Talk:Environmentalism/Archive 3

Environmentalist concern about (near-Earth) outer space

I am curious. Are there any Wikipedia articles that deal with environmental concern about outer space, especially near-Earth space and the problem of space debris?

We in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight have just created a new article category: Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth. Please add the category tag to any Wikipedia articles on derelict satellites, spacecraft and spent upper stages that are orbiting Earth, as you run into such articles from time to time.

(For those of you unfamiliar with the problem beyond the many satellites that have died (worn out at the end of their useful lifetimes), nearly every space launch mission leaves a spent upper stage (often the size of a small schoolbus) in Earth orbit. For those in low-Earth orbit, the orbits will tend to self-decay in months or a few years and the spent stage will re-enter Earth's atmosphere on their own. For those missions launched to higher orbits, which is nearly all communications satellites we all use everyday in modern connected high-tech society, an upper stage is left in an orbit that will not decay for decades or centuries.)

The category was created in February 2011 as a result of a discussion which may be found here.

The idea was to create a category that would include derelict satellites that are still in orbit, and thus present a challenge or potential problem for other Earth-orbiting satellites, as they use up some of the common resource space "real estate" and thus create externalities for others who are attempting to utilize space, especially near-Earth orbital space.

If anyone has a systematic way of locating articles on these Earth-orbiting derelicts, please have at getting them categorized appropriately so there might be a better way to find Wikipedia articles about this manmade space junk. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested in this topic, may I suggest looking at articles related to the anime/manga Planetes. In it it talks about they type of topic you are talking about. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Enivironmentalism

In a recent discussion in WP:RSN, I have found multiple reliable sources that there are some individuals who see the topic of this article as a religion. They are as follows: 123456 Does is this topic relevant to this article? If so, how best should it be included? Is it criticism, or is it another POV that should be represented?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been tracking this topic and I don't think it warrants a mention at this stage. Here in New Zealand we call sport a religion but what should be said is the sport and environmentalism is like a religion. They are not religions according to its primary definition. There is no deity as one point of difference. As for the sources that you give they are of no use as references in WP. They are blogs, opinions and legal rulings. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 17:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI... the "environmentalism is a religion" nonsense appears to be an artificial creation of the far right conservative movement in the United States, mostly funded by the tobacco, fossil fuel, mining, and chemical industry. Once you follow the money trail, it all leads back to the same groups. After the cold war ended, they needed a new enemy to fight, and they chose environmentalists, based on the ultra right wing belief that environmentalism threatens market fundamentalism. These extremists maintain that any environmental regulation would inevitably lead to tyranny, which is of course, ridiculous. What these extremists want, is to maximize tobacco, fossil fuel, mining, and chemical profits over the health and well being of people and living things. It is very clear who has a religious belief here, and the market fundamentalists don't hold back. "Market authoritarianism" worked great in Chile, and today in China it's clear that capitalism doesn't need or require individual freedom. Unfortunately for the market fundamentalists, their religion came to an end during the late-2000s financial crisis. Furthermore, somebody forgot to tell them that the origins of the environmental movement in the United States comes from leaders in the Republican party such as Teddy Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and John D. Rockefeller. In the 1960s, there was bipartisan agreement on the environment, and in the 1970s, the Environmental Protection Agency was created by the the Nixon administration, who with the help of Republicans implemented the strictest environmental regulations in history. In 2006, George W. Bush made the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument the largest conservation area in the United States and one of the largest marine conservation areas in the world. Today, there are many moderate conservatives and Republicans who are strong on environmental issues, yet we don't hear very much from them because the extremists have taken over their party. Once you bring facts to the table, these claims disintegrate, much like hot air. RightCowLeftCoast doesn't know his history, nor does he seem particularly interested in learning it. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Clap, clap, clap, "Bravo, Bravo" cheered Alan Liefting

On the other hand since it mentioned often enough is it worth at least a mention in the article? I might have to rustle up a decent source. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is sourced to Naomi Oreskes, although I'm not sure if it is from Merchants of Doubt in its entirety or from her book and online presentations. I think it might be both, as I was going from memory. I added the part about Bush and moderate Republicans. I was specifically referring to former House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), a moderate Republican, who would be the party's choice for President if there was a single rational person left in the Republican party. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I though were were suppose to edit in a neutral manor, and not make accusations of POV. So much for assuming good faith.

As for the sources provided Telegraph is a reliable source based in the United Kingdom; the blog is hosted and under the editorial supervision of the New York Times, a reliable source based in New York City; Time Magazine is a reliable source; The Atlantic is a magazine and is a reliable source; the only questionable source I provided is from scienceandpublicpolicy.org.

The subject appears to pass the google test, with 5.9 million hits. So I cannot see why the subject shouldn't be included in some form. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the subject has also been discussed in at least two scholarly sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to see a complete article on the topic of environmentalism as a religion if there was sufficient verifiable, reliable sources on the topic. The sources that you initially gave are not of any use as WP article references. As for the Google hits that is hardly a good measure. A slightly better test would be "environmentalism as religion" on Google Scholar. That gives 50 hits. Finally, in "God meets Gaia in Austin Texas" (which is a case study in one city), to quote one of the academic sources that you give, environmentalism as a religion "has received little or no scholarly attention". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Fifty is not bad, there are other subjects which are notable that have far less scholarly sources. The quote previously given, only says IMHO, that it needs further study, not that it is not worth studying. Granted, the google search I had provided is unsorted; that being said I have seen AfD'd subjects survive with as few as 15k hits, therefore I don't see why the subject cannot be notable.

All this being said, I was thinking that this should be started as a section of this article, and if it grows significantly it can be spun out as an article on its own. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. Unless you have good sources, it's not going in. You don't appear to understand how we use sources or how to identify and evaluate them, so I recommend you find a mentor or request help somewhere else. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks.

I have provided at least two scholarly sources individually that discusses a view of the subject of this article. If added to the article it can be clearly supported by reliable sources, including directly attributed to that of a notable person in the late person of Michael Crichton, where his statements are reference-able. Although the sub-topic does not inherit notability because of Michael Crichton he was one of the more notable individuals who talked about the sub-topic.

I understand that the burden is on me to show that there is sufficient reliable sources to create a section worthy of inclusion in this article. But given that there are 5 million plus google hits on the topic, and fifty hits where the subject is talked about in scholarly sources, I cannot see why it should be excluded, and that there shouldn't be sufficient sources which to draw upon to create the section which I am proposing. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Environmentalism is a huge global movement with maybe millions of activists, academics, individuals etc that have something to do with it. Given the length of the article, and to avoid giving the topic of it as a religion undue weight we can only write about one word about it! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Why only one word? If it were included under criticism it could help to expand and improve that section. Otherwise it can have its own section lower in the article, with the points from reliable sources summarized and kept to a minimal length. These two possibilities would avoid WP:UNDUE, especially given that Undue says that opposing views should not be excluded, as it says: "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". Given that this is a significant minority viewpoint it should be worthy of at least a paragraph I would think. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the possibly controversial nature of this topic, and any difficulty that may arise in my present endeavor, I have sought assistance in writing the proposed section at WikiProject Politics (as this article is tagged as falling under its perview), WikiProject Environment (for same reason as WP Politics), and WikiProject Religion (as the viewpoint is about the subject of this article as seen as a religion). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)"Why only one word?" Because millions of serious words are written about the topic of environmentalism, and all that is written about it as a religion is popular opinion - often used as a poor method of discrediting it. Thanks for seeking a wider audience about the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Difficult question - any simple answer to a question like that is going to be wrong. "Radical environmentalism" has been compared to, even described as, a new religious movement. That's not the same as saying "environmentalism is a religion", but neither is it the same as same as saying that is isn't. Does that mean that there's any real merit in the anti-environmentalist slur? Clearly not. Does that mean that the slur is non-notable? Again, no. The slur is notable. But it's notable in the context of the anti-enviro/"skeptic" movement. Sadly, it requires knowledge - random Googling isn't going to answer the question. Guettarda (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Random googling only shows the breath of it as a topic, obviously, it will take much sorting to find reliable sources out of it which to create a section worthy of inclusion that is balanced and non-POV pushing, and factual. Environmentalism, itself can be seen as a certain POV, but it to can be written about in a neutral manor that does not advocate it but is informative of the subject.

Regarding the possible topic of the opinion and/or belief of environmentalism as a religion; if it is written as a slur/criticism of the subject of the topic, ching chong, a slur against Asian Americans, is itself notable enough to warrant an article of its own, then perhaps this section topic should warrant its own article. However, that isn't necessarily the case due to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST.

I would like to see this not seen as criticism, although it can be seen as it, but as a section of the topic itself, evaluating both sides of the sub-topic, as it being used as criticism, as it being the foundation of an belief system, that is if there are references from reliable sources to support both sides of it.

I advocate neither. I am not here to advocate. I am here to improve this article, and this line of thought regarding the topic of this article is something that I think is relevant and should be included. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A google search with "Environmentalism as religion" -Crichton -blog -bloggers -blogging -facebook gives less than 30,000 hits. Not a lot given the size of the internet. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We already have a section on evangelical environmentalism in this article and we have a separate topic on the intersection between religion and environmentalism. Neither of those topics has anything to do with "criticism". You raised the issue of Michael Crichton and his polemics against environmentalism, based on a ridiculous speech he gave to the Commonwealth Club. The primary proponent of this idea as a "criticism" is the Heartland Institute, whose website has dozens of articles, essays, and opinion pieces devoted to it. For the rest of the story, see this. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion has gotten too personal. Let's step back for a minute and see what we have here.

1. The idea that certain strains of environmentalism have been compared to a[new religious movement. I have presented that assertion without sources, but I feel confident that I could track down scholarly sources. That probably belongs somewhere in the new religious movement or ecocentrism family of articles, not here (except maybe as a "See also"0.
2. "Religion" as a slur - that probably belongs somewhere in the universe of anti-environmentalism rather than this article.
3. Evangelical environmentalism - that section is already seriously overweighted in this article, so we don't need any more here.

My sense is that while these ideas are probably all notable, they don't belong in this article. This article already has serious WP:WEIGHT problems. I think it needs to be rebuilt, from the ground up, with an overall vision of what it should be and where it should go. We would be much better off spending our time trying to rebuild this article - it is, after all, a rather important topic. Why don't the four of us resolve to work on that? Guettarda (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Question is, does this sub-topic really fall under anti-enviornmentalism, or criticism?

If it in fact does then it would help expand a section that has almost no weight, and can improve this article in providing balance, while presented in a way that does not give it undue weight and in a neutral tone. If it is in fact not, then I can see how it can fall under ecocentrism article, a section here (which can be spun out as it expands in size), or a new article of its own. Rather, from what sources I have seen, there is a notable opinion that environmentalism itself is a religion, and not necessarily a part of a pre-existing faith.

I don't believe that this topic falls under evangelical environmentalism as, after reading that topic, it appears to center upon how to utilize certain religious beliefs of existing religions in a way to further the goals of environmentalism.

I would support a rewrite of this article, but at the very least should be checked for any POV issues that may or may not exist. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you from creating your own article about ExxonMobil's view of environmentalism, and how regulations impact their bottom line and force them to fund think tanks and pundits which claim that "environmentalism is a religion". I'm happy to help you get started in this endeavor. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the above, that being environmentalism and ExxonMobile, would belong on the ExxonMobil article; however, the above also smacks of creating and article that would violating WP:NPOV & WP:NOTADVOCATE. I would like to assume good faith regarding the previous comment, and I sincerely hope that the above is sarcasm, otherwise, I don't think my efforts are being taken with good faith.

I am not attempting to advocate the viewpoint that Environmentalism is a Religion; however, I do believe that it is sufficiently notable to be included in WikiPedia, if not as a section on this article, somewhere. It is my belief that it can be written in a neutral tone that neither advocates it nor disparages it.

Of course there will be critics of the idea that Environmentalism is a Religion, and the view of critics (which should be well referenced) should be given and in such a manor that keeps with in the limits of WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a large serious literature produced by theologians and scholars of religion--see for example:

1. The Bible and the Environment: Towards a Critical Ecological Biblical Theology (2010) by David G. Horrell
2. Eco-Theology by Celia Deane-Drummond (2008)
3. Franciscan Theology of the Environment: An Introductory Reader by Dawn M. Nothwehr (2003)
4. Earth Revealing - Earth Healing: Ecology and Christian Theology by Denis Edwards (2001)
5. And God Saw That It Was Good: Catholic Theology & the Environment by Drew Christiansen and Walter Grazer (1996)
6. Redeeming the Time: A Political Theology of the Environment by Stephen B. Scharper (1998)
7. Population, Consumption, and the Environment: Religious and Secular Responses by Harold G. Coward (1995) Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

They seem to related to environmentalism by religious adherents. The issue here is whether environmentalism is a religion. Note that there is a Religion and environmentalism article. Can I suggest that those titles are somehow associated with that article? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I came here from the religion Wikiproject. If you want an answer to this question from the perspective of the academic study of religion it is that environmentalism is not "a religion." The intersection between environmentalism and established religion(s) is a large field of study, but no serious scholar considers environmentalism itself to be one of the world's many religions. Note, for instance, that in the only piece of scholarship here form the study of religion (I don't count law reviews, sorry) is one that attempts to show how environmentalism is an example of "implicit religion." Implicit religion is not a particularly common phrase in the social sciences, but when it is used it usually refers to something that is "not actually religion, just kinda, sorta like it." The article does what others do when discussing implicit religion, make a case for how some non-religious phenomena fits various aspects of "religion" as defined by the author. Such discussions may be interesting to anyone who wants a deeper understanding of the topic, but they are usually not even meant to promote an argument that the topic "is" religion. Sorry for the long winded answer, but to recap - scholarship in the study of religion does not support the notion that "environmentalism is religion."Griswaldo (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't feel you have to apologise for clearly stating your case. Your comment is corroborated by a source supplied by the editor who started this thread, and I have already given reasons why academia do not study environmentalism as a religion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back; this is greatly appretiated. I can see how religious/theological scholars don't see environmentalism as a relgion, and I can see why secular, and non-secular, scientist don't study it as a religion. That being said, I think that the term "implicit religion", does best fit the view of the references that I can find that talk about the subject of this article as a religion. With that being said, how can we improve this article by mentioning, with reference, the view, without advocating it, or giving it undue weight, and without writing it in a way which is neutral and non-judging of that view? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would not support calling anything "implicit religion" in an encyclopedia. As I said, it's a catch-all for things that share qualities with religion, at least according to some scholar. It is a useful term in social analysis in as much as it enables a comparison between social movements like environmentalism and established religious institutions. However, that's where the utility ends. In other words, fine for a scholar mucking around with a comparison, but no good for a reference work. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If not "implicit religion" then what is it that what do call the notable opinion expressed of "environmentalism as a religion"? What is the can be supported by reliable sources for this sub-topic? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What is notable is a piece of political rhetoric (and not an academic analysis). I don't see any good arguments for including the political rhetoric at all. Also, the implicit religion angle is unrelated to the political rhetoric, which is what you appear to want included. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Outside "political rhetoric" there appears to be the view of environmentalism as a religion, even in books:

• Nelson, Robert Henry (2010). The new holy wars: economic religion vs. environmental religion in contemporary America. Penn State Press. p. 388. ISBN 9780271035819. Retrieved 23 May 2011. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Capaldi, Nicholas (2005). Business and religion: a clash of civilizations?. M & M Scrivener Press. p. 80. ISBN 9780976404101. Retrieved 23 May 2011. Doing "Secular Theology":Business Ethics in Economic and Environmental Religion {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
• Yandle, Bruce (1995). Taking the Environment Seriously. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 249. ISBN 9780847680542. Retrieved 23 May 2011. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

It exist in some form, but there is also those who use it as political rhetoric. Since this is the case, perhaps those two differing views should be subsections of a section? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Robert Henry Nelson is Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute[1], a non-profit libertarian think tank which received funds from ExxonMobil up until 2007.[2][3] According to SourceWatch, Washington Post reporter Joel Achenbach observed in 2006 that "the most generous sponsors" of CEI's 2005 annual dinner were "the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Exxon Mobil, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Pfizer. Other contributors included General Motors, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Plastics Council, the Chlorine Chemistry Council and Arch Coal."[4] CEI continues to receive funding from the Koch Family Foundations.
• Nicholas Capaldi is an academic who has given talks at events sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank.[5][6] AEI has received millions from ExxonMobil[7] and hundreds of thousands from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Capaldi is also on the editorial board of the journal Reason Papers, which has published climate change denial articles[8] (or as they call it climate skepticism), and is hosted by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian organization.
• Bruce Yandle is a senior fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), a free market think tank that has received funding from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. PERC has also received tens of thousands from ExxonMobil.[9] They have been accused of being a climate change denial front group.[10] Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Capaldi does not write the second piece anyway, it's another from Robert H. Nelson. Anyway none of these scholars are scholars of religion. Nor are they social scientists. They are business professors and professors of public policy who, as Viriditas points out, have some rather clear political interests. I do not recommend following their lead in identifying what is or is not a religion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The first two Nelson articles compare both economics and environmentalism to religion. It isn't a horrible analogy. But it is an analogy. The third article, also by Nelson, says "Although some pantheistic elements may be present, such characterizations probably do more to inhibit than advance understanding of the environmental movement. So we're giving an awful lot of weight to the opinion of one person, who seems to be using the comparison more as an analogy than anything else.

Getting back to Nelson's first example - he appears to be making a stronger case for considering economics a religion than environmentalism. And while we have an article about market fundamentalism, there is no mention of economics-as-religion. We have an article about Gaia worship, we have articles about Wicca and nature worship. You could argue that there's a connection, that the nature worshipers are also environmentalists (though I'm by no means convinced that would hold up to scrutiny). But that's not the same as saying environmentalism is a religion, even if it might be safe to say that it is some people's religion. Just like work is some people's religion, and money, and sports, and... Guettarda (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Outside of criticism of the belief of environmentalism as a religion, or statements of tertiary funding, the belief, or at least criticism of the belief, does in fact exist, and is documented to do so. Can we agree that does in fact exist, as a baseline? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there are too many qualifiers in that sentence for me to follow. Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me restate.

Can we agree as, as a baseline, that the belief, and the criticism of the belief, does in fact exist, and is documented to do so? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

When you say that it exists, you mean as in the existence of a public relations campaign against environmental regulations at the behest of front groups? Is that what you mean by "exists"? If it is what you mean, then I would say that yes, propaganda exists. So what? We've even got an article about it called global warming conspiracy theory. I think it might interest you, particularly this passage from the article:

In a piece headed Crichton's conspiracy theory, Harold Evans described Crichton's theory as being "in the paranoid political style identified by the renowned historian Richard Hofstadter," and went on to suggest that "if you happen to be in the market for a conspiracy theory today, there's a rather more credible one documented by the pressure group Greenpeace," namely the funding by ExxonMobil of groups opposed to the theory of global warming

You did bring up Crichton, didn't you?

The article goes on to say:

Further evidence of the energy industry funding climate change denial has been produced by Greenpeace with their Exxon Secrets project.[44][45] ExxonMobil announced in 2008 that it would cut funding to many of the groups that were denying the science behind global warming but continues to fund over "two dozen other organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis."[46] A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[46]

I hope that helps point you in the right direction, RightCowLeftCoast. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the environmentalism as a religion, I can see would cast it aside as furthering the precepts of the supposed "global warming conspiracy theory", however, adherents to the faith probably do not see it as part of a conspiracy against the idea of global warming.

Therefore, it would fall under criticism of the environmentalism as a religion, not so much about the religion itself, IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Who are these "adherents" of environmentalism as a religion? You're just repeating propaganda, and we don't generally use Wikipedia for the purpose of repeating what ExxonMobil pays a think tank to write. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am thoroughly lost here. As best I can tell, there's nothing to add to this article at this point in time. Can we move on to more productive pursuits or, better yet, work on improving this article? Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To which article would this subject best fall under? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What subject? I thought we had agreed that we have a number of disparate ideas that share only the vaguest of connection. 00:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The same subject that we have been talking about "Environmentalism as a Religion", it is evident, IMHO, it exist in some form, as other editors have posted significant amount of criticism against it. There appears to be three schools of thought about this, from what I can gather:

1. The subject of this article has many elements relating to it and can be viewed as an "implied religion".
2. The subject of this article is a religion, and can be adhered to as such.
3. The idea of the subject being a religion is used by those who oppose it.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody "opposes" environmentalism. The philosophy is built-in to the human species as a form of survival. As only one example, look at the history of space exploration and what kind of psychological changes astronauts and cosmonauts experience when the Earth's environment is removed. (Roach 2010) Our connection to the Earth is both physiological and psychological. It is not "religious" to observe that an animal has a connection to their environment. Just as a cat requires a clean litter box, fresh food and water, so too does a human. This is very easy to understand, RightCowLeftCoast, and religious belief plays no role whatsoever. As I showed above, you are pushing an extreme, right wing position that is taken up by market fundamentalists who oppose any and all restrictions and regulations on pollution caused by the products they produce and manufacture. Their repeated claim that "environmentalism is a religion" is simply a propaganda tactic to distract people from looking at the scientific evidence behind the need to restrict and regulate pollution, solely due to concerns about animal and human health, and not due to any religious belief. Environmentalism is essentially advocacy on behalf of public health. Where is the religion here? Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, I am not advocating anything. Wikipedia is based on what can be verified, not what truth is or is not.

Please stop attacking me and not assuming good faith.

From what I could find from reliable sources, irregardless of who funds them or not, there is verifiable sources from reliable sources that show that environmentalism, as a subject, can be seen as, or is, a religion. Per WP:NPOV, all POVs, should be given due weight, but not undue weight. Given that, the amount of content should be placed in the article, even if a brief summary, should be written using non-judgemental language of the language. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Name calling is interesting as a propaganda technique, but does not appear to be notable or encyclopedic. To refute my point, please provide specific examples of "environmentalism as religion". Negative generalities does not an encyclopedia make. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already posted a large number of sources from reliable sources, and at least one of them from an academic publisher. Therefore, the POV that the subject of the article as seen as a religion can be verified to exist using reliable sources. That is the baseline of inclusion in Wikipedia.

Again, I am not name calling; I kindly request that other editors continue to assume good faith, and thank other editors for largely remaining civil. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a communication problem. Saying environmentalism is a religion without specific examples for discussion is an argument based on name calling and negative generalities, a popular fallacy and propaganda tactic. If you can't answer the most basic questions about your proposed content, then I would say your proposal is dead in the water. Please do not respond with "but I have sources" yet again or make another false accusation about civility. You need to provide actual examples for discussion. Proposing that we add, "some people think environmentism is a religion" isn't acceptable. Name calling alone is not a good argument for inclusion or notable. Please tell us why specific claimants say this, and who they are specifically talking about. If you can't do this, then I suggest this thread is at the end of its spool. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is there need to be specific? Has there not been sufficient references to provide that the idea, in general is verified by reliable sources to exist? Can we as editors agree to this as a baseline for this discussion? Perhaps if we can agree to that baseline, we can get into specifics. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get the notion that because an idea exists it is acceptable for inclusion? Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion in Wikipedia is based on two parts WP:NN and WP:VER. The subject is already notable. A differing POV, that it is (or can be viewed as) a religion, regarding the subject of this article can be verified from reliable sources.

Per WP:DUE:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.

The view is a minority view, therefore I can see that if any content is added to the article, that it be written in a manor that neither advocates it, nor is critical of it. It should be short and concise as possible, so that it isn't given undue weight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The general views you describe have already been addressed on this page and were found to be lacking substance for inclusion in this article, and their sources were found to be less than reliable. Yet, you continue to claim they should be added. When pressed to describe the views in particular, so that we can discuss the content and focus on whether it is notable, you declined to move away from a "name calling" generalization. NN and V have both been addressed, and your claim has failed both. It was patiently explained to you, that everything can be (and probably has been) described as a religion. You don't seem to be familiar with the literature on this subject. If you were, you would know that there are many sources that describe American football as a religion, and the Super Bowl as the most religious holiday in the U.S. Of course, there's nothing in either the football or Super Bowl article about this. You are most welcome to describe the specific claim you want to see in this article, and talk about how and why the source describes environmentalism as a religion, and why, according to your view, this is a notable criticism that should appear in this article. Until you do this, there's nothing else to discuss. We simply don't add negative generalizations to any encyclopedia article. Continuing to claim that we do hints of POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Claiming that I am POV pushing, when I have already stated that I am not advocating this POV, is not adhering to WP:AGF.

I will freely admit that I am not familiar with the topic, nor have I every claimed to be an expert in it. However, that doesn't mean that myself as an editor not being an expert on the subject shouldn't stop something that is verified to not have a place in this article.

Claims that content that can be supported from such reputable sources such as Times Magazine, Case Western Law Review, and Penn State Press should not be included is abhorrent and does not further the goals of Wikipedia IMHO.

If there are minority views expressed in reliable sources, that X can be viewed as a religion, and it can be expressed in a neutral manor, and well cited, I don't see anything against inclusion of such text, even if it is brief. However, such things would be best discussed on those article pages, and not here.

Again, I am seeking to reach a baseline understanding, to further this discussion. It appears that other editors do not want to come to such a baseline, not assume good faith, and accuse me of advocating POVs. Because of this, I will take leave of this discussion, and come back to this at a later date and time. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets try again: Your argument that some call it a religion is verifiable. That is the lower hurdle to breach - and you've done so. The second hurdle is to show that this view is notable. This one you haven't shown. Your argument boils down to: So and so, in a reliable source, has argued this. But this is not enough to make it notable. You will have to show that this is an argument that carries weight, in other words that it is a significant viewpoint amongst the total literature (viewpoints) about the subject. In this context it would have to be shown that this is a viewpoint that rises to the significant minority level, as opposed to the "occasionally invoked" level. Take the examples that Viriditas has given about the religious nature of American Football - this is occasionally mentioned - but it doesn't rise to the significant minority level. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seem overly obtuse, but I still don't get what RCLC is proposing here.

• The subject of this article has many elements relating to it and can be viewed as an "implied religion".

  As does, per the sources you supplied, economics. Or politics. Or sports. Or just about anything people are passionate about. (cf. Chicago Cubs)

• The subject of this article is a religion, and can be adhered to as such.

  Nature worship or Gaia worship isn't environmentalism. There are places where that overlap might be made explicit to one degree or another, but that belongs in articles about specific individuals or movements in which the two overlap. Despite the existence of a whole host of religious wars, warfare isn't a religion (except in the sense of the previous point).

• The idea of the subject being a religion is used by those who oppose it.

  This is slightly more notable, but not really more notable than calling an environmentalists a "crunchies" (that wouldn't be a rationale for adding a section about granola) or "unshaven" (we wouldn't add a section about shaving habits among males and females who happen to be environmentalists) or, for that matter, talk about hippies.

What's more, none of these are additive. They aren't the same topic. The first is entirely independent of the other two. In the second case, the relationship runs the other way - from Gaia worship to the environment, not from environmentalism to Gaia worship. And what's notable isn't "environmentalism is a religion because some people worship nature" but rather, "some people worship nature". Which probably belongs in the article about nature anyway, come to think of it. The last one is just a slur. It's like adding a section about South Park to Al Gore because of manbearpig. Guettarda (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This ManBearPig? 99.181.140.154 (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a POV that is not widely supported:

1. Environmentalism has emerged because of new data and has become stronger because of newer data.
2. Environmentalism has a wide following and vested commercial interests attempt to silence it.
3. Environmentalism is based on science
4. Environmentalism is based on ideas not charismatic figures
5. Environmentalism is based on ideas not charismatic figures

Anyway this is not the place for opinion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but thanks for that very patient and well reasoned response. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that Environmentalism is not a religion, and I also disagree with the comments made by the IP editor, I think Alan's portrayal just above neglects the fact that environmentalism is a social movement nonetheless. Seen as a social movement Alan's responses about environmentalism may be as off the mark as the IP's. Religion is not "based" on charismatic figures, it is "based" on ideas that to a greater or lesser degree have been uttered by charismatic figures. Also, let's not pretend that there are no "charismatic figures" who espouse environmentalist ideas or that there aren't any impressionable people who are swayed by them. Not everyone who is an environmentalist understands the "science" it is based on. I would consider myself an environmentalist, but I understand very little of the science. What I know is that I trust the scientists who say that we have a global warming problem, etc. Part of the problem with claims like these is that they compare apples to oranges. Environmentalism is treated not as it is found in a majority of environmentalists (like myself) but how it is found within the scientific community, while religion is treated not as it is found within groups of religious experts but instead amongst their flocks. If you really want to compare or contrast the two then level the playing field. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is a social movement and there are charismatic environmentalists but I could not resist penning a hasty reply on a complex subject before rushing out the door this morning. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What science is there in bullshit devices like "air collecting and sampling backpacks" the answer is that there is none and they look like crap as well. My point was made on radicals not normal eco movement. I agree with the idea that greenhouse gasses are casing global warming; but I will never pin it on one single gas alone. I wil not just suggest only one set of power sources as well; to be honest we used to consider nuclear power and green power to be crazy ideas. Look where they are now; are they crazy now; nope. If we are careful with which green materials we use we can recycle well; unfortunately many of the green materials I've seen were complete crap with the quality. I am almost an environmentalist but i fall just short do to the fact I refuse to be on one side of the debate. I don't mind normal environmentalism; I just hate the anti capitalist crackheads in the movement. In fact i will admit that i never clarified that i was referring to the radicals before. 68.70.6.169 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Per initial subsection Talk ... maybe see Christianity and environmentalism (example Evangelical environmentalism) and Religion and environmentalism ? There are other articles with of societies Faiths and their Environments of course. 99.181.156.173 (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that the content is verifiable, it wouldn't be undue weight if a sentence or two relating to how environmentalism is treated by some like a religion would be included in the Environmentalism today subsection?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ecologism

The term, ecologism, currently redirects to this page. In my opinion, it should not. It deserves an entry of its own, as a distinct but related concept. It would be helpful somewhere in this article to distinguish between the two. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is too much of a neologism. Not enough Google scholar ghits and no entry at dictionary.com -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Archive

Moved discussions from 2011 and 2012 to an archive. Not sure if Misza Bot is archiving the pages...maybe it needs to be checked? --Turn685 (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

evolving perspective of environmentalism

today environmentalism is viewed and treated in the same manner as one would treat home grown or foreign terrorists anyone care to elaborate..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.85.8 (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how your statement relates to the content of the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. See Wikipedia:NOT Turn➦ 09:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead photo

The "Blue Marble" photo that leads the article is also the same picture used for Project Environmentalism. What I'm saying is that you have the same picture posted twice here. Perhaps an alternate lead picture for the article could be used, instead of this redundancy. 184.7.170.184 (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Environmentalism as religion

Paul H. Rubin is an economist, not an expert on new religious movements.[11] An Op-Ed by him, in the WSJ, is not a notable source for something like this. After all, it's an extraordinary claim. Guettarda (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Brigidmcfarland, in case you feel like this is an arbitrary or partisan decision: it's supported by important Wikipedia policies, WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. FourViolas (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Environmentalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002080012/http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/perspect/london.htm to http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/perspect/london.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122133729/http://www.eh-resources.org:80/timeline/timeline_conservation.html to http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_conservation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Environmentalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_conservation.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140806070246/http://www.visitcumbria.com/rawnsley.htm to http://www.visitcumbria.com/rawnsley.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120602185018/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/servlet/file/store5/item740098/version1/National%20Trust%20Acts%201907-1971%20post%20Order%202005.pdf to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/servlet/file/store5/item740098/version1/National%20Trust%20Acts%201907-1971%20post%20Order%202005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Environmentalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229205148/http://www.glin.gov/download.action?fulltextId=68261&documentId=70515&glinID=70515 to http://www.glin.gov/download.action?fulltextId=68261&documentId=70515&glinID=70515

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article lacks references. The Lead section doesn't make a reference until the second paragraph. Where did the information from the first paragraph come from? Also in the Definitions section, it should be stated where the terms came from to make sure that they are reliable sources. In the History section, the beginning only talks about Great Britain and the Middle east, whereas the whole section talks about the spread of environmentalism, so I think the initial paragraph should reflect that more. I do like how there is a section on New Forms of Ecoactivism. It should definitely expanded on and brought up to modern date since there are many protests that do occur all over the world in regards to the environment. There are also many changes occurring now within the government and laws about the extent of protecting the environment that are important to be touched on. Even a comparison of different countries laws would be good to lay out. I like the idea and structure behind the article, but more information will need to be added into the History section as well as New forms of Ecoactivism and Environmental Laws. Terir (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)terir

Thanks for your input, Terir. I am a university student studying a bachelor of oral health sciences. I am working on an assignment where we have to improve the quality of the Eco-friendly dentistry article. I am trying to research the history of eco-friendly dentistry. So I have delved down the rabbit hole of the eco-friendly movement. I don't know where to start. This page has been helpful, but your input has brought attention to the shortcomings of Wikipedia articles. As a university student, we are grilled on the standards of evidence, so I am floundering when trying to use other wikipedia pages as reliable sources of information. --Asktheboh96 (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Environmentalism in Islam

Actually I want to add 10 Green Hidiths (sayings) of Muhammad PBUH - Last messenger of Allah (God) . Islam has Billion followers around the world. So these instructions can be published to suitable wiki pedia pages. This will help environmentalism around the world. Can any one help me ? I am a new user. Link is here http://aboutislam.net/shariah/hadith/hadith-collections/10-green-hadiths/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Envoirnment Lover (talk • contribs) 12:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This would be more relevant to Wikipedia's article about Religion and environmentalism. Jarble (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

term coined?

Please include a section on the history of the term 'environmentalism' itself- when it was coined, when it came to take on its present meanings, etc. 130.68.183.12 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC) R.E.D.

"Going green" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Going green. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Going green until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"Go green" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Go green. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Go green until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Alternative definition

Ecology is a science and activity of studying negative impact of human activity on ecosystems (including individual species and including people as a species, and including anthropogenic ecosystems such as cities) and its minimization. A person involved in ecology is ecologist. The adjective is ecological. The adverb is ecologically. Other names for ecology, though it is recommended not to use them, are environmentalism, environmental protection, nature protection. Ecology is different from bioecology which is a science about relations between different organisms and relations between organisms and their environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.63.152 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)