Talk:Religion and environmentalism

Adequate title and topic

Greetings. I see no need to merge this with Ecotheology. This article may cover may aspects of religion other than theology. For instance, it may cover religious ethics, prayer, holy sites, and religious law. Furthermore, as noted in the current lead, it's an academic discipline different than ecotheology. Since I haven't seen any other discussion of the merger question, at either article, I'm inclined to remove the tag. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Hi. It would be helpful if whoever added the POV tag would explain the reasons for the tag. Otherwise, it's hard for other editors to know what you think needs to be addressed. Please cite specific neutrality problems. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't address the cornucopian perspective on the issues surrounding religion and ecology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.6.3 (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I suppose two follow-up q's would be in order. Where in the article do you think this perspective should be added (or where is it missing)? How is this perspective articulated by or about religions, so that it would fit within the religious aspect of this topic? Thanks. HG | Talk 05:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the OP, but I'm fairly certain that the cornucopian view is evident within several Christian traditions, at least historically, if not presently in some as well. However, I don't think that view is particularly religious/faith-based in origin, but rather a product of differing economic views regarding resource sustainability that come from more secular origins. I'm not sure how much of a stretch it would be or how much digging would have to be done to make a non-spurious connection between one's economic views and one's religion. Because, certainly, there are atheist cornucopians. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename to "Religion and environmentalism"

Ecology is the study of ecosystems. Environmentalism is the social movement. The latter is the more approp description of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Liefting (talk • contribs)

Dominionism

It's being used in a correct manner, but our article is wrong, making the link confusing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, removing Biblical was a mistake. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Environmental ethics

Why are:

• Biocentrism (ethics)
• Climate ethics
• Conservation (ethic)

in this article? They fit more into environmental ethics than here. A link to environmental ethics seems to fit better, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Still no arguments for inclusion. Gone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethics in religion not direct enough 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No. If A relates to B, B relates to C, and A relates to C only through B, then "A" should not be in "C". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you Special:Contributions/97.87.29.188. 99.112.214.106 (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Other Religions

This page is a bit bereft if it is to give an overview of religions and the environment.

• Where is the Sikh contribution?
• Where is the Parsee (Zoroastrian) contribution?
• Where is the Confucian contribution?

--Whiteguru (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute content with appropriate references ... here is a starter: Zoroastrianism. 99.181.137.224 (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the current Parsi (Parsee). 99.190.86.162 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And Sikh. 99.109.124.167 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Confucianism more ethical philosophy, than a religion per se? 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but it depends on how religion is defined. I suggest that we stick to the definition whereby it is a religion if there is a deity involved. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That is just due to the nature of how Wikipedia develops. We must also be careful to not give topic areas undue weight. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, a Theism/polytheism limit would be more clear. Confucianism's classification is debatable, but would seem to need special attention ... Confucianism and environmentalism perhaps, or maybe just Environmentalism by Nation state, since governments potentially create and enforce regulation. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism a subsection of Christianity section?

Mormonism a subsection of Christianity section?

• Mormonism and Christianity
• Mormonism#Relation_to_Christianity

Some notable figure examples: Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, Jr. 99.181.138.36 (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Diversity will be need, i.e. other than Republicans running in the United States presidential election, 2012 ... 99.181.139.223 (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Seperate section doesn't imply lineage one way or another. If this article grows then grouping may be necessary for clarity. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Who else might have this combination within the wp-ome? 99.181.156.11 (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe instead of Omics, a -sphere, as mentioned on the ManBearPig article? Wp-sphere. 99.181.150.29 (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is a section going to be added? If so, it will need references/sources, etc... 21:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)

I don't know, but these would be more specific: Jon Huntsman presidential campaign, 2012, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, and Political positions of Mitt Romney. I would see this article as for Religious denomination leaders, not Political leader; assuming a form of Separation of church and state. 99.109.126.95 (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture

Redlink. 99.181.152.94 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. per WP:REDLINK — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A Brief Review

Bmkitula (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC) The article is really interesting and informative, I would like to point out that there are a few changes that should be made so as to make the article better.I will give a description of some of the suggestions that I think would be helpful in point form and how the article will look like in the end.

-The article needs more citations which I would like to add.

-I think that the information under the headings;Crisis of values, burden of guilt, Eastern Religions and Indigenous peoples, Religion and ecology, and Religion and nature are relevant but do not need to be in the article.I plan on omitting these parts.

-I also think that it would be better to only focus on what the different religious think about environmentalism e.g what the different religious texts say about the topic.

-There should be a different section on what the different religions do to promote environmentalism today. I will give examples of either religious movements or organisations(current) that are involved in environmental issues and if they have had any impact.

The above should be able to show how the article can be improved.

Contribution

Bmkitula (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC) This is my contribution to the article so far I still have more to do,some feedback would be great

Buddhism Buddhists today are involved in spreading environmental awareness. In a meeting with the U.S Ambassador to the Republic of India Timothy J. Roemer the Dalai Lama urged the U.S to engage China on climate change in Tibet [6]. The Dalai Lama has also been part of a series on discussions organised by the Mind and Life Institute a non profit organisation that specializes on the relationship between science and Buddhism. The talks were partly about ecology, ethics and interdependence and issues on global warming were brought up [7]

Christianity Some Evangelical groups have been an ally to environmentalists in spreading awareness on global warming. The National Association of Evangelicals a non profit organisation are working towards encouraging lawmakers to pass a law that would put restrictions on carbon emissions in the U.S.[8]

Peer Review

First off, this Wikipedia article is full of information on key religions, which is great. I think maybe there should be more than one sentence at the very beginning to try and explain the relationship between "religion" AND "environmentalism." I agree with the ideas you formulated on the talk page under "A brief review." The statement that talks about a crisis of values and how religion is seen as a primary course of values therefore it affects our decisions about nature could possibly be at the beginning of the article, because for me, it made it clear how the two words are related and what the article will eventually discuss. As for the "burden of guilt", I agree, I do not think that is exactly relevant and could be omitted.

It is interesting that there is a great deal more of information on Buddhism and less on the other religions, such as Hinduism. As you said, I think it would be important to add more examples of how religions view the environment and what they do to promote environmentalism today. This article could certainly be an ongoing project extended way past our class because religion is definitely key in many environmental decisions made today.

Overall, I think you have really great ideas and the article would most likely be classified as a "good" articles on Wikipedia.Clhen88 (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestion for improving the article? If so inclined, add them to the article. 99.181.134.196 (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity

Include a clarifying reference to Mormonism and Christianity regarding [1]. See Talk:Christianity and environmentalism and its major change without discussion on the Talk pages. 108.195.136.38 (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall if there have been any reasons presented to include the reference, but you (and perhaps one inexperienced logged-in editor) are the only ones in favor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The major change without discussion is by you (or one of the other IPs you are using.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

See [2] as the major change was made by Special:Contributions/Fat&Happy, Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. 108.73.114.104 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.142.25 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.136.208 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.143.181 (talk)

Requested move

Religion and environmentalism → Religion and ecology – Environmentalism is as per the lead of that article a current philosophy, ideology, and social movement. However, there is a broader field ecology of which it is a part. That broader content does not appear to be anywhere at present, and would I think most reasonably be included in the same article. That would however I think more or less necessitate a title change. Also, one of the leading sources in the field of religion, the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, has its group of articles on this subject all appear under that general title. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note. There were no objections to this proposal after a week, so I closed it as "moved". It was objected to on my talk page, though, so I've reopened the discussion and relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Environmentalism is a social movement which encompasses the discipline of ecology. Plus the article currently includes a "religion and ecology" section. Vsmith (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please inform me, exactly, how a social movement "encompasses the discipline of ecology." The statement seems to be indicating that the social movement is in some way broader and more significant to an academic encyclopedia than the relevant academic discipline. I am unaware of any social movement otherwise being considered more important to an academic encyclopedia than the relevant academic discipline. In general, a social movement discusses the results of a discipline, but that does not necessarily mean that every aspect of the discipline, which is what "encompasses" means, is necessarily neutrally reflected in the movement. Also, although I admit that the Encyclopedia of Religion is only a single academic reference source, it is at least one such, and I think WP:NAME might suggest using the title of their relevant article until and unless other sources are presented to indicate that the alternative is the most common name. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that "encompasses" bit does need clarification it seems. The "movement" includes the various aspects of "environment" - one of which is ecology. However, the movement is broader and includes more than is covered by the "discipline" of ecology. Vsmith (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose the page move but there is a need for a note to made in the article that the quite different terms of ecology and environmentalism are used interchangeably. To call the discipline religion and ecology is "sloppy" use of language and unbecoming of academia and, by extension, an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone was intending to call the discipline "religion and ecology," actually. I think the term "ecology" is used in at least some cases to describe the discipline, and "religion and ecology" would describe the interaction of the two fields. However, I do agree that it would be very useful if at the very least there were to be some clearer consistency in the usage of the two words ecology and environmentalism. Also, alternately, the title "religion and the environment" might be more neutral than the current title as well. Environmentalism, as such, is a movement which, like all movements, has some specific goals, and I am not sure that each and every one of those goals is necessarily agreed upon as useful or necessary by the academic community, which seems to be implied in placing priority on the social, not necessarily scientific, "environmentalism" movement. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, yep. I was going to mention the "religion and environment" option. It is an even broader brief. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Environmentalism is a political ideology, whereas ecology is a science. This article seems to deal almost entirely with the former, even when the latter term is used. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• You may have a point regarding the current structure of the article. My only question is whether there is sufficient content and notability for separate articles about religion and environmentalism and an article on the aspects of religion and environment which are not tied to that political ideology. If there isn't, and I'm not sure there is, then I would think one of the other titles might be preferable. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)