Open main menu
WikiProject Ecology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.


what is this?Edit

After pouring over this article I noticed that most of the references all come from the organizations website. Is this within Wiki standards? I am glad to see the neutrality disputed as it reads like a press release. And all of the internet infighting doesn't make it anymore relevant. For comparison the anarchist Love and Rage network for example was around for a decade and their page is much smaller than this. I hope some senior editors really look at this. Ransdy (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This article should be removed for complete non-notability. A handful of nutters talking nonsense on the web doesn't make something note worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you "insure" this? ~ lol –pjoef (talkcontribs) 16:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

what is this? there's nothing in this article that isn't written better and more clearly in the green anarchism, radical environmentalism, or anarcho-primitivism articles. this is a completely worthless, albeit well-intentioned, addition to the many anti-civ pages we already have, created by someone who either doesn't know about those articles, or thinks that creating yet another wikipage on this will actually help further their cause. recommended for deletion. Jibbideejibbish (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There are many things here that have been better explained, examined, etc, in other works. That fact is irrelevant. DGR is a serious trend in environmentalism, and it should be noted. From the WP article on it: "An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a _comprehensive_ written compendium holding information from either _all branches of knowledge_ or a particular branch of knowledge." The page isn't worthless at all, it adds to the sum total of knowledge here. Obstructio (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a great tool that helps people get unbiased view on any significant topic. DGR is a serious organization and people do need an unbiased view on DGR. I doubt that the current page could be any more neutral than this. Claims are called claims. The movement has been well positioned in the continuum of various political beliefs. I see why some criticize the article: they're opposed to its contents not its quality. Anyone willing to improve will have to dimsmiss their dismissiveness and look for pros just as well as they love their cons.

Jibbideejibbish, I've added your suggestions as a "See also" section. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Article scopeEdit

After spending some time reviewing Google hits for this term, I sort of agree that the article isn't well defined. What is the origin of the term? Who currently uses it and in what context? It seems to be used as a sort of a "brand" by a few people for conferences, a forthcoming book. As far as I can tell, there is no formal organization, like the Tea Party. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I am one of the authors of the page. I think it is important to keep around - Deep Green has some large differences from other environmental, anti-civ philosophies and is the key phrase of a growing movement. - Max 8 November 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

{{POV|So, so many issues...}}Edit

This article, especially the "Criticism" page, reads like a propaganda pamphlet. Marking for some VERY serious issues with bias, original research, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absurdreasoning (talkcontribs) 00:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


An outline for the upcoming revised article with changes that will be made and planned additions:


• What Deep Green Resistance is (elaborate on existing content)

• What the general view of DGR is (elaborate on existing content)

• What DGR’s ultimate goal is (new addition)

• Indicate DGR’s controversial nature (new addition)


• Explain why DGR believes that industrial civilization is fundamentally unsustainable

• Elaborate on the concept of Deep Ecology: fundamental principles and how they have been incorporated in to the DGR movement, why DGR believe these principles are incompatible with industrialized society

• DGR’s beliefs on how humanity should interact with the planet and how society should be structured in the future

• DGR’s opposition to mainstream environmentalism: how the movement believes it has been commoditized and industrialized itself, why it is an inadequate method of achieving a sustainable society


• Change existing information on societal collapse, as it is inaccurate: DGR believes that the collapse of civilization in inevitable (as indicated by historical events), not that it must be induced, but that we must be prepared to survive and build a more sustainable way of life when it does

• Elaborate on sections involving personal lifestyle changes and technological changes

Origins and Advocates

• Elaborate on how DGR draws from anthropology, phenomenology, and ecofeminism (deep ecology has already been discussed)

• Provide information regarding the main advocates: their professions, previous environmental activism, etc.

Literature and References

• Provide information on the content and structure of the book Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save the Planet: series of essays, informs readers on how to take action against industrialization and why it is necessary to do so


• This section will be completely rewritten as a bias in favour of DGR is evident

• Highlight DGR’s acceptance of non-peaceful protests and action to realize their goals

• Criticism of the Deep Green Resistance book

Ajmacdonald3 (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


This article is being revised to be more accurate, informative and neutral as part of an anthropology assignment. Some of the references that will be used are as follows:

Jacob, Merle. 1994. “Sustainable Development and Deep Ecology: An Analysis of Competing Traditions.” Environmental Management 18(4):477-488.

McBay, Aric, Lierre Keith, and Derrick Jensen. 2011. Deep Green Resistance. New York: Seven Stories Press.

Taylor, Bron. 2001. “Earth and Nature-Based Spirituality (Part I): From Deep Ecology to Radical Environmentalism.” Religion 31:175-193.

2012. Deep Green Resistance. 23 Feb. 2012. <>.

Ajmacdonald3 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


This changes made to the article are very good, particularly in making the criticisms more neutral. I added hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles because that was lacking in the first few paragraphs. Other than that it looks great! Mpdowne (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Two peer reviews of my edits to this article were supposed to have been completed several days ago by members of the Environment and Society course. Only one has been done, and I will likely no longer have time to respond to feedback before the end of term. I understand that everyone is busy at this time of year, so I have implemented a few more edits of my own upon reviewing my work. Thanks to the reviewer who responded for their contributions. Ajmacdonald3 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you AJ, for all of your work on this article. It is looking a lot better. Owen (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Environment and Society: Peer ReviewEdit

My apologies for the late review on this article - I'll admit I forgot all about peer reviews.

Glancing over the talk page, specifically the discussion of neutrality in the article, I have to commend the recent edits made to that effect. This strikes me as a particularly difficult subject to discuss objectively and for the most part that seems to have been accomplished. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that some of the subject matter involved is simply subjective in nature, which seems to hang over the article as a whole like a bit of a cloud. The radical nature of the DGR movement, even when explained as neutrally as possible, still evoked a personal response from me as a reader, and I'm not sure how that could have been avoided or if it even should be.

I'm not sure if this has more to do with the way the article is structured or with the subject matter itself, but I have to admit that I got the feeling of reading about "the big bad man" while trying to understand the perspective of members of the DGR. It seems as though there is a lot of rage involved in this movement that is not necessarily directed appropriately. As such, I found it difficult to read through the article without investing some level of personal offense or confusion.

Although DGR seems to promote the idea that current environmental action has not been enough, it does not seem to directly identify a proper course of action with any potential for realization. This is more a criticism of the subject matter than the quality of the article, however, and so I'll leave that to be expanded upon elsewhere.

Overall I believe the edits implemented have done a good job of objectifying the content as much as possible - a statement I am making based on the evolution of the Talk page here. In terms of further expansion and exploration, it might do well to explore the specific goals of those involved in the DGR movement more thoroughly if possible in order to provide a reading experience which evokes less of a response from the reader. I'm not sure how one might go about this, but I feel as though at this point it is more the response of the reader that lacks neutrality rather than the article itself.

Samantha Hogan (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Samantha. "Although DGR seems to promote the idea that current environmental action has not been enough, it does not seem to directly identify a proper course of action with any potential for realization." The movement actually does suggest a very comprehensive and fairly specific course of action, and if you came across thinking that that wasn't present, then the article clearly needs to resolve that. The book suggests a wide range of possibilities for resistance, discussing everything from community organizing and civil disobedience to disrupting the electric grid and waging guerrilla warfare. That the article needs help in this respect is clear from the lack of discussion thus far on Decisive Ecological Warfare, which is just one part of the strategy, and that was later republished in its full length (28 pages) in the Earth First! Journal [1] Owen (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. You're right in saying that I wasn't explicit enough in outlining DGR's course of action. I can try to eliminate some of the subjectivity, but I think it will be difficult not to evoke some reaction from the reader because, where this is a movement, the reader is likely to agree or disagree with its aims. I will try to resolve some of these issues after the end of term.

Ajmacdonald3 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AJ. I really like what you've been doing with the article. Owen (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination to Check for NeutralityEdit

I have implemented significant edits in recent weeks to improve the overall quality of this article. I have rewritten a large part of the Criticism section, which was previously biased, and now I believe the article has a more neutral tone. Since there has been discussion of the neutrality on this page, I am nominating it to have the "neutrality disputed" banner removed. Ajmacdonald3 (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Impact of recent student editsEdit

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

  • 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
  • 1 - A few minutes of work needed
  • 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
  • 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
  • 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Are the writer(s) of this article sure they endorse movements like radical feminism?Edit

I noticed in the introduction it mentions one of their allies as radical feminists. I'm asking the question above because it seems massively antithetical to their goal for a better, more humane and just human community, considering radical feminist hate-mongering beliefs towards half the population and their efforts in spreading these misandric dehumanizing beliefs, not to mention spearheading laws and policies that are contributing to major human, civil, and legal rights violations against everyday men -- making no exceptions for men who are part of racial minorities no less (which would seem to clash directly with a lot of at least Derrick Jensen's care and concern about, and support for, racial minorities). In a truly just world, radical feminism would be officially deemed the hate movement that it is, but this hate seems to go over the head of followers of this Deep Green Resistance philosophy; I say it "seems" to because I don't know if it's the members of this "movement" itself who don't realize this or if it's the writers' of the article fault/oversight. One radical feminist group was recently banned from Conway Hall in London for their toxic messages about transgendered people and men. Hopefully this is a sign that society is finally recognizing them as the hate group that they are, but my question is are the writer(s) of this article recognizing it or is it just the leaders of this Deep Green Resistance not recognizing it?

I suggest the writer(s) might want to take a second look at the use of "radical feminism", if they understand what that movement is about and if that's therefore what they really meant to put, and also determine conclusively if Jenson and Keith indeed support this hate movement and consider it an allied group that is somehow helping make the world a better place. For instance, maybe radical feminism should be replaced with "eco-feminism". Perhaps that is more appropriate, accurate, and what was meant in the first place? Alialiac (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. Robofish (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
But for what it's worth, 'radical feminism' is correct. Lierre Keith, one of the founders of Deep Green Resistance, identifies as a radical feminist, and it's safe to assume her views are shared by the rest of the group. Robofish (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, DGR is a radical feminist organization. Owen (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Both Lierre Keith and Derrick Jensen are radical and pro-radical feminists respectively. See also Owen's citation above. Shelly Pixie (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


The first line states: Deep Green Resistance (DGR) is an environmental movement that views mainstream environmental activism as being largely ineffective.

Can we change that to: Deep Green Resistance is a deep green environmentalist organisation, which also has its own specific charisteristics (not found in the main DGEM). These specific charisteristics include:

  • the belief that the collapse of the current society is not only at hand but also something to be welcomed. Some even choose to accelerate the arrival of it.

See also: Talk:Environmental_movement#Deep_green_environmentalism (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There does seem to be conflation of movement and organization. Movement would include all who support and cooperate with deep green resistance philosophy, goals, and actions. Organization would include any formal organization, such an one that maintains the website, and any informal organization which regularly cooperated with one another by maintaining the website, providing speakers, organizing workshops, etc. There is interesting language on the website that "deep green resistance" is an above ground organization. Underground cells engaged in actions advocated by the organization would be be part of the movement but not of the organization. We could, if notable material justified it, have an article about the movement and separate articles or an article about any deep green resistance organizations, but, for now, there is one article which covers both. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed sectionEdit

I removed a large part of the Criticism section, because I think it's unencyclopedic. It uses weasel words ("many would now perceive", "many would argue") terms unsuitable for an encyclopedia ("DGR's viewpoint becomes more and more the only game in town") and citations to articles that aren't about deep green resistance and its criticisms at all. Aquila89 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article needs to be completely rewritten from a neutral point of view so that it has a tone of being informative... the article as it stands is pretty much an endorsement and belongs on a private web page. ---Radical Mallard (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure where to put this, so I'm going to put it here. I'd like to be involved in editing this article, but I'm pretty green when it comes to editing. I understand a lot of the principles and terms but I don't really know much about of the etiquette. If anyone here could do me the favour of sending some advice my way, I'd appreciate it.

If I thought that, for example, the repeated use of "opponents" in the criticisms section needed a specific reference or citation, what would be the way forward? Tag the uses of "opponents" with a 'who' tag? Suggest removing those sentences? Try to find sources myself?

Thanks in advance. Jimseviltwin (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I tossed in a criticism regarding the polarizing nature of the movement and how their green elitism divides even environmentally conscious people. With sources. The criticism is still too flowery however and I don't feel like anything in particular is hard-hitting or takes them to task in quite the same way news publications and environmental debates do. - Camber — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camberlane (talkcontribs) 16:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought the last "paragraph" (including those little sentences at the end) of this section was removed. Was it somehow added back in? The person who wrote it apparently does not understand how to use wikipedia, as they placed what should be mostly hyperlinks as citations instead. Perhaps they wanted to make it appear as if the writing is something other than almost entirely conjecture? I tried to revise it a bit, but I really just think that entire last section needs to be removed and possibly rewritten. It is very unclear, with lots of run-on sentences, and is mostly tangential to the subject matter. Painted raven (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed entire "Further information" sectionEdit

The "Further information" section consisted of nothing but editorial opinions and speculation. Regardless of their truth or basis, I don't see how they belong in an encyclopedia article. Wanted to invite differences of opinion here, since it's a very significant edit. Kenji Yamada (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Needs more sourcingEdit

The DGR book and website are only satisfactory cites for what McBay, Keith and Jensen, or other group members, have said about the group. It's WP:V, but it's also self-reporting. This needs more citations from third-party sources. This also needs to be kept up to date, as some of the people who were listed as "advocates" are no longer associated with the org. - CorbieV 02:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Article still doesn't seem neutral to meEdit

It's not overtly biased, but it does have something of the character of support. It's written as if by someone who is supportive, but never quite crosses the line, if that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deep Green Resistance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Return to "Deep Green Resistance" page.