Talk:Eco-terrorism and Show Lo: Difference between pages

Revision as of 11:03, 25 April 2005

Revision as of 00:57, 5 January 2007

Line 1:

{{Infobox musical artist | <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians -->

{{controversial}}

| Name = Show Luo<br>羅志祥

| Img = Luo speshow.jpg

| Img_capt = Show Luo fourth album cover, SPESHOW.

| Img_size = <!-- Only for images smaller than 220 pixels -->

| Landscape =

| Background = solo_singer

| Birth_name = 羅志祥

| Alias = Alan Luo, Xiao Zhu (Piggy)

| Born = [[July 30]], [[1979]]

| Origin = [[Taipei]], [[Taiwan]]

| Instrument = [[Piano]], [[drum]]

| Genre = [[Mandopop]]

| Occupation = [[Singer]], [[host]], [[dancer]], [[actor]]

| Years_active = [[1994]] - present

| Label = [[Avex Trax]]

| Associated_acts =

| URL = [http://www.avex.com.tw/show/ Show Luo's Avex Site]

| Notable_instruments =

}}

'''Show Luo''' ({{zh-tsp|t=羅志祥|s=罗志祥|p=Lúo Zhi Xíang}}; born [[July 30]], [[1979]] in [[Taiwan]]) is a Taiwanese [[singer]], [[host]], [[dancer]], and [[actor]]. Show's first language is [[Chinese language|Chinese]], but he also speaks fluent [[Taiwanese language|Taiwanese]] and [[Japanese language|Japanese]].

==Biography==

The term '''ecoterrorism''' is a [[propaganda]] term, and only that.

Show started playing drums at the tender age of 3 and performed onstage with his parents as a child. He won a silver award at a singing contest when he was only 7. Show entered the entertainment industry as a teenager, participating in pop groups Four Heavenly Kings and Romeo before moving on to acting and hosting. In 2003, Show launched his solo debut Show Time and has since captivated his fans with [[hip hop]], [[R&B]], and ballads, as well as collaborations with stars like [[Jolin Tsai]], [[Jay Chou]], and [[Joey Yung]].

It is not legitimate under any frame of analysis to call someone who opposes ecological devastation with their own body a "terrorist" - nor someone who merely damages property - they may be a [[saboteur]] or [[arsonist]] but if they don't take life, they aren't a terrorist, period. Note even the CIA, only the [[FBI]] would disagree with that position, and we don't yet take an FBIPOV here. So this should be heavily moderated.

Show's fourth album, Speshow, has just been released on [[November 17]], [[2006]]. Mando-pop fans not only get to enjoy his signature dance tracks, but also his first attempt at an English song, Twinkle, a duet with Japanese singer [[Koda Kumi]].

:The idea that someone has to die for it to be terrorism reflects a poor understanding of terrorism and the efforts to define it. Many definitions require death, but far from all do. Just as many definitions consider property damage to be terrorism, even if death was not intended. See below. --[[User:Xinoph|Xinoph]] 07:30, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

==Discography==

[[Ecotage]] is a fair term. So is [[terrist]]. But no one calls themsELVES an Ecoterrorist, it's only others that do so. And the idea that the French government was in some way responding to "ecoterrorism" by blowing up the Greenpeace boat (which was on its way to disrupt a nuclear test) is mad, and was ruled madness by a French court.

===Albums===

{| class="wikitable"

!align="left"|Album #

!align="left"|Album cover

!align="left" width="250px"|Album information

|-

!align="left"|1st

|align="center"|[[Image:Luo showtime.jpg|150px]]

|align="left"|'''Show Time'''

*Released: [[December 05]], [[2003]]

*Length: N/A

*Language: Mandarin

|-

!align="left"|2nd

|align="center"|[[Image:Luo expertshow.jpg|150px]]

|align="left"|'''Expert Show'''

*Released: [[October 22]], [[2004]]

*Length: N/A

*Language: Mandarin

|-

!align="left"|3rd

|align="center"|[[Image:Luo hypnosisshow.jpg|150px]]

|align="left"|'''Hypnosis Show'''

*Released: [[October 14]], [[2005]]

*Length: N/A

*G-music Mandarin Chart: '''#1'''

*Weeks On Chart: 19

*Language: Mandarin

|-

!align="left"|4th

|align="center"|[[Image:Luo speshow.jpg|150px]]

|align="left"| '''SPESHOW'''

*Released: [[November 17]], [[2006]]

*Length: N/A

*G-music Mandarin Chart: '''#1'''

*Weeks On Chart: 6 (still charting)

*Language: Mandarin

|}

==Filmography==

This article must be a bit harsher on those who use the term "ecoterrorism", and effectively explain it ''only'' as a propaganda term which confuses both the idea of ecological protection, and of terrorism. [[User:EntmootsOfTrolls|EofT]]

* ''Expect A Miracle'' (2001)

* ''The Youth Of Liang Shanbo And Zhu Yintai'' (2001)

* ''Hi Working Girl'' (2003)

* ''The Outsiders II'' (2003)

* ''Corner With Love/转角遇到爱'' (2007)

==Trivia==

:Essentially "ecoterrorism" is what everyone else calls them and "terrist" is their own term for themselves. Calling it "only propaganda" is your own POV, and an attempt to discredit the term. "eco-terrorism' return [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_qdr=all&q=eco-terrorism&lr=lang_en] 12,400 while "terrist" return 766 [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_qdr=all&q=terrist&lr=lang_en] (with wikipedia as the top 2). [[User:M123|M123]] 17:54, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

*Zodiac: Goat

*Blood type: A

*Height: 1.81 m

*Weight: 65kg

*Good at: dancing, acting, taikantoo

*Favourite colors: black, white, leopard, and bright colors

*Favourite sports: basketball, swimming

*Favourite body part: eyes

*Dislikes: people messing with his hair and people stepping on his shoes

==References==

Allowing the Wiki FUCK FUCK FUCK to reflect a blatant oxymoron such as "eco-terrorism" is ridiculous. There is no violence against any person whatsoever involved in ecotage and, therefore, there cannot be any violence against a subset of persons (namely, civillians). This entry is an oxymoron, at best, and a more accurate soci-political discussion must include the fact that it is also used as a propaganda tool by the multinational resource extraction and refining corporations against which most ecotage occurs. [[User:Bangarang|Bangarang]]

* [http://www.gmusic.com.tw/GMusicBillboard1.aspx G-Music Mandarin Chart]

==External links==

Violence against a person is not necessary for it to be considered terrorism. See my comment below. --[[User:Xinoph|Xinoph]] 03:58, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

;Official

* [http://www.avex.com.tw/show/ Show Luo's Official Avex Site]

* [http://www.supermars.com/stars1/blog/show/ Show's Blog]

* [http://www.pigfans.net/ 羅志祥豬豬大聯盟---Www.PigFans.NeT]

* [http://forum.show4ever.net/ 羅志祥國際後援會論壇]

[[Category:1979 births|Luo, Show]]

----

[[Category:Living people|Luo, Show]]

[[Category:Taiwanese aborigines]]

[[Category:Chinese singers|Luo, Show]]

[[Category:Taiwanese singers|Luo, Show]]

[[Category:Taiwanese actors|Luo, Show]]

[[Category:Avex Trax artists|Luo, Show]]

[[ja:羅志祥]]

American Heritage provides the following...

[[zh:羅志祥]]

ter·ror·ism

n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people '''or property''' with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

----

RK, is there an example you have in mind when you say ecoterrorism has included actual murder? [[User:Evercat|Evercat]] 21:54, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Suggested title: [[environmentalist direct action]], with redirects from both [[ecoterrorism]] and [[ecotage]]. That would allow us to matter-of-factly describe all aspects of environmental direct action without falling victim to [[semantic dispute]]s. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 23:13, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

: Probably a good idea. [[User:Evercat|Evercat]] 23:15, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:: I don't think this is a good idea. [[eco-terrorism]] is a term that is used often in mainstream press and culture, and for Wikipedia to redirect it to another term is to ignore the term at the behest of those who disagree with it, and this is not NPOV. Perhaps having [[environmentalist direct action]] and [[ecotage]] in the "See Also" section would be more appropriate.--[[User:Xinoph|Xinoph]] 04:01, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, who considers Greenpeace a terrorist organisation? --[[User:Snoyes|snoyes]] 03:23, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:I don't know of any mainstream groups in the US that hold such a position. Perhaps some non US government? For the life of me, I know of no Greenpeace actions that intended to hurt humans, so unless someone can provide some details, I think that this particular claim can be removed. [[User:RK|RK]] 23:52, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

-----

The following has been copied here from my talk page: ([[User:RK|RK]])

OK. I'm trying to work on the article towards NPOV - I think calling non-violent action "terrorism" is too strong. Maybe the article should only mention actual destructive, dangerous or threatening acts, and note that there is a contrast between these and non-violent acts...

:The FBI's definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social goals". So ecoterrorism does seem to be a valid term. [[User:RK|RK]]

Also, do you have an example of an ecoterrorist murder? The page you gave says no deaths due to ecoterrorism in the U.S. - is there an example abroad? [[User:Evercat|Evercat]] 22:11, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:So far there has been only two actual killings by ecoterrorists. (See the end of the second link, and the middle of the third link.) However, there was an attempt to mass-murder researchers by the so-called "Justice Department", which sent out letters to scientists... containing razor blades dipped in poison. Enclosed letters stated that the intent was to wound and kill. A few other extremist groups are now openly preaching arson and killing, and giving instructions on how to make molotov #########. [[User:RK|RK]] 02:47, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

* [http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2001/freedom/ecoterrorism.htm Eco-terrorism-A New Kind of Sabotage - National Conference of State Legislatures]

* [http://www.liberation-mag.org.uk/ecoterrorism.htm Eco-Terrorism?]

* [http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59927.000/hju59927_0.htm Acts of ecoterrorism testimony before Congress]

:ACTS OF ECOTERRORISM BY RADICAL ENVIROMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS. SECOND SESSION JUNE 9, 1998

:Excerpt from the above website: ''Another group, espousing some sort of tie to Earth First!, spiked a tree. When the tree was milled at a now-defunct sawmill in Cloverdale, California, also in my congressional district, the spike actually killed a mill worker when the saw made contact with the spike.''

== Reason for NPOV header ==

[[User:Spleeman|Spleeman]] inserted the NPOV header on the page for the following reason:

"Many environmentalists view the use of the term eco-terrorism as a propaganda-driven attempt to associate the widespread use of nonviolent civil disobedience by environmentalists with the more contentious acts of property damage or vandalism, and to link acts of vandalism with notions of terrorism." That's why, Bill. -- [[User:Spleeman|Spleeman]] 11:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

: ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 11:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)) Thank you. Please use my user name, William, or WMC. You appear to be asserting that the very page name itself is NPOV. Is that so? After all, the reason you've put in is a disclaimer right in the intro text of the page. Incidentally (to avoid confusion) I agree with the text above - I just don't think it makes the page N-NPOV.

Yes, what I meant was that the eco-terrorism title is itself controversial, and I was trying to use the quote to support that. I agree with the quote as well. Come to think of it, perhaps a "controversial" warning would be more appropriate than a NPOV warning. [[User:Spleeman|Spleeman]]

:I copied that particular paragraph from the entry on eco-terrorism at [http://www.disinfopedia.org Disinfopedia] (I hope that's OK under the GNU FDL). Seems to me to be quite a big deal to put up an NPOV warning, although I agree that the article does need some work. There have been some good suggestions made in the discussion above about how it could be improved - perhaps you should have a go at editing the article towards neutrality.? See [[propaganda]], [[doublespeak]] and [[neologism]] for some food for thought. [[User:Dirtbiscuit|Dirtbiscuit]] 12:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::Actually, having looked at [[Wikipedia:Controversial_issue]], even a "controversial" warning seems a bit heavy handed - this page hasn't exactly been a hotbed of debate (yet). And that's kind of nice if you want to quietly work away at an article without getting drawn some ideologically driven edit war! [[User:Dirtbiscuit|Dirtbiscuit]] 12:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The text below refers to a previous draft, still available by google but not currently a live entry in the Wikipedia.

This article should be deleted, period. It's POV by nature; the term "eco-terrorism" is straight from FBI propaganda. Why don't we just have the [[FBI]] article moved to [[State Terrorism]] to even the score? I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss the term "eco-terrorism" somewhere, but this doesn't seem the right way to do it... --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 22:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Remove Greenpeace from this entry, please ==

I work for Greenpeace and I'm astounded that the Wikipedia is being used to promote the right wing fringe suggestion that we're a terrorist organisation.

Greenpeace was founded on the principle of non-violence and 'bearing

witness' of environmental destruction.

Non-violence is a part of our mission statement:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/extra/?item_id=4265&language_id=en

We always have been and always will remain strictly

non-violent in all our endeavours. Our reputation of non-violence and peaceful direct action is

widely known, and this is one aspect of Greenpeace our supporters value most. We believe

violence is counter productive to the cause of stopping environmental destruction, and we

believe violence is morally wrong. This sort of accusation is particularly offensive when you

consider that we ourselves have been the victims of officially sanctioned terrorism, such as

when the Rainbow Warrior was blown up by French secret agents, murdering one of our crew

members.

To say "Some groups believe Greenpeace to be a terrorist organisation" may be technically true: we've heard that from the High North Alliance and Ron Arnold, (both of whom have a political agenda behind the accusation) but including such a statement in the Wikipedia is the journalistic equivalent of insisting that the phrase "Some groups believe that Henry Kissenger and Queen Elizabeth are responsible for the world's ###### trade" in an entry on opium simply because Lyndon Larouche says so. Same level of credibility.

Unless somebody can document a case of Greenpeace using terrorism, please remove our name from this entry.

--brian fitzgerald

bfitzgerald [at!] int.greenpeace.org

== Wise Use movement ==

The entry on the [[Wise Use]] movement describes it as "a loose affiliation of activists opposed to the environmental movement". "Anti-environmentalist" is probably a more neutral adjective than "anti-environmental". [[User:Dirtbiscuit|Dirtbiscuit]] 05:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:I object to "anti-environmentalist" too, since environmentalist is a loaded and misused term. I would merely provide a link, and let the readers decide for themselves. --[[User:Hcheney|H.]] [[User talk:Hcheney|C<small>HENEY</small>]] 15:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::Hmmm, H. Are you sure it isn't the 'anti' prefix that suggests 'loaded' to you?. After all, declaring someone anti-this or that often implies that they are opposed to a fundamental societal value ([[Anti-American]], for instance).

::I would suggest that using 'anti-environmentalist' to describe Ron Arnold & Wise Use is not too far removed from using 'anti-smoking' to describe the tobacco control lobby. Arnold, in his essay [[http://www.cdfe.org/wiseuse.htm Overcoming Ideology]], refers repeatedly to environmentalism and environmentalists in describing a particular ideology to which he is clearly opposed, and defines Wise Use as a movement which has formed in opposition to environmentalism. He appears to view environmentalism as a social wrong in much the same way that others view smoking as a wrong.

::As such, it seems to me both reasonable and usefully descriptive to retain this adjective in the article. Compared to "eco-terrorist", environmentalist is a term that both supporters and opponents of the ideology it describes seem to be able to live with.

::BTW, thank you for discussing rather than reverting. If only people did that more often! [[User:Dirtbiscuit|Dirtbiscuit]] 13:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::I don't believe the term anti-environmentalist fits the Wise Use movement either. Just as environmentalism isn't always anti-business, not being against responsible economic use of the environment doesn't make you anti-environmentalist. It is possible to be against neither the environment nor big business. They are not necessarily opposing forces - in fact I would argue that both could accomplish their goals if they only worked together more often. Note that the only use of the term "anti-environmentalist" in the [[Wise Use]] article itself comes from the [[Greenpeace]] book about them, which can hardly be considered a neutral source (it may even be the ultimate origin of the label).

Moreover, I don't believe that "anti-environmentalist" suggests opposition to the fundamentalist values of environmentalism ''per se'', but that they are against environmentalists - two very different things. Similarly, the term ''anti-big business'' doesn't mean you don't believe in capitalism, or even that you disagree with the fundamental principles of big business - only that you are against big business. See the difference? It's a fine one, but important.

I think the self-defined mission of the Wise Use movement is responsible use of the environment by the business community, not to act as an antithetical force to environmentalists. Therefore we shouldn't use it as a label for them here in an encyclopedia. Just because one doesn't follow traditional views on conservation of the environment doesn't mean one is anti-environmentalist.--[[User:Xinoph|Xinoph]] 03:09, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

== Disinfopedia ==

H.Cheney, why have you removed a link to the Disinfopedia article, which balances the SPLC report? I find it disturbing that you are doing this while accusing others of censorship. [[User:Dirtbiscuit|Dirtbiscuit]] 18:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:What you are saying is, it's all right to link to biased Disinfopedia articles here, but linking to related NPOV Wikipedia articles in [[tree sitting]] is unacceptable. Please try to be more neutral. --[[User:Hcheney|H.]] [[User talk:Hcheney|C<small>HENEY</small>]] 18:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::Actually no, I haven't made any comment about whether articles should only link to neutral sources. In fact, I doubt whether that is possible. As I've explained elsewhere and at some length, the 'See also' link from [[tree sitting]] to [[eco-terrorism]] implied definition, and a definition which is contentious. The Disinfopedia link is an external link to an article which has the ''same title'', so that problem doesn't arise. [[User:Dirtbiscuit|Dirtbiscuit]] 19:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:::I find it somewhat strange that a simple link to the Disinfopedia article - which I initiated - has been removed on the grounds the article is biased. Surely Wikipedia includes plenty of links to external articles/sites that someone will find biased. Surely it is up to readers to decide whether the Disinfopedia article is biased ... and I would have thought that part of the role of Wikipedia (and other wikis) is to help make it easy for readers to find information so they can make up their own minds.

:::(For example, in Disinfopedia there are numerous external links to articles, books, organisations etc that I and other readers might find 'biased' - such as Ron Arnold's - but I think including them makes the articles more useful for readers). --[[User:Bob Burton|Bob Burton]] 11:48, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Many Definitions Fit Ecoterrorism ==

There are many, many definitions of terrorism that do not require human beings to be the target, or for the intended result to be any person's death or injury.

The US Department of Defense defines terrorism as:

::the unlawful use of - or threatened use of - force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

Meanwhile, Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as:

::premediated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The FBI defines terrorism as:

::The unlawful use of or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

So really the FBI definition does not vary greatly from the legal one or that used by the DoD, and is not extreme. In fact by two of the three definitions ecoterrorism fits, if not the legal definition. Moreover, it is important that this legal definition is not ''for the crime of terrorism'', but rather the legal definition of terrorism that the [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] shall use in categorizing incidents.

--[[User:Xinoph|Xinoph]] 03:52, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

==Bad Paragraph==

This paragraph:

Further, some people hold that clearcutting, strip-mining and other destructive resource extraction activities are true eco-terrorism, battling against such activities is considered by such people to be more akin to self-defense or defense of one's home, than to be terrorism. In many countries—notably the United States—self-defense, defense of a one's home or a loved one, can be held to be a valid legal defence to a charge of a crime. Thus, some people consider vandalism, active resistance, crime or even violence in defense of their ecosystem to be moral, ethical, and legally defensible.

This argument, though some may make it, seems like quite a stretch (burning down a housing development is self defense because the housing development was hurting your "loved one" (the environment)) and it certainly shouldn't be in the opener to this article. IMHO, if we keep this paragraph at all, we should move it down the page a lot to a section called "defense of eco-terorism" or something like that. [[User:Bonus Onus|Bonus Onus]] 03:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

==PETA==

According to ''The Record'', the only incidents involving PETA involved pie, or monetary support. I wouldn't call that working "openly" with eco-terrorists. It is close, but i would still leave PETA out of here, just to keep balance. If anyone can find evidence of a more direct link, perhaps we could make the change. --[[User:Bonus Onus|Bonus Onus]] 04:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

:JonGwynne, that article you cited was hardly neutral, but at least its a step in the right direction. I guess we can leave PETA in for now. --[[User:Bonus Onus|Bonus Onus]] 05:02, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

==Revert War==

Guys, lets compromise. Stop making your edits so blatant, and stop reverting without posting on the talk page. --[[User:Bonus Onus|Bonus Onus]] 01:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

=="Associated with?"==

I don't get it... violence and vandalism aren't "associated with eco-terrorism", they *are* eco-terrorism. Right?--[[User:JonGwynne|JonGwynne]] 02:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Yeah, true, but i think "generally associated" makes this sentence better. people who call treesitting and other forms of nonviolent protest "ecoterrorism" are trying to make a connection in peoples minds between treesitting and things like violence, arson, and vandalism. It is all about associations. Also, just for NPOV sake it is better not to make any absolutes. and i'm not implying anything here, its just from an editorial perspective that im making this change. --[[User:Bonus Onus|Bonus Onus]] 03:19, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

::I see what you're saying, but there is a problem: In the paragraph in question, we're talking about "real" eco-terrorism. I think it is made pretty clear elsewhere that non-violence acts aren't terroristic in nature and that those who try to pretend otherwise are wrong for doing it. However, when specifically discussing acts of overt violence, they can't be "associated" with terrorism as if they are somehow separate from it, it must be clear that violence when committed to serve a political end *is* terrorism.--[[User:JonGwynne|JonGwynne]] 03:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)