folks! Trasel (talk)
With your reply I will consider that a yes, you are speaking of ZS and must say, they are anything but fictional. They are a real orginization reaching out to people who would otherwise be put off to the notion that maybe they should look into how they would survive any sort of disaster in their area. They are an orginization that has members in many countries around the world and in their home city of St. Louis they draw more people to blood drives for the Red Cross than any other org. They have raised craploads of money for disaster relief and sent volunteers for releif efforts. How is any of this considered fictional? Sapanther (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you can take that as a resounding NO, since zombies are fictional, and they don't belong listed along real world threats/scenarios. Again, please limit mention of "ZS" to wiki pages related to fictional topics. REAL survivalist topics of concern relate to the *real* world (such as: Mexico City--TODAY and financial meltdown--TODAY, and truly possible TOMORROWS), not impossibilities. There are plenty of other wiki pages to post mention of your organization. But not here. By doing so, you make survivalists look like the fringe, which we are not. Sorry. Trasel (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder what your real problem is with ZS. You simply refuse to acknowledge that they do real world good. That they raise tens of thousands of dollars for real world disatser victims. That they send members to help in rescue operations around the world. Nowhere in their Contingency Planning & Preparation, Personal Experiences, Self-Sufficient Living or Disasters in Current Events forums do they mention zombies. Simply because they use zombies as a way to reach those who would normally be put off by such attitudes as yours, you attack them as being some lame larp group or whatever. I honestly dont know WHAT you think they are. I can't think of anything they COULD be besides an organization spanning the globe who thinks young folks of every political persusion should get involved in their own well being and not have to rely on the govt to take care of them if something goes wrong. Btw, it isn't MY organiztion. I simply know a good bit about them and respect what they do for people. Sapanther (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add a link to www.survivalistboards.com, its one of the largest survival forums on the internet with over 1,093,836 post and 24,938 members. The forum even has its own survivalistboards youtube channel, which has over 300 videos as 12,000 subscribers. Or, maybe just create survivalistboards its own wikipedia page? 21kev (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Added a external links section for external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.64.39 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The External links section for this article has been spammed so heavily in the past, that I don't recommend having one. Oh well, we will just see what happens. Trasel (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Added:


To the External links section. Both links are well know for survival and Survivalism. Both are pretty good for the subject matter so please look thm over in detail before anyone says they are spam or anything else. billylenks (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at that, spam and a blog...they're being removed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Carl is right. Again, the External links section for this article has been spammed very heavily in the past. Therefore, I don't recommend having one at all. Trasel (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Both the links have relavent info to survivalism as a whole. There is nothin related to spam on either of the sites. http://www.survivalblog.com is very well known site for survivalism is used as a reference for this page. http://www.survivalebooks.com only sells one product so don't see a spam issue and this site does not have any other links on any Wikipedia page so it is not being spammed. Most sites used in the references for this page sell tons of products. billylenks (talk) 14:36 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You have made no contributions to WP except adding your ELs. Had you bothered to read the EL guidelines, you would see that we do not link to blogs. And it does not matter how many products a site sells. It is meant to sell a product, which makes it spam. Any strictly positive value for the number of things it sells makes it spam. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.

  • Reverted external links. Because www.survivalblog.com """""11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority""""" This is *James Wesley Rawles blog He seems to be considered a recognized authority on survival and survivalism by the editors of this Wikipedia page * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivalism Survivalism page] since his name is at top it. www.survivalblog.com not restricted per *[1]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links]. User did not follow [2]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links].

As for * A site related to survival and Survivalism It is not hard to tell that the site is not meant to promote a product, if you take a look at history of the site (there are ways to what a site over time and see what it looked like months sometimes year back) The site had no products for a long time. This site has too much useful info about survival and survivalism in their articles. Linking to each one would create too many links on a Wikipedia page. not restricted per[3]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links]. User did not follow [4]Wikipedia:External links guideline for removing links].

I have made more contributions to WP then you will ever know and I have read the EL guidelines more times then I care to admit and know them by haert. From what I have seen from your edits regarding these two ELs deals with something more of a personal nature then subject matter. If you have problems how people have presented their works on a website take it up it them in their blog or site and keep it off WP billylenks (talk) 01:14 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight you are sayin if a site sells one thing it is spam per your own words. Then your I am wondering why you singled out one site for removal* A site related to survival and Survivalism


Sites in the References links that sell one of more items on the Survivalism Page.

4. http://www.aussurvivalist.com/ sells advertising on their site

6. http://www.biorationalinstitute.com/ sells advertising on their site

7. http://www.survivalblog.com sells items

8. http://www.survivalblog.com sells items

9. http://www.survivalbill.ca sell advertising

11. http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=survivalist&submit=Search sell advertising and no real reason way Ref should list search of yahoo groups for a keyword

19. http://www.equipped.org/ sells tons and tons of stuff would be the bigest spam on the page (LITTLED WITH PRODUCTS FOR SALE EVERY WHERE). WOULD ALSO LEAD TO NPOV ISSUES WITH YOUR EDITS SINCE YOU DID NOT REMOVE THIS REF LINK.

22. http://www.survivalbill.ca/ has the same ref and link as 9. which what you are citing http://www.survivalblog.com that it should not have a link extrenal links since it has a ref already. Why would you say this about the link I added and remove my edits when there are the same problems on ref section that you choose to plainly do nothin about when they are in plain sight for everyone to see. """"YOU Do UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS MASSIVE NPOV ISSUES WRITTEN ALL OVER IT FOR YOU AND ANY ONE THAT HAS EDIT MY EXTRANAL LINKS AND NOT OVER CHOOSING TO FIX THESE ISSUS"

25. http://hislink2.proboards53.com/index.cgi sell advertising through google adsense

29. http://technohippie.com/archives/beasurvivor.html sell advertising through google adsense

31. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056331/ despite the site having a review of the movie it is spam because it sells way too many items. per your own words one is too many.

32. http://www.badmovieplanet.com/unknownmovies/reviews/rev268.html sell advertising through banner for movies

34. http://www.oism.org/nwss/index.htm Sells books

36. http://www.biorationalinstitute.com/zcontent/alpha_strategy.pdf THIS LINK IS DEAD AND DOES NOT WORK AND WILL FREEZE YOUR COMPUTER MESSAGE THAT COMES UP "THIS FILE IS DAMAGED AND COULD NOT BE REPAIRED" WOULD ALSO LEAD TO NPOV ISSUES WITH YOUR EDITS SINCE YOU DID NOT REMOVE THIS REF LINK that is harmful to WP users over links that work!!!!!


I am very well aware what can and can't be added and I will make that very clear for the other users who read this. Despite some of these sites selling products or advertising in some form or another they belong on the page because they offer info that makes this page worth reading and provides Ref to the items placed here. This is just to make a point to Carl.bunderson (talk) and that he gets the point that removing my two edits is not very NPOV from what he is saying about my edits or what this user is doing to remove my edits. The real issues with this page have been overlooked going after personal issues that are not NPOV and it does not take much to look over the issues I presented and see that.

Carl you did open this door and and removing my edits further over and over without correcting the same issues with the rest of the Survivalism page will raise some major NPOV issuse. billylenks (talk) 6:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A site can be a reference even if it sells things, as long as it is reliable. I am not "singling out" your edits...they were the only edits to the EL section. You brought them up in the talk page, I responded, and another editor agreed with me. Another editor had already removed them outright. It looks as though I am singling out your site, but I'm not. I simply have not taken the time to go through the referenes. If one of my edits were to have "cleanup" as the summary, and I left a bunch of spam in the EL but removed one, then yes, that would be an NPOV issue. You're grasping for a reason to keep your spam on the page...give it up. Look at my edit history and talk page archives...it will be obvious to you that I am a tireless defender against spam around here, and you're hardly someone to whom I will give in. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The sites two sites I have tried list are not mine so don't know why u keep on saying your site. billylenks (talk) 2:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Shit hits the fan redirect?

Why does this article redirect the search query "Shit hits the fan" to here? White Mage Cid

SHTF is a common survivalist acronym. Another one is TEOTWAWKI.Trasel (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, both terms are very common in the Survivalist community. I wonder if a short section on terminology is in order? Surv1v4l1st (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes a survivalist terminology section would be apropos. There are only about 10 or 12 terms & acronyms that are both notable and fairly unique to the Survivalist lexicon. There is a glossary at the SurvivalBlog site, and IIRC, there is also a glossary at the Alpha Rubicon web site. I presume that the basic terms, should anyone care to take a stab at drafting a new section might include: Ballistic Wampum, BOB, BOL, Golden Horde, G.O.O.D. SHTF, WTSHTF, TEOTWAWKI Polly, and Doomer. Other suggestions? Thanks, Trasel (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you covered some of the more common terms and those would be a good starting point. We'd want to keep such a section fairly trim anyway. There are some terms that are shared in common with the gun culture, but I believe that would be out of the scope of this article. Surv1v4l1st (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It relates to groups of people not one persons views on a subject. Those same refs have been there for years posted by many people not one person. Survivalism and what it has become is made up of groups that stay under the news media like the groups in the refs that relate to groups what that section was made for. All have been major factors of what survivalism is today otherwise the news media would of had us all portraited as crazy nuts because we are prepaired for things that may come in the future to look out for our families.

Those refs have 100,000's of messages from the people from those areas as groups of people and is not limited to a news story on 2 or three selected people. I find 100,000 people a more reliable source then singled out story on maybe two people out a mass that expands worldwide.

This issue should of been addressed on the Discussion page for survivalism before the other user or yourself made a mass edits like this and you should respect that as well as I do. And that were it needs to be addressed over a number of days so all the users can have some imput rather then a few selected users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.217.245 (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Survivalist groups and forums--both formal and informal--are popular worldwide, most visibly in Australia[1], Belgium[2], Canada[3], France[4], Germany (often organized under the guise of "adventuresport" clubs)[5], New Zealand[6][7], Sweden[8][9], and the United States[10][11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.217.245 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

When none of them are reliable sources for references, then no discussion is needed prior to removal. The section was nothing but example spam and had no place being in the article. The removal wasn't even bold, it was clearing out crap. Another user has now provided references to the section. --GraemeL (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This is addressed to Mr. unsigned "24.205.217.245": I have to agree with GraemeL on this. His point is valid. And, FWIW, it was I that created most of the original links (that were deleted by GraemeL), from my web research more than ayear ago. So please don't get indignant. YOU were not the primary author that had his work deleted--I was. As best as I can tell, it was ONE spammy commercial link to an insignificant web forum that prompted your edits in the first place. In this case, GraemeL is correct vis-a-vis the Wiki policy. Verifiable print media sources should take precedence. If you think that there is a noteworthy web forum that deserves mention, then go find a newspaper or magazine article that cites it. Many of the larger Survivalist and Peak Oil web sites and forums are frequently mentioned in print. Cite those! Trasel (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of putting together a navigation box for Survivalism related articles. Any thoughts, concerns, ideas, etc.? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got sort of a Beta version of a nav box on my talk page in case anyone is interested. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Schumer hits the fan source...

I noticed that the cite for 'Schumer hits the fan' is a web forum (http://www.whenshtf.com/showthread.php?t=9784). Web forums are rarely considered a reliable source. In fact, the post in question looks like a block/copy from the Wiki article. We need a reliable source for this variant of SHTF, or it should be removed. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 14:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been removed. If a reliable source can be found, it is fine to bring it back. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
A little digging did turn up another source, the Survival Blog entry (http://www.survivalblog.com/glossary.html#Schumer). It appears, however, that this is something that JWR coined and I'm not sure how common it is outside of said blog. If it is so, perhaps it should be added back. If not, then not. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Schools of Survivalist Thought

I've restored section that was mangled, no doubt in good faith, by an an editor identified only by an IP address. He seemed to think that Rawles claimed key tenets of survivalism as his own. Rawles has never made any such claims, nor have I, in writing about him. He also mentioned that Rawles is cited more often that other contemporary survivalist writers. Well, is that any wonder? He has the blog with the biggest circulation (by far), he has two very popular books, (one fiction, and one non-fiction that have been in Amazon's Top Ten list in the past year. He is also quoted more by the mainstream media than all of the other survivalist blogger, combined. Yeah, I'm a fan of his work, but does that somehow detract from the fact that he is influential, and that he espouses his own particular flavor of Survivalism? (FWIW, I think the "comma" affectation in his name is buffoonery.)

To take the section that I wrote on Rawlesian philosophy and re-attribute that to ALL of "Survivalism" is absurd. Rawles has views that are distinct from mainstream survivalists,most notably his emphasis on charity, which he calls "an imperative." Most survivalists could care less about their neighbors. Mel Tappan, for instance, ,hardly mentioned charity, and Kurt Saxon has advocated what could best be called xenophobic hostility. Rawles is an anti-racist, while Saxon IS a racist. If anything, we should add MORE to this section--with, for example, a section on Mel Tappan followers and Kurt Saxonites-- instead of deletigs useful, fully cited material. Please cease and desist with destructive edits. And take the time to READ the books written by Rawles before being so dismissive! Trasel (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mutual Assistance Group (MAG)

I think the term Mutual Assistance Group (MAG) might be a valuable addition to the terminology section as it is used in the survivalist/prepper culture. I am still looking for a good source, so if anyone finds one before me, please be my guest. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have heard the term before but I don't know where. I believe it was in relation to cooperative type groups. - 4twenty42o (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I've seen it time and again on the various survival forums and blogs, but I am having a hard time with locating a reliable source. As such, I am leaving it out for the moment. If someone should have one, it would be of some value. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Revived Zombie Section

To prevent clutter I have added a new section reinstating the Zombie section as it is relevant to this article. I present the following text.

(→Survivalist scenarios and outlooks: Revived Zombie survival section, see talk page) (undo)

While the likelihood of such scenarios occuring have been debated. A number of serious and semi-serious literature and communities have emerged dealing with esotoric concepts such as how to survive and defend yourself from a zombie outbreak[45]. Although this branch of survivalism is criticised as being unrealistic, philosophers such as David Chalmers and other opponent of classical materialism, claim that it is logically possible for these scenarios to occur - such as the existence of zombies if specific conditions were met for their conception.

The original challenges to this section was that a certain editor considered zombie survivalism as being 'irrational' and that it detracted from the purpose of this article. However, irrespective of this claim I would like to draw attention to the following points.

1. Noone has ownership of the idealogy of what constitutes survivalism or not. Regardless of how silly the concept may sound to some individuals, wikipedia is not a soapbox for subjectivist assertions. For instance.

2. I refute the claim that zombie scenarios are irrational... There have been documented cases where governments have legitamately explored the potential of mind control. Project MK-ULTRA being an example where the American government readily experimented with LSD as a form of psychological weaponry. There has also been valid research exploring the potential of energy weaponry as a form of psychological weaponry in riot control [12]

3. There have been documented cases of zombie outbreaks and zombie-induction techniques...ranging from Zombies and Voodoo, torture techniques. There is also documented cases of hypnotic zombie like states either drug-induced or through hypnotism. There also been ancient documented cases of 'possible' zombie outbreaks in remote regions of Egypt, possibly due to an as yet undiscovered pathogenic virus in the drinking water which caused an outbreak of violence. The specific case escapes me but there is a scientific paper which examined the remains of finger nails and scratchings in the wall which could have only been caused by humans.

4. Just like the other scenarios -> One cannot rule out future possibilities of otherwise zombie or esotoric encounters. How one can readily dismiss the possibility whilst ignoring hundreds and thousands of papers dealing with the issues of consciousness from neuropsychology,quantum physicists, transpersonal and conciousness studies, philosophers and psychopharmacologists who have devoted entire papers devoted to the potential of manipulating consciousness. One cannot rule out the possiblity that a future government would look towards either technological, psychological or biological means of mind control. There is also documented cases of mind control such as the Jonestown cult.

Therefore. I have reinstated the section. I have higlighted that there is some controversy regarding such scenarios so as to maintain NPOV. However, if you were to read the literature such as Max Brookes, you would find that there is a rational treatise on the scenario -> such as barricading houses with stacks of trolleys, removal of stairs, sterilisation of food and water supplies, raiding tactics just to name a few. Yes, the plausability of the scenario may not be as strong as the rest of the scenarios, but to remove the section and dismiss it out of hand a priori without given a careful considerate thought to the potential evidence out there is close minded.

You are welcome to disagree, but seeing as survivalism is part theoretical and part practical as it deals with future scenarios - noone cannot arrogantly claim with certaintity to know the future. It is not a soapbox to debate the authenticity of scenarios but rather document the current literature which actually exist. If it where the case that Wikipedia only accepted empirical data then I assure you that half of the literature of quantum physics, mysticism and religion would dissappear over night with such materialistic perceptual bias... However wikipedia is impersonal and should not curry favour subjective idealogies.

Now if someone removes the section again without considering the above considerations I will take the issue further. I am an academic with a scientific background who has explored aspects relating to consciousness and my time is fairly limited. I do not have a vested interest other then to make available the information for others to come to their own conclusions. Even though I myself believe other scenarios are more plausable, it would be unfair to dismiss other theories based on subjective assumptions on the aeitology, behaviours or definition of what a zombie is. I can rationally conclude that aliens exist but I cannot claim to know what they look like, just like there are multiple definitions and descriptions of God in philosophy and religion but noone can say with 100% God actually exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.15.201 (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to wade into discussing this at the moment, but might revisit it later when I have time. That said, the primary source (http://www.zombiesurvivalwiki.com/) is not in any way, shape, or form a reliable source and appears to be a self-published Wiki. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, would this reference be more reliable? (There is a dedicated survivalist forum on there plus a myriad of survivalist articles). [5]. I'm refraining from editing further but I'd like to add that there is legitimate empirical research pointing towards the potential existence of a psychological zombie [www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/lieberman-zombies(2009).pdf]. Other supporting evidence includes Homicidal somnambulism and parasites which affect the brain functioning of the host such as rabies. Not everyone who is a zombie survivalist believes in the undead occult definition. That is all. --78.86.15.201 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
See the reliable source link I posted above. With few exception, Internet forums are not considered a reliable source. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs)
This zombie stuff is all fantasy from late night horror movie buffs . And this talk of drug-induced zombie activity is ludicrous. Who considers that a genuine survivalist secnario? This gibberish makes real survivalists look bad. It sure don't belong in a serious article on survivalism. Mel Tappan is rolling in his grave. Oh, but wait-a-minute, that would be post-death reanimation. BobbieCharlton (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Well stated Bobbie. While we are on the topic, I have been very tempted to remove the "Aliens and Artificial Intelligence" entry as well. For one, the source provided has no mention at all of "artificial intelligence," so that is really unsourced. Also, it references a single book, not "a number."
As of the current state of human development, advanced AI doesn't exist. Also, there is no scientific evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, let alone is a threat to human civilization. Finally, and most importantly, I don't see any evidence that preparing for either is a common belief in the survival/prepper community. I'm sure someone, somewhere plans for it, but that doesn't mean it is part and parcel with the subculture.
Any objections to removing this section? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
One can also say that for most if not all of the other "Survivalist scenarios and outlooks" mentioned in that section. "Gray goo", "Left Behind", and at least a dozen other scenarios mentioned are just as tenuous as this risk of zombie invasion. How are you guys rationalizing for including of one hypothetical apocalypse and not another? Face it, survivalism includes an aspect of the unknown risk. Zombies invasion is peculiar, but why is it any more or less peculiar that most of the other risks outlined presently in that section? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No disagreement about there being an element of the hypothetical and it may indeed be difficult to always draw a fine line. However, economic collapse, floods, fires, hurricanes, civil unrest, plagues, famine, wars, insurrections, and good ol' fashioned "people being lost in the woods" have all happened in human history. The dead mysteriously rising from the grave and feasting on the brains of the living has not, nor is there an indication that it is even remotely biologically possible. Either way, the source provided by the OP above is simply not reliable and I think we can agree on that.
The "gray goo" thing you mentioned is somewhat borderline too. It is currently unsourced, so would either like to see that rectified or removed soon.
As to the eschatological scenarios; well, we aren't going to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God(s) in a Wiki talk page. Be that as it may, it is a very common theme within the survivalist/prepper community. Particularly so with some within the Restorationist sects (SDAs, Mormons), some Protestant sects (various flavors of Evangelical and Charismatic) as well as other religious groups. We may agree or disagree with their theological school of thought, but there is ample evidence that is is a driving force for many.
Finally, all this brings up what the core criteria for inclusion would be. It probably wouldn't hurt to have discussion along those lines. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's have the discussion then. Red flags go up when the criteria is as suggested above: "This gibberish makes real survivalists look bad." This article is not about making real survivalists look good or look bad. Skipping for now the question of what makes a "real" survivalist, do we agree on the baseline is not about making survivalists look good or bad? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The "make survivalists look bad" seems like a POV criteria and as such should be discarded post-haste. By the same token, an agenda to make them look like loons is equally POV.
A few criteria come to mind is a.) Real disasters or scenarios that humanity has had to grapple with or b.) A common disaster with which a society or government has made official preparations to address or c.) A scenario or belief system that is very widespread within the survival/prepper community. Having at least one would be reason for consideration, though hitting two or three would be better. Per the project policy, there would have to be reliable sources to document any of them. Those are just some that come to mind and I would invite and encourage some other contributors to add some others.
There is, of course, plenty of holes with the aforementioned. How you define a "survivalist" is obviously one of them as you alluded to.
Having said all that, I am and have been a little torn about the utility of the section in general. On one hand, it does layout some common scenarios or reasons that motivate preparedness. On the other it invites a dumping ground for contributor's pet theories. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the article in overview, there seems quite a bit which synthesizes from sourcing of marginal reliability and sourcing which is not third party. Hopefully we can find some solidly reliable independent sourcing, and then use that as a model for the tone and structure of a rewrite of the article. Can you point to a few excellent sources which are independent and neutral that I can start reading? An academic book or journal article or something? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, now we are drifting off-the original topic. I would like to see this section addressed first.
At the present, I don't agree that we need a rewrite, but I will leave that to the other contributors. To answer your question, I can think of a number of print resources either written by survivalists/preppers/self-sufficiency advocates or, to a lesser extent, about said. The former would be a good source to describe the beliefs/outlooks and practices, the latter for neutrality and an "outsiders" view. Should it be necessary, I can review the relevant texts at some point. To be candid, as I am not on board with the rewrite idea, I'm not all that inclined to do so. However, if you would like a bibliography, I can put something together to assist you or whomever would value the resource.
Finally, it may prove difficult narrowing resources. The term "survialism" and "survivalist" has been used, applied, and arguably misapplied over the decades. Caution should be taken with this in mind as POV material abounds within and without the prepper community. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate you telling me this, and judging from your editor username, I can guess that you are a person with inside knowledge of Survivalism. Because of the policy WP:NOR, bear in mind that essentially everything you claim that is sourced to your inside knowledge is off limits here. So, please cite your reliable sources for your statements, and please avoid discussing your personal opinions about survivalism here. This is not because I don't respect your personal ideas and opinions, but it is rather because there are better forums elsewhere. Let's talk specifics about the article based on a discussion of what we are reading in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how coming up with a bibliography of relevant texts is somehow original resource. As matter of fact, I can think of at least two books written by investigative journalists (one published in the 80s, on in the 2000s) that are critical of survivalism.
I'd also invite you to be very careful with assumptions you make based upon a username alone. You have already mischaracterized my views on one occasion, to continue to do so borders on a strawman. I do not dispute being involved with preparedness in my private life, but we both know that is not a disqualifier for meaningful, neutral contributions.
That said, we are now wildy off-topic. To get it back on point, I would submit we excise a little common sense and remove B-movie nonsense such as zombies, space aliens, and robot uprisings from the article. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Please include the specific sources for your opinions expressed here. What exactly are you reading? Thanks, I would like a chance to read it too. Otherwise, WP:NOTAFORUM. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. Now we are more on the same page (no pun intended). My point is simply that there is a myriad of source regarding survivalism (pro, con, and neutral). I do not have access to the texts right at this second, but I can look up some titles later if it would be of some value. I will see if my google-fu will turn up some now, but it would probably be better and more accurate to look at the books themselves.
Back to the topic at hand, I am going to remove the unsourced or poorly sourced entries regarding zombies, aliens and robots. If this section gets rewritten or removed at a later time, so be it. If anyone disagrees, I would invite them to come up with a reliable source indicating that preppers are actively preparing for the zombie apocalypse or when the HAL 9000 makes a power grab. ;) Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I object to a biased form of inclusion or removal based simply on what makes survivalists look silly versus what makes them look good. Explain what you are reading that describes what criteria you are using. I absence of that disclosure, it appears that your main criteria is wanting for survivalists to not look silly. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The section regarding "gray goo" was simply unsourced. The ones regarding aliens/AI and zombies were improperly sourced (Internet forums, etc.). If anyone would like them returned, please feel free to do so with an appropriate source. Also, if there is other content you believe could be better sourced or should be removed, then feel free to address them.
Your conjecture as to bias is largely wrong in my case, though I concur with the notion that these entries are pretty absurd. Nonetheless, your theory is immaterial with respect to the additions in question. Properly sourced content is a project-wide rule and, as such, the aforementioned sections were deleted. The burden of proof rests on those who would like this material included and they are always welcome to introduce properly sourced additions.Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

article rewrite

As mentioned above, the article presently has multiple instances of citations to sources of marginal reliability and excessive use of sourcing which is not independent of the topic. I think that WP:NPOV requires us to write an article from a viewpoint of a neutral observer. The heavy reliance on 'insider' sources skews the POV of the article to an 'insider' POV. To help fix this problem we should identify the best available material on this topic written from the point of view of a neutral outside observer. Any help putting together this bibliography would be appreciated. As said above, I would like to begin by carefully reading this neutral material to establish a baseline for the structure and tone of a future article rewrite. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

While neutrality is our goal, we can't overlook the statements, writings, etc. of those within the movement, provided that they are properly contextualized. Any other sociological topic quotes from sources within the subculture and this one is no different.
As stated above, I don't believe we need a complete rewrite, but if you feel that is necessary have at it. Put together some NPOV reliable sources, be bold, and "fill your boots." Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The Mitchell book, ISBN 9780226532448, published by the University of Chicago Press seems to be one excellent third party source on this topic. Have you read it? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't personally read it, but I am aware of it and it looks to be of interest. It was one of a few books I had in mind with the bibliography referenced above.
Well, I just purchased a copy, it should come in the mail in a few days. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It might not be a bad idea to come up with a short lists of topics that we'd like to address (types of preps, religious and sociological issues, current trends, perceived extremism, etc.) and from there a better bibliography could be developed.Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
We should pattern the main sub-topics based on the sub-topics as covered by neutral reliable sourcing. I oppose the process where self interested editors write an article the way they imagine it should be, and then do google searches attempting to back it up. That is improper synthesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
You are free to edit the article as you see fit. Obviously, we would not want to rely on only one source or even a small number of sources. Limiting one self to such would introduce a bias.
Considering the ridiculous discussion above concerning the undead, I believe I shall take my leave of editing this article for the moment. Good luck with your research SaltyBoatr. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The article has pretty good structure an flow, just as it is. What it needs are some more INDEPENDENT (journalistical) views of the movement. I think a couple of more quotes from that Dancing at Armageddon book would help. There were also quite a bunch of articles in mags and newspapers done in the late 1970's and early part of the 1980's about Mel Tappan, and the peopel that followed him to Oregon. My dad was a big Mel Tappan fan--he was the one that turned me on to his books--and I think my dad still has those clippings. Give me a day and Ill see if I can gather them them up. BobbieCharlton (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Bobbie Charlton, Can you specifically name specific books? I would like a chance to be reading the same things you are reading. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The only book that I know of that is just about survivalism (and some unrelated milleniual stuff) is Dancing at Armageddon. The rest of what I talking about were magazine and newspaper articles. Here's the titles of the ones in my dad's clipping file:
  • Fad Passes, But Survivalists Still Stand Prepared (AP) July 14, 1986

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1821&dat=19860730&id=ES0tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Dr0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=961,4648505

  • The Business of Survival Grows. The New York Times August 28, 1980
  • Fearing Society's Collapse, 'Survivalists" Cache Goods. New York Times Jan. 15, 1981
  • Field Notes, Rogue River, Oregon. The Safest Valley in America. Outside Magazine, June 1984
  • Preparing for the Worst: A new Growth Industry US News & World Report Feb. 9, 1981
  • The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling. Penthouse magazine March, 1981
  • Surviving the End of the World. New West magazine. Feb 25, 1980
  • Survivalism: Preparing for the Ultimate Disaster, GEO magazine, 1981

I can give quotes with page numbers from any of these articles, if you need them. They are now kinda dated, but they show the journalistical view of the survivalist movement at the time. I think that those from the 1980's (about Mel Tappan and Howard j.Ruff) , along with the later quotes (about Bruce Clayton and James Rawles) should make the WP article better rounded. But we have to worry about about fair balance, just because the movement had more news coverage in one era, then in another. Just in NUMBERS, there are more survivalists now, than ever before. The thing has just morphed a bit. BobbieCharlton (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I only found one of these article on-line:

Fad Passes, But Survivalists Still Stand Prepared (AP) July 14, 1986 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1821&dat=19860730&id=ES0tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Dr0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=961,4648505

I'm sure there are others, guys. BobbieCharlton (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What is actual LDS teaching?

I noticed that the history section said that historically the LDS suggested one year, but that they now recommend 3 months. In the religion section, it says that the LDS used to suggest 7 years, and now mandates 1 year. Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.144.133 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The three month recommendation appears on the official LDS site related to preparedness. It has varied over the years, but AFAIK, the 7 year figure was a 19th century thing so has long since past. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 18:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV on Perceived Extremism

I added this template because this section does not site any sources and seems negatively bent on "right wing" groups. I would have deleted the section all together, but I feel the information adds to the article. It should either be revised or citations added. sohmc (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your perception of the section on Perceived Extremism, I don't see anything with faulty with the information provided. Prammers (Paramilitary Survivalists) are the kind of people who feel that Preppers (Preparation Survivalists) don't know jack, whereas Preppers feel, at times, that Prammers are only interested in walling themselves up and declaring their own independant country. Of course, this is in the USA, and does not accurately reflect the ideas of other countries. With this in mind, the entire page is biast in that it only focuses on the USA without much consideration for other countries. Survivalism worldwide does not count as unbiast as it is too small for the gloabal context. I'm not sure that providing citations from a variety of websites would benefit this article as a whole, and so my recommendation is that either the entire article be flagged for the inaccurate data regarding survivalism as a whole on a global scale, OR that the flag on this part of the article be removed as no citation can be provided at this time, without citing various survivalism forums. An example of Prammer vs Prepper, please accept this snapshot in a survivalist forum: http://www.survivalistboards.com/showpost.php?p=1449837&postcount=50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siltharin (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Doomsdayer

Why does "Doomsdayer" (a 2000 movie with Brigitte Nielsen and Udo Kier) redirect here? 192.166.198.50 (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes no freakin' sense. It is NOT a survivalist movie! BobbieCharlton (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure why it redirects either. There doesn't appear to be a Wiki article on the film in question. If there is, and I overlooked it, please post the link. We can at least add a redirect template at the top of the article to avoid confusion.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation formatting

The article has been tagged as using bare URLs instead of the proper formatting for web citations. I've started the process of cleaning these up and am going section by section. I just thought I would mention it in case anyone would like to lend a hand with the clean up. Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

'Further reading' section

The current 'Further reading' section consists of external links to classic texts. Any thoughts on perhaps moving this to an External links section and adding a short 'Further reading' section devoted to books and, perhaps, periodical articles on the topic?--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Survivalism (philosophy)

Hi, I am currently writing a book which redefines survivalism as a strict philosophy, as opposed to the more active hypothetical 'prepper' survivalism. As I had noticed this article comes under philosophy, but remains rather unphilosophical, what are the chances of getting a survivalist (philosophy) article on the go? Are there enough sources defining a survivalist philosophy to warrant getting it's own article? --129.11.77.198 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This article might be a good starting point: http://survivalblog.com/2012/02/the-mainstream-medias-blatant-anti-preparedness-bias.html. The same author (James Wesley Rawles) has a section on "Rawlesian Survivalist Philosophy" in his bestselling book "How To Survive The End of the World As We Know it". But I'm not sure the "PHILOSOPHY" deserves a separate article. Expanding the existing WP page a bit is probably all that is needed. Expatter (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

Merge with Survival Skills? --92.203.47.185 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you may mean Survival skills (note second word). As this point, I'd favor keeping the articles separate as they cover different topics. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging Prepper

Prepper appears to be about the same thing. I think it should be merged into this article. Thoughts? --AW (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the merge, although some split hairs over a distinction... BobbieCharlton (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with a merge. The two often overlap but are not the same thing. Many survivalists may consider themselves as preppers, but most preppers do not consider themselves survivalists. Storing extra food or preparing for a disaster does not make you a survivalist. Look at the root words to understand the difference. Prepper - Prepare... and Survivalist - Survival. Prepping is synonymous with preparing meaning to get prepared prior to an event. Survivalism is more about the skill set needed to survive an event. A prepper is someone who partakes in preparedness more so than survivalism, where a survivalist is more into hardcore survival gear, supplies and strategies.

In short, a Prepper is someone who is involved with Preparedness while A Survivalist is someone who is involved with Survivalism

If this page were to be merged it would fit better being merged with Preparedness rather than Survivalism

But even that I still disagree with, as the Prepper movement is a completely different movement made up of different groups of people than those who are involved with the survivalist movements. In the prepper movement you will find more urban and suburban people. People who prefer to find ways to bug in rather than bug out during a disaster. Rather than a merge, I would suggest doing more research on the movement and culture and add more information including information on the differences between survivalists and preppers including as well as information about why certain people identify themselves as preppers rather than survivalists and vice versa.

Keywords to think about Preppers:....Preparedness, prepare, prep, get ready, store up, prior, short term disasters, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes Keywords to think about Survivalists:....Survive, Survival, Survival skills, TEOTAWKI, SHTF, Societal Collapse, Pandemics, 2012, Economic collapse. OneOregonMan (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Needs merged. More coverage would do these topics right. Prepper would be a great sub topic here.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur, merge them, with Survivalism as the main page title. BobbieCharlton (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree. If it must be merged it would belong under preparedness, not survivalism. A poll of people who consider themselves as preppers would show that the vast majority of them lean more towards preparedness than survivalism. OneOregonMan (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This was a very interesting and enjoyable article to work on. I hope I did more good than harm with my copy edits. On the whole, it was well-written and well-sourced; there were just a few instances of un-attributed claims and vague assertions (e.g. "Some people think...")—I tried to tag them without going overboard. You've probably already noticed that the "Preppers" article was turned into a redirect to this page about a week ago without any transfer of information. Having read both articles and the above discussion, I agree that "Prepper" would do well as a sub-topic here. That is, if there is a notable and verifiable distinction between the two. It can always be split into its own article in the future if there's enough information to warrant it. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Preppers is simply a slang term for survivalism. Wikipedia should avoid slang, unless there is no alternative.203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This Merge needs to be undone. 1)The result of the merge is that the Survivalism page does nothing to distinguish Preppers from Survivalism, or even to distinguish it as a subset. 2)Those stating that Prepper is slang, a neologism or the same as Survivalism do not have the intimate knowledge to make that distinction. Just as the Samba and the Two-Step are completely separate and unique pages, the uninformed could easily assume they are all dancing and thus state they are the same thing. 3)The term Prepper has been clarified as a legitimate term through multiple television shows, as a stand-alone interest group apart from survivalism and through multiple newspaper articles. The common assumption even with this media coverage is that (as has been assumed here) they are the same. 4)On the Survivalism page, the "2000 - Present" section makes no distinction between Preppers and Survivalists, as it should. Just as Preppers are not Survivalists, Survivalists are not Preppers and the page on Survivalism has been genericized to include Prepper practices of being involved with CERT, Government disaster response (FEMA), and being community focused. In the attempt to merge the two together you have created a page that justifies neither. 5)Just as those who know the Samba often also know the Two-Step, Preppers & Survivalists often cross boundaries between them, likely the cause of confusion here.

This merge was done over the objections of the only person in this talk page who actually provided any actual information other than assumption or belief in the mainstream conclusions - which simply further justifies distinguishing between the two. Unless the dissenters can actually offer legitimate information to maintain the merge, it should be undone.Phil801 (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The merge was justified. Unless Phil801 can come up with a couple of reliable third party sources that CLEARLY AND AUTHORITATIVELY DISTINGUISH the terms survivalist and prepper, then it should be left AS IS. SoTotallyAwesome (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

POV

Erm, it'd be nice if this article was a neutral rendition of the facts, rather than a hysterical list of survivalist tropes presented without context. Just saying. 94.192.225.169 (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it. Specifics, please. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 02:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Please don't remove maintenance tags just because you don't agree with them. This article reads, especially in the opening paragraphs, as a how-to, pro-survivalism guide. There is little or no discussion of the downsides of this type of hysterical paranoia on society as a whole; nothing negative about the subject is being allowed to appear; the first paragraphs are unreferenced and biased in favour of survivalism as a way of life... I could go on. This is not a very good article, and a good place to start would be someone with knowledge fixing the POV tone. 94.192.225.169 (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Please don't apply tags without knowing what they actually mean.
To elaborate: "Articles that have been linked to this page are the subject of an NPOV dispute" "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies...Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." [original bolding]
Similarly, on Template:POV#When_to_remove, both "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given" and "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." criteria for removal have been met. As there was no ongoing discussion (as I noted in my edit summary), I could have removed the tag without a word. But instead, I took the exceedingly polite action of attempting to start a discussion. Seeing no response, not even from the OP (you), meant that the tag was not only unnecessary, but that it could not be allowed to remain up.
As your objections so far seem (to me) far too vague to be actioned upon, I strongly suggest that you implement some of the changes you feel are necessary ("marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article"). If you can't be bothered to do that (and you shouldn't expect someone else to do it for you), and there isn't a sudden rush of discussion, then there is no reason for the tag (Although Template:Undue or similar may be more appropriate).
To adress your few specific points:
Please don't remove maintenance tags just because you don't agree with them. - WP:AGF
There is little or no discussion of the downsides of this type of hysterical paranoia on society as a whole - Please draft and present such text you think should be added.
nothing negative about the subject is being allowed to appear - This is serious. If an editor(s) is disallowing otherwise valid contributions in order to slant the POV of the article, please say so explicitly so this can be dealt with (Although, I see no such behavior in recent edit history)
the first paragraphs are unreferenced - The WP:LEDE does not have to be referenced, as it is only a summary of text referenced in the body of the article.
I could go on. - Please do. And be more specific.
This is not a very good article - "Do not use them as a badge of shame."
and a good place to start would be someone with knowledge fixing the POV tone. - You're the only one whose noted a problem, SOFIXIT yourself.
At the very least, please provide an assortment of reliable sources discussing this in-depth to show that this viepoint should be given the desired weight.
Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 08:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
As an additional note: The above may itself look like an NPOV dispute, but it's not (at least, not yet). The page may very well be biased, but so far, only one editor has spoken up, they have proposed no real changes, and nobody's agreed or disagreed with them, so there could not possibly be a NPOV dispute occuring. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 08:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
So a reader, with no interest in the subject, who notices that an article has issues, must know many of Wikipedia's rules and regulations, exact Wikipedia terms and must be subject to having their complaint about the article dissected forensically and various policies waved at them, then subjected to warning that they were wrong to even bring it up? And then senior people appear on the media wondering why the number of contributors and the number of new editors has declined while the site has grown? I feel so very very welcomed. Thank you. 94.192.225.169 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
No, you don't need to know "many of Wikipedia's rules and regulations", but discussions are much more productive when you do. Most of what I quoted is from the 'instructions' for the template you used, and I believe it is entirely reasonable to expect you know what a template means before placing it at the top of an article. In case you didn't know about a particular guideline, note the many links to guidelines I've referenced throughout my above comment. As for the length, depth, and 'forensic dissection', you accused me of "no real attempt to discuss", so I was just covering my bases. I don't see any "warning that they [you?] were wrong to even bring it up"; I'd appreciate if you could point out what text gave you that impression.
All I'm asking for is that you state, as specifically as possible, what is wrong with the article, and how it might be improved. Only you can see whatever it is you see that's wrong with the article. In addition, I requested a show of reliable sources to support your point of view, which is a basic requirement for any requested change.
I'm sorry if I somehow offended you, but we're both here to improve the article. Adding the template (repeatedly, and then requesting more discussion) implies active participation in discussion and improvement of the article. I'm willing to help, but I can't do everything. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I can only gather that you're hoping for more "negative about the subject". After a careful reading, I have to agree that there is little negative in the article, and some parts that are unnecessarily positive. I've started a "controversy" section, as it does seem that the anti-survivalism viewpoint is popular enough to merit inclusion, although I'm having some trouble finding such in reliable sources. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 15:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Panic sex

Hey everyone. What do you think about panic sex? I mean, I've heard the term used as a joke, but does it really belong in the "survivalist terminology" section? I'd be more open to it if we could find a reliable source (a book or scholarly article) that discusses it in a survivalist context. The current citation, while hilarious, can hardly be called a reliable source. Can we get a third opinion? Braincricket (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I always thought that Panic Sex was "real"! Feel free to delete it again if you must but I've seen it discussed freq. in forums such-as LOP, GLP, and others just to name two.24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's a Twitter link from BabeinaBunker https://twitter.com/BabeInABunker/statuses/157144451599450113 I hesitate to use Tweets and message-board postings for citations.24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
If a reliable source can be found, I think it should be added.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Term "Prepper"

When did this term become commonplace for survivalists? The article suggests the late 1990s, though thinking back on Y2K, the term prepper wasn't used anywhere near as much as it is today. While the term may have existed much earlier, as far a pop cultural phrase, it seems to have really sprung up over the last few years. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition

Survivalism is essentially unrelated to civil defence. It is a (largely American) cultural phenomenon - seen ironically mostly since the end of the Cold War. I suggest that official and private civil defence precautions should be moved to the article on civil defence, and this article limited to the preppers.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Origins

Survivalism is a largely American phenomenon. Has there been any psychological analysis of the survivalist movement? It is certainly an odd cultural development.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Zombie apocalypse

Given that some preppers are genuinely believe they are preparing for a zombie apocalypse, and this has received coverage from reliable sources[6][7], is it worth adding this as one of the anticipated disruptions? 60.242.1.97 (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Only few who are scientifically uneducated or insane believe it. Any mention denigrates the prepper movement. ArdentBravesFan (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not the place of an encyclopedia to say they are right or wrong. But this is covered by reliable sources. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of due weight. Do a large percentage of survivalists expect a "Zombie apocalypse", or is it just a few, who receive a disproportionate amount of media spotlight because it's easier to laugh at someone prepping for a zombie attack than someone preparing for hurricane, earthquake, terrorist attack, economic downturn, or any other more reasonable scenario? Further confusing matters is that the term "zombie" seems to be used by some preppers and survivalists to refer simply to the unprepared: "“Zombies are the brainless ones who feed on the labor of others, the savings of others, the preparations of others” [8]. Also, note that the only mention of zombies in the second link you provided is in the title. ʍw 22:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Talk:Survivalism/Archive_1#Zombie_Nonsense. ʍw 23:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Through the previous discussion I discovered Zombie Squad, which "uses the metaphor of a "Zombie Apocalypse" for any natural or man-made disaster (hurricane, terrorism, earthquake, etc.)". Given all this, I could support listings for "Zombie" and "Zombie apocalypse" which explain that both have a different meaning to most survivalists than the most common, literal one.

ʍw 01:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Like this. ʍw 01:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Linkspam"

Multiple editors (albeit with very similar editing habits) have removed mention of the Zombie Squad as "linkspam" ([9] [10]). While I can't see how an internal link to a Wikipedia article (with a reference to the subjects website to verify their stated premise) counts as WP:LINKSPAM, I'm not attached enough to it to keep fighting the removals (I only know about them from my investigations, above); I do still think they're the perfect illustration of Zombie Apocalypse as a metaphor for other survivalist scenarios and may readd it in the future. ʍw 04:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've since found a book that verifies the quoted premise of the zombie squad; using that as a reference instead of a link to the Zombie squad website should alleviate any concerns over "linkspam". ʍw 04:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Business

Shouldn't something be said about who is profiting from survivalism? In the US there seems to be a lot operators in this sector.Lbertolotti (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Really??

How in the world can such an entry exist? Where are the ecyclopedia-aspects of such a ridicolous entry? This whole wiki thing is getting out of control, seriously, is there someone who really think that is something worthy an encyclopedia?2.33.233.3 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Original research?

Seems like this page has a lot of OS and OR as does much of WP. Why does OR on some pages incite manic opposition and on others no one notices or cares? Wikidgood (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Split survivalism and preppers

I think anyone that is familiar with the prepper and the very distinct survivalist cultures would agree they are not the same thing -- and in an encyclopedia they should have their own seperate entries so as not to confuse the public. I am new here- How do we go about splitting them following wikipedia rules? --Sirsurvivealot (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)--19:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edit on Gospel of Luke

An unsigned WP editor recently asserted that there is no Biblical support for food storage. I belive that he is incorrect.

The Bible does indeed encourage storing food: 

   “And in the seven plenteous years the earth brought forth by handfuls. And he gathered up all the food of the seven years, which were in the land of Egypt, and laid up the food in the cities: the food of the field, which [was] round about every city, laid he up in the same.And Joseph gathered corn as the sand of the sea, very much, until he left numbering; for [it was] without number.” Gen. 41:47-49 (KJV)

   “And the seven years of plenteousness, that was in the land of Egypt, were ended.And the seven years of dearth began to come, according as Joseph had said: and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread. And when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread: and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go unto Joseph; what he saith to you, do.And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy [corn]; because that the famine was [so] sore in all lands.” Gen. 41:53-57 (KJV)

The preceding is a good example that illustrates the need for food storage. As I write this in 2008, a growing portion of the world is already experiencing famine. You should recognize that famine could just a well come to stalk America, Europe, the British Isles, and Australia. (The regions with the largest SurvivalBlog readership.) It is prudent and Biblically supported to stock up during good times in anticipation of lean times. 

   “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest. How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? When wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man. A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a forward mouth. He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers; Forwardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord. Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy.” Prov. 6:6-15 (KJV)

The lessons from scripture are clear: Don’t be lazy and lax. Store up in good times for future lean times. Consider this: 

   “[There is] treasure to be desired and oil in the dwelling of the wise; but a foolish man spendeth it up.” – Prov. 21:20 (KJV)

And ponder this Old Testament passage: 

   “O fear the LORD, ye his saints: for [there is] no want to them that fear him.”Psa 34:10 (KJV) “The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek the LORD shall not want any good [thing].” Psalm 34:9-10 (KJV)

And then look at this New Testament passage: 

   “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” 1 Timothy 5:8 (KJV)

One of the many names of God is Jehovah Jireh, which means God Who Provides. As a Christian, I believe that God will provide for his covenant people. I believe that one of the many gifts that the God has provided is a conviction, by the Holy Spirit, to be well prepared. I realize that we are only on Earth for about 80 trips around the sun, and that is just the twinkling of an eye versus eternity. Where we end up after this brief life is far, far more important in the grand scheme of things. We will spend eternity either in heaven or in hell. But how we spend our +/-80 year life on Earth is up to us. (And the most important thing that we do in the is life is make ourselves right with God, though his Grace, to accepting eternal life in heaven. But stepping back to this temporal world: The Bible makes it very clear that we are to be good stewards of the blessings that God provides us. I therefore feel strongly convicted to not just share the gospel of Christ, but also to physically prepare for my own family, and store extra to dispense as charity. The bottom line: I can’t continue to share the gospel if I starve to the point of achieving room temperature! James Wesley, Rawles (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

To follow up, I submit that Luke 12:22-31 is an admonition about worrying, rather than about food storage. Do other scholarly Christian Wikipedians concur? If so, then the recent edit should be modified to show better balance. James Wesley, Rawles (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Pandemics affecting fuel supply

Should "pandemic societal disruption" be a survivalist reason category? This is a situation that arises out of fear of other things on the list (virus outbreak, chemical release, nuclear contamination), and people in essential supply roles refusing to report to work and doing their job, with then causes widespread damage and disruption for everyone who depends on those services. For example, electric power and vehicle fuel supply networks could fail or become intermittent and inconstant if the transport employees decided their health was not worth the risk of exposure.

Here's one example of this sort of discussion:

Pandemic Influenza, Electricity, and the Coal Supply Chain: Addressing Crucial Preparedness Gaps in the United States
Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy, University of Minnesota, Nov 2008
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/downloads/cidrap_coal_report.pdf

-- DMahalko (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Australian Survivalist (Survivalism in the new millennium)
  2. ^ HealingWeb community
  3. ^ Survival Bill
  4. ^ le-projet-olduvai
  5. ^ Open Directory - World: Deutsch: Freizeit: Outdoor: Survival
  6. ^ The Christian Survivalist Forum - Home
  7. ^ The New Zealand Preparedness Forum - Home
  8. ^ Systemkollaps
  9. ^ Swedish survivalist :: Index
  10. ^ AlphaRubicon.com
  11. ^ survivalismforum.com
  12. ^ http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17623645.300-star-wars-hits-the-streets.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Survivalism/Archive_1&oldid=791782190"