Jump to content

Talk:Religion and environmentalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bmkitula (talk | contribs) at 02:46, 1 March 2012 (→A Brief Review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WAP assignment

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Environmental ethics

Why are:

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)[reply]

Still no arguments for inclusion. Gone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ethics in religion not direct enough 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, thank you Special:Contributions/97.87.29.188. 99.112.214.106 (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Feel free to contribute content with appropriate references ... here is a starter: Zoroastrianism. 99.181.137.224 (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the current Parsi (Parsee). 99.190.86.162 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Sikh. 99.109.124.167 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Confucianism more ethical philosophy, than a religion per se? 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Mormonism a subsection of Christianity section?

Mormonism a subsection of Christianity section?

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

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)[reply]
Any suggestions? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Who else might have this combination within the wp-ome? 99.181.156.11 (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture

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

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

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.[reply]

-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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religion_and_environmentalism&oldid=479583264"