Talk:Evangelical environmentalism

Christianity Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page needs attention

This is a topic of critical importance to modern Christianity and to the world in general. It needs help.

Reverted heavily POV edits

I reverted a series of changes by anonymous User:70.118.249.125 to the last good version of the article. (i.e. last good version, highly POV edits, changes between the two). Please refrain from using Wikipedia as a political soapbox. Thank you. - Anirvan (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anirvan - the evangelical environmntal movement is a political movement, and therefore must be discussed as such. To remove references to politics is incorrect. The ECI, for example lobbied for cap and trade and is most definitely a political organization. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.143.108 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be discussed as a political movement, but biased opinion does nothing useful for wikipedia. I agree with Anirvan, "Please refrain from using Wikipedia as a political soapbox." If you wish to slander the movement, at least ground your criticisms to actual events.

Add stewardship within Planetary boundaries?

Add stewardship within Planetary boundaries? 99.112.212.121 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? 02:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Creation includes all Life on Earth, thus good stewardship would avoid extinctions, such as with the current Holocene extinction.

Add Creation includes all Life on Earth, thus good stewardship would avoid extinctions, such as with the current Holocene extinction. 99.112.212.121 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not all evangelicals are creationists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said all evangelicals are creationists, only Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin? 99.181.140.5 (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did. The sentence has no relevance unless all evangelical environmentalists are creationist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the clarification, but Creation is (disambiguation) page, thus can be "The Creation", that which was created, so can mean Totality, Everything, the Universe, all that-is ever-was ever-shall-be, ... not creationism, which certainly has its own wp page with a wide variety of different meanings. Creationist (-ists) again has a different mean also. 99.119.130.3 (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to disambiguation pages as if the word itself had meaning, now. :sigh: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Word (Creation) has meaning in the Book of Genesis. 166.249.97.11 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does any of this support the requested addition? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last part appears to be an attempt to clarify your understanding, or lack there of. 99.19.46.189 (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see a potential justification for the addition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add living within our means (Planetary boundaries) as good stewardship?

Add living within our means (Planetary boundaries) as good stewardship? 99.56.120.165 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can source it, go ahead. You'll need a single source which says two things, though: That planetary boundaries is an interpretation of "living within our means", and that "living within our means" is "good stewardship". You also need to relate "good stewardship" to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add resource: There is no faster, easier fix for America’s energy crisis than to simply begin living within rational limits. by Vaclav Smil in Seed (magazine)

There is no faster, easier fix for America’s energy crisis than to simply begin living within rational limits. by Vaclav Smil in Seed (magazine) found on No Impact Man. Where some of the rational limits are Planetary boundaries, but not the only ones. 99.181.159.59 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be appropriate in the article Planetary boundaries. Please don't try it insert it there without writing it on that talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary boundaries would be less related, as it is about Ecosystem habitability (Planetary habitability ) issues ... continuation of Life in general. 108.73.112.139 (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was wrong as to where it might be a resource. It certainly isn't appropriate in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resource: April 2011 Sojourners magazine issue cover story: Overcoming Denial How to Talk to Climate Change Skeptics (with all due respect).

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home ...

How to Talk to Climate Change Skeptics? 10 myths about global warming, and what the science really says. by John Cook
Addressing the Naysayers: The gospel truth about climate change. by Katharine Hayhoe
For God So Loved the Dirt... Whether Christians do right by the environment depends on whether we can see the Earth as a megastore where we can 'shop' for whatever we want -- or as a garden that needs careful tending. by Norman Wirzba
Climate Change: Just the Facts by Bill McKibben
When Ideology Trumps Science A conversation with author John Cook. Interview by Elizabeth Palmberg

99.181.149.29 (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the articles, will they be available for free access later? 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]