Talk:Fuck for Forest

Notability

Is notable per WP:ORG criterion 1, "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." FFF's activities are international and it has been verified by the SF Gate, see the article in external links.

Is also notable per WP:PORN BIO criterion 5, "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy, whether through adult film industry news or (preferably) in "mainstream" news outlets." This is easy to verify by a google search, which shows many mainstram third party sources, a few more of which I'll include in the article.

So I'm removing the tag. — Coelacan | talk 20:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is kind sad that in finnish wikipedia article about FFF was deleted. They said it was not important. -85.23.7.182 (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If it was deleted, it must have been restored - fi:Fuck For Forest 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Move page

It isn't capital F in their name. I've checked their official home pages and Norwegian article. --EivindJ (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• On their website they call it "Fuck for forest", but it is the name of an organization and so a proper name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know proper names may just as well not be capitalized, even though that's typical in English. The official name of this organization is without a capital F. --EivindJ (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please check again, they have revamped the site, it says "Fuck For Forest" everywhere. They are also abbreviated as FFF. Beta M (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability and lack of reliable sources

[1] WP:EL is not for new articles as they can and should be merged into the page as sources. The other 2 show no relevance to this article. This is a proper noun for an organisation, those 2 are also proper nouns for something else. if they should be on wikipedia they can have their own article.

Furthermore the article is poorly sourced with no credibility, thus at least seeming OR. If it isnt OR it should be sourced. And especially the 2nd paragraph that shows no reason to believe its worth, seems likes its been written from someone with a vested interest in the organisation to build up its worth.Lihaas (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

First it should be noted that the above is in response to User talk:Lihaas#Is this a blatant bad faith edit?. I shall concede that this has not been a bad faith edit on Lihaas' part, but that raises a perhaps even more serious question of editor competence and ability to exert sound judgement.

To sum up my inquiry on Lihaas' user talk page I questioned why three external links were removed and at the same time the article was smacked with four cleanup tags all relating to the lack of independent sources. Simultaneously another editor, user:Postdlf, reverted Lihaas edit.

Now, the situation seems to be complicated by the intervention of a third editor, Veriss1 (talk · contribs), again removing all three external links[2] in addition to tag-bombing the article[3], then, following a revert by user:Skomorokh, spuriously marking the external links as blogs.[4]. This was again reverted by user:Skomorokh.

I am not very happy about having to spend this time detailing this situation which in my earnest opinion should be totally needless given the general level of aptitude among Wikipedia editors. I can only conclude that to me the edits by both Lihaas and Veriss1 seem completely senseless. What's more, the insistence by both editors to uphold their positions consequent to their misunderstandings being addressed is even more deplorable. (To be fair, Veriss1, now seems to have given up their position.)

For the record these are the three external articles that the two editors wanted to remove:

• "Norwegian Wood. Porn activists go all the way to save the rainforest" Grist.Org article. The article concsists of four sections and 33 paragraphs and discusses Fuck for Forest and includes profiles of the two Norwegian sex performers involved.

• According to Wikipedia's article, Grist is "a free American non-profit online magazine that publishes environmental news and opinion articles". It is categorized in Category:American political magazines and has been described in Newsweek as "The Daily Show of the environment."
• According to Lihaas and Veriss1 this is either a blog and/or the article has no relevance to the subject.

• "Tree So Horny. Can Sex Sell Environmentalism?" Bitch (magazine) article. This is a 16 paragraph original article which also contains original artwork illustration. The phrase "Fuck for Forest" is mentioned 9 times in the article.

• According to Wikipedia's article, Bitch is a "nonprofit, independent, quarterly magazine" which according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer "explores gender issues in greater depth and from unconventional viewpoints".
• According to Lihaas and Veriss1 this is either a blog and/or the article has no relevance to the subject.

• "Eco-porn: Great Sex For A Good Cause" San Francisco Chronicle article on Fuck for Forest, the 31 paragraph article mentioning FFF 15 times.

• According to Wikipedia's article, the San Francisco Chronicle was founded in 1865 "serving primarily the San Francisco Bay Area of the U.S. state of California, but distributed throughout Northern and Central California." It is currently ranked as the 24th largest US newspaper.
• According to Lihaas this article has no relevance to the subject, and Veriss1 initially asserted that the article was not published by this newspaper, that sfgate.com was not associated with San Francisco Chronicle despite this web address being given in the newspaper's Wikipedia article.

Again, I'm sorry for having to spend all this time on responding to Lihaas' post above which is largely impenetrable for the extremely poor English it delivers. I could have been doing so much more useful Wikipedia work for the hour and a half I have spent on this. __meco (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems there is indeed a question of "editor competence and ability to exert sound judgement."

you seem to insinuate that EL's would provide the requsite cited to warrant the removal of tags. WP:EL's are not sourced. Furthermore, it seems Skomorokh twice removed info without discussion. Where were these misunderstandings addressed against the ineptitude of wikipedia editors. WP:NPA means you should stick to coherence instead of diverging of several para's just to attack editors and not answer why it should stay.

Now if you read the WP:EL that has been cited and here and the reason given el's are not citations, and article are not el's seems pretty obvious wha the problem is, and you have not answered the reasons for each of the tags to be removed hence they will be reinserted until you decide to discuss its removals. I have duly explained my addition of the tags, and if you dont understand you can query further.

WP:EL says "1.This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section." At any rate, there is no consensus to remove the tags yet.Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

tags broken down

1. orphan: "as few or no other articles link to it" --> Pages that link to "Fuck for Forest" (article namespace, non-redirects only)
2. need sources: clearly, the 3rd para is uncited, as is the end of para 1.
3. OR: if its not cited (As above) there is no verification or proof that the info is not "made up"
4. essay: because as mentioned by 2 editors it is not encyclopaedic, where:
5. context: is missing. What does it do? Seek? Reasons thereof/history? ie- notability:
6. expanded: for said reason moved tag to section for specific note
7. COI: for the said reason as essay
8. lead: also needs the same context specification.
9. wikify: can go and will be removed

With these duly given reasons for each tag, we can discuss each and then start taking them off so the article is in fact improved by the addition of the tags (purpose then served, as it was with the addition of 2 cites now that werent there before)Lihaas (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The page has improved a tad but the banners were removed without discussion while some are still warranted. I've left the tags that are warranted and people are welcome to discuss its improvement. Also the EL article can and should be merged into the page, particularly when a small article needs more context where it fits in neatly.Lihaas (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Name question

doesnt the group have a norwegian name? either as primary or secondary translation?Lihaas (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

They are called Fuck For Forest. No Norwegian title.