Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental revolution (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Environmental movement. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental revolution[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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 revolution. Sadads (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Sadads (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 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! --Bduke (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bduke -- 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 energy transition, a green economy, the tactics of extinction rebellion, 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 WP:Neologisms 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, Sadads (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig or redirect 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 Bduke as you don't vote Green it seems you have no COI so could you possibly consider my edit request at Talk:Green Party (Turkey)? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While coined in the 1970s (see Prince Philip's The Environmental Revolution: Speeches on Conservation) the term is not dead, as a search in Google Books shows, for example, Spowers (2003) Rising Tides: A History of the Environmental Revolution and Visions for an Ecological Age; Suzuki, ‎Ueta, ‎& Mori (2012) Global Environmental Security: From Protection to Prevention; and Winston & Mintu-Wimsatt (2013) Environmental Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory, and Research. That does not mean that the article doesn't need work. For example the Green Revolution is generally regarded as distinct sub-part of the Environmental Revolution and both are part of the Environmental movement. 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 lead paragraph, which this article lacked at the time of this AfD. The "environmental revolution" seemed to be concerned with technology and social mores. Authors speak about the four waves of the "environmental revolution", and that might be a good way to structure the content of this article. --Bejnar (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 environmental movement might be more appropriate than anything else, based on the case you are making Sadads (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Bejnar the Green revolution 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 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: Mann, Charles C. (January 2018). The Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Dueling Visions to Shape Tomorrow's World. New York: Knopf. ISBN 978-0-307-96169-3. -- if you are interested in the distinction, Sadads (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example, at first this article 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, this article 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 Nicholson book: https://books.google.com.uy/books?id=2hmveYPsyEEC&q=%22environmental+revolution+%22&dq=%22environmental+revolution+%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y -- but future references rarely return back to that origin or concept as the definition. 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, Sadads (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to environmentalism ? (not sure if these are exactly the same concepts) Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's clear from google books that the term is widely used and it therefore passes WP:SIGCOV. However, it's not a term used consistently and it seems to evolve along with current developments of the environmental movement. 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 WP:Original synthesis. 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 redirect to environmental movement is the best solution. 4meter4 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - If there's the least danger that a Wikipedia 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 green revolution, 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. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to environmental movement. 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 "Scottish independence advocates", "Scottish independence proponents", "Scottish independence supporters", "Scottish independence activists", et cetera; this doesn't mean that these are all distinct topics, or that Scottish independence is incapable of covering them all. Indeed, as has been pointed out above, it would border on WP:SYNTH 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". jp×g 01:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to environmental movement. 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 use the term. But few describe it in detail, and fewer still describe it consistently. The reality is that the very idea 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 reliable sources. The article goes downhill from there, patching together disparate ideas in an unconvincing synthetic hodge-podge that lurches wildly from the Sierra Club to green technology, suggesting a cogent connection between ideas that appears nowhere but here on Wikipedia (which is why those sections are largely unsourced). St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to environmental movement for all the excellent reasons given above. PianoDan (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.