636:- If there's the least danger that a Knowledge article might be a neologism, we need to identify a number of reliable sources that each clearly use the term the same way that the article lead does; the best practice is to use footnotes giving quotes from our sources allowing the reader to easily check the usage. This is clearly not possible for the article as it stands, since it misidentifies what is understood by the
298:. The first sentence "The Environmental Revolution or Green Revolution is the ongoing process of switching from pollution-causing and climate-changing technology to efficient and clean technology" points to the fact that it is current and it is important. There is much evidence that unless we do make this shift, human life will become seriously bad or cease to exist. Note, I do not vote for Green Parties! --
663:. The fact that the phrase "environmental revolution" has been used a bunch of times doesn't seem relevant to me, if there's no meaningful distinction between a "revolution" and a "movement" oriented toward the same goal and composed of the same people. It seems like an artifact of phrasing. To give a concrete example of what I mean here, it would be easy to find sources that mentioned "
429:
Looking at these works, all I am seeing is a turn of phrase being used by a handful of scholars for rhetorical effect on distinct and different works and spaces-- one refers to the window of time around Rachel Carson, one is focused on climate action, one is a series of speeches not commented on by
749:
that there is some broad and consistent consensus about the meaning of these two words put together is original research. The idea that this is some form of recognised anthropological milestone (akin to the
Industrial Revolution or the Digital Revolution, as the article claims) is not supported by
257:
Not sure what to do with this
Neologism -- its not really notable, as far as I can tell -- its not a current thing. It feels like it probably should be redirected somewhere, or nuked, or turned into a DAB page pointing at the different systems or ideas that could be indicitive of an environmental
456:
is certainly not part of the environmental movement or the emergence of ecological thinking. Its a neoliberal capitalist system that exported a bunch of highly flawed agricultural practices to other parts of the world, wrecking havoc on ecoystems. The main value of the green revolution for most
332:
that are being applied to things. I edit in environmental topics almost exclusively, and I don't recognize the concept at all -- that is why I am suggesting that maybe we want to turn this into a redirect or a DAB page -- its a reasonable search term, but not a singular notable concept,
566:. Honestly, this would be a great topic for an academic to tackle and write on (i.e. a history of the use of the term "environmental revolution") as there is plenty of literature to inform a book/thesis. Lacking sources with perspective on the term from author to author, perhaps a
492:
looks like it would be a good argument for the inclusion of the term, and then its never defined -- and the authors point to a bunch of other works that look at other well defined revolutions but never points to a work about the environmental revolution. Or for example,
457:
contexts was a more steady flow of grains in diets, while pushing a lot of farmers off their land, decreasing the quality of farmed food and creating a dependence on fossil fuels for additives such as pesticides and fertilizers-- you should read:
687:
by implying that a "proponent" and a "supporter" are two meaningfully separate things; in this case, it's not clear to me that people consider the "environmental revolution" to be something distinct from the "environmental movement".
94:
226:
497:
points at a
Mexican version of such an environmental revolution, but its only documenting the dramatic rise of an environmental movement in Mexico in regulatory environments. I think the term originates in the Max
328:, etc -- every source I am reading both on and off wiki uses the term "environmental revolution" in different ways -- some political, some economic. These are not the same concept, but rather rhetoric
503:
619:
Adding to the above, I think at the miniumum, an article discussing the use of the term would be helpful for the user - but either way, its a term that has been used, with plenty of sources.
489:
89:
316:-- that their is a change in technologies doesn't mean that the concept itself is notable. It could be referring to any number of topics including for example, something like the
220:
562:. I am not convinced, given the volume of sources using the term, that an article isn't possible here. On the other hand, I am not convinced that an article is possible without
430:
anyone else in any serious way -- and most of them are pointing at different points in the history of the development of the environmental movement. It feels like a redirect to
640:, namely the research-driven boost in agricultural yields in the 60s/70s. In my experience, these kinds of issues with what an article is about rarely get solved during AfD. —
510:. The more I research this, the more I am thinking that this is a neologism-focused disambiguation page, with potential room for developing an article on the Nicholson book,
275:
187:
741:. Even then, I'd suggest it be protected so that this sort of synthesis is discouraged from being resurrected. There are, as pointed out above, reliable sources that
352:
The cites are all quite old so perhaps this is a term which was coined but never really caught on? I might change my mind if more recent cites were added. By the way
504:
https://books.google.com.uy/books?id=2hmveYPsyEEC&q=%22environmental+revolution+%22&dq=%22environmental+revolution+%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
160:
155:
164:
134:
119:
147:
415:. Authors speak about the four waves of the "environmental revolution", and that might be a good way to structure the content of this article. --
407:. Certainly some, including editors of this article, have conflated the concepts. There is much to be said for a clear statement of scope in the
754:. The article goes downhill from there, patching together disparate ideas in an unconvincing synthetic hodge-podge that lurches wildly from the
795:
774:
762:, suggesting a cogent connection between ideas that appears nowhere but here on Knowledge (which is why those sections are largely unsourced).
727:
700:
651:
628:
612:
583:
546:
519:
483:
443:
424:
369:
342:
307:
287:
267:
74:
467:
70:
411:
paragraph, which this article lacked at the time of this AfD. The "environmental revolution" seemed to be concerned with technology and
241:
208:
114:
107:
17:
202:
151:
563:
128:
124:
672:
668:
198:
676:
664:
709:
592:
812:
357:
40:
745:
the term. But few describe it in detail, and fewer still describe it consistently. The reality is that the very
248:
624:
542:
400:
143:
80:
66:
558:. However, it's not a term used consistently and it seems to evolve along with current developments of the
499:
783:
738:
660:
571:
559:
431:
404:
53:
461:
The Wizard and the
Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Dueling Visions to Shape Tomorrow's World
808:
680:
36:
214:
723:
325:
620:
538:
356:
as you don't vote Green it seems you have no COI so could you possibly consider my edit request at
329:
234:
62:
791:
607:
579:
464:
365:
317:
103:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
807:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
683:
is incapable of covering them all. Indeed, as has been pointed out above, it would border on
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
764:
759:
647:
637:
555:
534:
515:
479:
453:
439:
420:
396:
338:
283:
263:
719:
684:
303:
385:
Rising Tides: A History of the
Environmental Revolution and Visions for an Ecological Age
696:
408:
383:) the term is not dead, as a search in Google Books shows, for example, Spowers (2003)
58:
787:
321:
554:. It's clear from google books that the term is widely used and it therefore passes
751:
602:
575:
494:
412:
361:
181:
755:
641:
511:
475:
449:
435:
416:
334:
279:
259:
434:
might be more appropriate than anything else, based on the case you are making
353:
313:
299:
690:
679:", et cetera; this doesn't mean that these are all distinct topics, or that
395:. That does not mean that the article doesn't need work. For example the
506:-- but future references rarely return back to that origin or concept as
393:
Environmental
Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory, and Research
803:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
95:
Articles for deletion/Environmental revolution (2nd nomination)
712:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
595:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
389:
177:
173:
169:
381:
233:
718:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
601:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
537:? (not sure if these are exactly the same concepts)
399:is generally regarded as distinct sub-part of the
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
815:). No further edits should be made to this page.
276:list of Environment-related deletion discussions
274:Note: This discussion has been included in the
379:While coined in the 1970s (see Prince Philip's
90:Articles for deletion/Environmental revolution
474:-- if you are interested in the distinction,
247:
8:
135:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
786:for all the excellent reasons given above.
273:
391:; and Winston & Mintu-Wimsatt (2013)
87:
7:
387:; Suzuki, Ueta, & Mori (2012)
24:
459:Mann, Charles C. (January 2018).
673:Scottish independence supporters
669:Scottish independence proponents
120:Introduction to deletion process
677:Scottish independence activists
665:Scottish independence advocates
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
629:23:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
613:10:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
584:16:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
547:23:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
520:20:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
484:20:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
444:20:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
425:19:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
370:14:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
343:12:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
308:02:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
288:23:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
268:23:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
1:
796:17:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
75:01:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
775:03:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
728:04:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
701:01:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
652:22:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
110:(AfD)? Read these primers!
832:
403:and both are part of the
358:Talk:Green Party (Turkey)
805:Please do not modify it.
401:Environmental Revolution
144:Environmental revolution
81:Environmental revolution
32:Please do not modify it.
86:AfDs for this article:
784:environmental movement
739:environmental movement
661:environmental movement
574:is the best solution.
572:environmental movement
560:environmental movement
488:For example, at first
432:environmental movement
405:Environmental movement
54:Environmental movement
681:Scottish independence
564:WP:Original synthesis
108:Articles for deletion
350:Disambig or redirect
326:extinction rebellion
463:. New York: Knopf.
59:(non-admin closure)
730:
650:
615:
611:
469:978-0-307-96169-3
324:, the tactics of
318:energy transition
290:
125:Guide to deletion
115:How to contribute
61:
823:
771:
769:
760:green technology
752:reliable sources
717:
715:
713:
646:
638:green revolution
605:
600:
598:
596:
535:environmentalism
473:
454:Green revolution
397:Green Revolution
252:
251:
237:
185:
167:
105:
57:
34:
831:
830:
826:
825:
824:
822:
821:
820:
819:
813:deletion review
767:
765:
731:
708:
706:
643:Charles Stewart
616:
591:
589:
533:or redirect to
470:
458:
194:
158:
142:
139:
102:
99:
84:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
829:
827:
818:
817:
799:
798:
777:
716:
705:
704:
703:
654:
631:
621:Deathlibrarian
599:
588:
587:
586:
549:
539:Deathlibrarian
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
508:the definition
468:
373:
372:
347:
346:
345:
292:
291:
255:
254:
191:
138:
137:
132:
122:
117:
100:
98:
97:
92:
85:
83:
78:
63:RandomCanadian
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
828:
816:
814:
810:
806:
801:
800:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
778:
776:
773:
772:
761:
757:
753:
748:
744:
740:
736:
733:
732:
729:
725:
721:
714:
711:
702:
699:
698:
693:
692:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
653:
649:
645:
644:
639:
635:
632:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:
614:
609:
604:
597:
594:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
550:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
529:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
496:
491:
487:
486:
485:
481:
477:
471:
466:
462:
455:
451:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:
374:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
348:
344:
340:
336:
331:
330:WP:Neologisms
327:
323:
322:green economy
319:
315:
311:
310:
309:
305:
301:
297:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
272:
271:
270:
269:
265:
261:
250:
246:
243:
240:
236:
232:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
200:
197:
196:Find sources:
192:
189:
183:
179:
175:
171:
166:
162:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
140:
136:
133:
130:
126:
123:
121:
118:
116:
113:
112:
111:
109:
104:
96:
93:
91:
88:
82:
79:
77:
76:
72:
68:
64:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
804:
802:
779:
763:
746:
742:
734:
707:
695:
689:
656:
642:
633:
590:
567:
551:
530:
507:
495:this article
490:this article
460:
413:social mores
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
349:
295:
258:revolution.
256:
244:
238:
230:
223:
217:
211:
205:
195:
101:
49:
47:
31:
28:
756:Sierra Club
221:free images
720:Mikehawk10
809:talk page
556:WP:SIGCOV
500:Nicholson
37:talk page
811:or in a
788:PianoDan
780:Redirect
735:Redirect
710:Relisted
685:WP:SYNTH
657:Redirect
634:Draftify
593:Relisted
568:redirect
188:View log
129:glossary
71:contribs
50:redirect
39:or in a
576:4meter4
552:Comment
362:Chidgk1
227:WP refs
215:scholar
161:protect
156:history
106:New to
648:(talk)
512:Sadads
502:book:
476:Sadads
450:Bejnar
448:Also @
436:Sadads
417:Bejnar
335:Sadads
280:Sadads
260:Sadads
199:Google
165:delete
770:lwart
354:Bduke
314:Bduke
300:Bduke
242:JSTOR
203:books
182:views
174:watch
170:links
16:<
792:talk
747:idea
724:talk
675:", "
671:", "
667:", "
625:talk
608:talk
580:talk
543:talk
531:Keep
516:talk
480:talk
465:ISBN
452:the
440:talk
421:talk
409:lead
377:Keep
366:talk
339:talk
320:, a
312:Hi @
304:talk
296:Keep
284:talk
264:talk
235:FENS
209:news
178:logs
152:talk
148:edit
67:talk
782:to
758:to
743:use
737:to
659:to
603:Joe
570:to
249:TWL
186:– (
73:)
52:to
794:)
766:St
726:)
691:jp
627:)
582:)
545:)
518:)
482:)
442:)
423:)
368:)
360:?
341:)
306:)
286:)
278:.
266:)
229:)
180:|
176:|
172:|
168:|
163:|
159:|
154:|
150:|
69:/
56:.
790:(
768:★
722:(
697:g
694:×
623:(
610:)
606:(
578:(
541:(
514:(
478:(
472:.
438:(
419:(
364:(
337:(
302:(
282:(
262:(
253:)
245:·
239:·
231:·
224:·
218:·
212:·
206:·
201:(
193:(
190:)
184:)
146:(
131:)
127:(
65:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.