Talk:Ecodefense

Untitled

A blurb on the ethics of Ecodefense might be in order. I dunno if it should or not--- one must avoid appearing to advocate instead of define and describe. Hummm. What to do, what to do.....

Since ecodefense is performed in the defense of all life, it is therefore not violent. This should be mentioned. I mentioned this in the monkeywrenching entry, but it should probably be stressed in ecodefense as well: the former is a subset of the latter, but the former is also independant of the latter. There's a hell of a lot of people engaging in monkeywrenching who are anti-life, anti-environment, and crazy: the CIA performed monkeywrenching in Central and South America. This faucet of monkeywrenching should probably be added to the monkeywrenching page. Hummm. I'll have to give it some thought. Desertphile 06:21 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Those last two paragraphs don't seem up to standard. -04:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.175.201 (talk)

Problems with this article

This article uses the word "ecodefense" in two ways: one, as the title of a book, and two, as some kind of activity. It gives several examples of this activity, but doesn't actually define it. What is ecodefense?

This article is also confusing in combination with the "ecotage" article. That article says "Ecotage is also referred to as ecodefense or monkeywrenching." whereas this article says "Monkeywrenching is a form of ecodefense." Are these three terms equivalent? Is any one of them broader in scope than the other two? Please, somebody resolve this confusion. Perhaps some merging of articles is called for.

99.231.110.182 (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)