![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 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)
"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)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)
Outside "political rhetoric" there appears to be the view of environmentalism as a religion, even in books:
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)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){{
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)
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)
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
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]
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)
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.
As does, per the sources you supplied, economics. Or politics. Or sports. Or just about anything people are passionate about. (cf. Chicago Cubs)
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).
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 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
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
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 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)
"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)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)
Outside "political rhetoric" there appears to be the view of environmentalism as a religion, even in books:
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)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){{
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)
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)
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
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]
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)
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.
As does, per the sources you supplied, economics. Or politics. Or sports. Or just about anything people are passionate about. (cf. Chicago Cubs)
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).
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 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
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
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)