If we add someone to a project for whom it is not their key claim to fame we should ensure that there is something in the about me relating to the project, otherwise it just looks like a mistake.
Examples I've noticed at first glance
I have a large book about Charles Dickens so I'll see later if it mentions more than a passing interest in the environment.
- Emily Dickinson was influenced by the transcendentalists and as deeply descriptive of nature, in her own way, as Thoreau in his.
- Dickens was a social reformer as well as a great novelist. His depictions of child labor - and London pollution - helped galvanize more formal efforts to address excesses of the industrial revolution. "The timeline of Environmental history" considers his work very much part of the context and background.
I don't make this stuff up! :). Sorry I didn't edit in the precise references.
I am extremely ignorant, especially of US politics. I of course know for sure that Al Gore was an environmentalist but can someone confirm that the other US politicians listed weren't just coerced into taking a green action by environmentalists in their time? I am reluctant to give credit to someone if they had their arms twisted behind their backs to do something. (I'm not saying this is the case just that I don't know whether it would be or not)
Terry every profile added is from one of the lists under external links. I always rely on other people's information, not my own opinion.
As example, Theodore Roosevelt, President, started the National Parks system. Franklin D. Roosevelt, President, enacted the Civilian Conservation Corps in the Great Depression which put over 9 million men to work on conservation projects.
I just uploaded an interesting paper about the politics of conservation vs preservation that Teddy straddled in balancing Muir's activism and Pinchot's professionalism.
This quote intrigues me: "Gifford Pinchot returned to America in 1890 from France, where he had been studying forestry. He was shocked to see the inefficient abuse of national resources in the U.S ..."
So who was doing the great forestry in France?
However the Audobon Society is greatly involved in conservation issues.
I agree there is confusion about terminology and they all do mean slightly different things - preservationists, naturalists, conservationists, ecologists, environmentalists (more) - and all not necessarily activists -- and evolution and overlap as humans do tend to resist categorization at times.
But in honor of a billion people slated to participate globally in "Earth Day 2012" - let's be inclusive! :)
If you haven't already detected, I'm rather perplexed at Geni's move into emphasising non-family-related projects. An ever-increasing number of single-profile trees seems to be the result. As a marketing tool, I think people would be disappointed in Geni when they browse within a project.
To use the argument that they will all eventually link up is odd. Why not enter the 1903 Frisco phone book?
Ah, but you will see I use a project as a tool to tree build into the big tree as "we are all connected.". For instance Dan and I took on Gaylord Nelson as he is descended from (among many other interesting people) New Amsterdam colony pioneers - well established profiles on Geni with many descendants. So my "job" is to build up from him and then "hook in" as can best be documented. If I'm not able to "prove it" through one line, I have confidence I or someone will through another - his documented Norwegian immigrant grandparents, perhaps.
And in the meantime I learn about the history of Wisconsin, a place I've never been and that faced different pioneering challenges from my own ancestors. So the contrast clarifies for me my "own" family tree.
Ok, points taken, I did say I am ignorant however if "George dubya" gets on here then I'll know something fishy is going on....
It'a amazing how many conservationists there are when you start counting and there are a great many doing great work that are complete unknowns.... I went to an environment event last night, so many committed people just from this area!
I agree that Conservationist may be a better term or an adjacent term for this project. Are we extending to basic naturalists like Charles Darwin?
I would love if "environmental history makers" in Australia were added to the project - is there a good list to work from and reference?
I'll have to think about Darwin - my first thought it "yes, as a naturalist he is seminal," but again, I need a reference.
The formal "conservation" movement in the US kicked off in 1851 when "the mother of the Forest" tree was sawn down. Instead of being thrilled, "the public" was outraged. In 1963 the publication of "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson started the investigations etc. that (along with other factors of course) resulted in the great "teach-in" that was the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970.
What I would want from this project is an understanding of the players in the historical forces that led to these events. There's a journal of Medieval Environmentalism as example. And how have other cultures managed their natural resources to best effect?
So many questions ....
I guess my feeling is that I like the term "environmentalist" as being more inclusive and also current. If we gain some critical mass, create related projects to better refine and define historical context versus current issues. - which also vary. We might want to "relate" projects in the hard sciences, life sciences, and literature sooner.
Wikipedia defines it this way:
The environmental movement, a term that includes the conservation and green politics, is a diverse scientific, social, and political movement for addressing environmental issues. ... The roots of the modern environmental movement can be traced to attempts in 19th-century Europe and North America to expose the costs of environmental negligence, notably disease, as well as widespread air and water pollution ....
So if I follow correctly, "contemporary environmentalism" would include conservation and preservation.
By what stretch of the imagination can Buzz Aldrin possibly be viewed as an environmentalist?!!!!! Going up in space and such are on my list of one of the least environmentally friendly things to do! Sure he may have admired how beautiful the planet was from up there but so what has he done to counteract the harm he's done?
Again I stress I don't know much about American politics but in the about me for Eugene J. McCarthy, U.S. Senator I can only see references to things that I consider non-environmental and nothing to say he was an environmentalist. If a politician passes a bill or gets on a band wagon for an aspect of environmentalism that does not make him in my view an envrionmentalist.
Terry - did you see the document on Eugene McCarthy (and others) profile?
It's the original Earth Day proclamation ratified by the UN. There were ten Signers. My local congressman (at one time) was the very first signer. U Thant was another, who was head of the UN at the time and for many years after (unfortunately I could not find a profile for him on Geni).
Interestingly Earth Day was proposed to coincide with the spring equinox but the better powers of organization by Gaylord Nelson and Denis Hayes resulted in the great "teach in for the environment" on 22 April 1970.
I had also added it as a link on the front page of this project under the heading "Original Signers of the 1970 Earth Day Proclamation" and a "sourced fact" on his profile. But I didn't write the overview - Wikipedia did.
I don't see that a politician taking ten minutes out of their life to make a speech or sign a document makes them a candidate for this list. Ms Clinton would be on hundreds of lists for all the things she feels 'deeply about' - she's a politician, and naturally is behind every cause.
The list is so open to opinion, I don't see it accomplishing anything.
Ken that's not my research on how the signing of this proclamation came about. Apparently it was a grass roots effort by one "little guy" who finally got through to some people with "connections" - but even the people with "connections" had to work their (manual Rolodexes) pretty hard.
I can understand why it's obscure and just because I found it an interesting story others might not.