Talk:Nature conservation

Improving article
Still the article doen't hit me. Anyone improve it? Taku 19:59 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

-It looks very POV to me. With so much advocacy on both sides, the wise use side largely unrepresented in this article, I'm not sure how best to get to a comprehensive and NPOV article. I'm determined to try in the coming week. BobCMU76 16:28 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * I would be delighted you do so :-) User:anthere

Some content in the article is not so relevant. It either overrepresents or underrepresents unneeded information. For instance, the introduction includes a statement that says, "The consumer conservation ethic is sometimes expressed by the four R's: Rethink, Reduce, Recycle, Repair." This statement is not so relevant to be at the very beginning of the article. Hence, statements like these can become mere distractions about conservation and should be erased.

In addition, some references come from reliable sources (journals, first-hand accounts, other original content), while others come from unverified science websites. References coming from these undependable sources should be reevaluated and changed.

Lastly, in the lead of the article, it states data from 2018. There should be updated data from 2021. There has been many updates on nature conservation and biodiversity. More up-to-date information would increase the accreditation of this page. Gaeun Choi (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on Disambiguation
The last edit moved a paragraph intended to redirect those interested in the physical science meaning of conservation to the appropriate target. That's well and good. But I think even better to have a short paragraph setting the scope of the article -- then disamb -- then the meat of the article. What I find worst is having to scroll to the bottom of a long article for disamb links. BobCMU76 21:26 18 May 2003 (UTC)

I have been wondering the whole week if I could not entirely move the whole (biological) conservation to another article, as it does not seen to belong to this article any more. I wonder if it could not be disamb, just as the physical conservation is. Your definition is very good and very interesting. However, it is entirely focused on the final consumer. The very second sentence is defining "consumer conservation ethic" not conservation.

About two scrolls down of most of the paragraphs you added, there is a sentence saying "In common usage, the term refers to the activity of systematically protecting natural resources...". Since it is planned to add more to introduce specific concerns like supporting populations, global warming, biodiversity, the value of wilderness, fish and timber harvest, the common definition will find itself even further down. I consider this is the common usage for most of the world. I like your definition, but believe it quite wrong that the common usage is at least two scrolls down, and in particular below a whole paragraph stating what conservation is in the United States, historical books and so on. I would hope conservation is not only an american issue, that an article on conservation does not only focus on american conservation history, and that definitions are properly given before focusing on America.

I would like to know what other people think there. Ant


 * Good thoughts, Ant. and I hope others will speak.  Part of my problem is seeking sources on conservation that aren't 19th and 20th century American.  I've been reading Leopold (and commentators on him) mostly in considering where to take this.  Putting a more concrete and normative scope to the discussion in the opening paragraph is something I agree is needed.  BobCMU76 22:37 18 May 2003 (UTC)

I agree that conservation is not mostly about an indevidual's consumption choises. It is mainly a plitical issue. David R. Ingham 17:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation joke
"I have always wanted to work for the phone company in Hamilton, Ontario, so I could conserve energy by commuting with a Hamiltonian operator." David R. Ingham 18:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Headings
Pigsonthewing, please explain here what is wrong with the more specific headings I inserted in place of your nonsensical and overly general "introduction" heading. --Jiang 11:53, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * As already pointed out, see Conflicts between users. Andy Mabbett 12:31, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)4


 * this link is not heading anywhere, and the discussion should take place here perhaps ? ant

guys, please would you stop reverting this page ? and discuss the matter quietly first ? PomPom 12:32, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * SeeConflicts between users, et al. Andy Mabbett 12:35, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to and failing to get answers. --Jiang

Your last edition to conflicts, "Consider an intorduction with, say, four sentences, each making a different point,. How would you sub-divide that?" does not answer my question here. What is wrong with my headings? --Jiang 12:34, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

ahhh, must do anything by myself...here is the working link Conflicts between users -ant

I suggested that Angela could protect the page. 'cause I am one of the authors of the page. So I can give my opinion. I agree adding a heading to differenciate the introduction (the first paragraph) from the article itself is a good idea. But the "introduction" heading is really not very informative in itself. Why would it be best over a detailed title ? ant


 * Do you find anyting wrong with the headings I inserted or can you suggest better headings? --Jiang


 * no. It is best with headings. Clearer than before. And both look ok to my opinion. More informative than just introduction. Just my opinion. Have to go. ant

international definitions
There is a problem with international linking of this subject, which is probably related to some cultural differences in definition.

In the German and Dutch wiki, there the subject "Nature protection" (resp. Umweltschutz and Natuurbescherming) and those cover the same subject. Both originate from the idea of protection of "natural monuments": a natural area which is for some reason worth protecting. The nature protection in Germany and the Netherlands (and I know at least also in many Central European countries) also has a strong educational character. The different philosophical movements that are mentioned in the article ( Romantic-Transcendental, Resource Conservation and Evolutionary-Ecological), don't play a role as such and sound quite academic to me. The practical differences of them are not really elaborated.

In stead in the Netherlands the 3 main philosophies are:
 * Classical Nature Conservation: conserve the parts of nature that are as they were in pre-industrial times, influenced by man, but untouched by industrialization, half-natural landscapes as for example unfertilized meadows (with many species of herbs and birds). It focuses on "natural monuments".
 * Functional View: adapt to modern times, interweave civilization with nature. For example make farmers also cultivate "nature", pay them for birds breeding on their land.
 * Nature Development View: Strict seperation of civilization and nature. Natural area should be left to itself, to produce really "wild" nature. In order to reach this in a small and crowded country like the Netherlands, it is required to create pre-conditions, like import large herbivores. Also this philosophy propagates the creation of "ecological infrastructure": connections between natural areas that will allow species to migrate from one area to another. This to prevent accidental extinction in natural areas that are in fact too small.

Those three views each have a large article in the Dutch wiki, and i just gave a very brief summary. It is probably good to realize that the Netherlands is a very densely populated area, without untouched nature. On a world-scale it is probably more like gardening that nature conservation.

The link to the Frnech wiki should probably be to "Conservation de la Nature". --Taka 15:48, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Moved
I've moved from Conservation to Conservation ethic, since that's what this page claims to be about. We need a page about conservation, as practiced by ocnservationists, but this isn't it. Andy Mabbett 20:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant motto?
I've never heard of exactly "Reduce Recycle Reuse Rethink" before, I think a reference is needed because otherwise it just seems to be a corruption of the waste management paradigm "Reduce Recycle Reuse" Whatever the origin, I don't see that it's significant enough to be at the start of an article on conservation, when that phrase would be more appropriate in an introduction to something like sustainability. --?

The motto as widely publicized in the US is "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." (I do not have a source - could be the Ad Council or a similar well-funded media producer.) The order is significant because the actions are prioritized. First, use fewer resources. Second, reuse available resources as much as possible. Third, recycle; recycling is commonly interpreted to mean the reduction of a product to its component parts or materials, and this is an energy-consuming process to be avoided if possible (though it is still often preferable to pure waste). I haven't heard "rethink" included before, but it should probably be the first priority. Sustainability and conservation are inextricably linked by the utilitarian aspects of conservation. -Jon

Wildlife conservation
Britannica and Encarta have articles giving an overview on this subject. If anyone thinks this is important, they can go ahead. Tfine80 00:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thoreau
"The posthumous publication of Henry David Thoreau's Maine Woods established the grandeur of unspoiled nature as a citadel to nourish the spirit of man" This doesn't seem right to me for several reasons. For one Maine was not "unspoiled". Also it seems more Muir then Thoreau. KAM 13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Added template
I added a template still being improve, about Progressivism -which included a strong conservation ethic through Theodore Roosevelt, Pinchot and others and extends to modern day environmental causes. --Northmeister 16:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please create more "Wildlife of ....." articles for all countries.
.... and kindly contribute to these new articles when you get time, and request others too.

See Wildlife of India for reference.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for WikiProject Protected areas of India & Conservation
If you are interested in Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature etc. please join in to contribute, even starting off with making new stub class articles will be a great contribution.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

this is very bad i want info of conservation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.10.138 (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservation (ethic). 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/20060909070826/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-59 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-59
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612201702/http://religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=45 to http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=45

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservation (ethic). 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/20070703033240/http://www.adopt-a-ranger.org/ to http://www.adopt-a-ranger.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Nature conservation – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Conservation (ethic) → Biological conservation – The current article name is outdated, it is based on different content that meanwhile has been removed. In the sections further up this talk page it becomes clear that the article used to be focused more on consumer behaviour, but that is no longer the case. The proposed rename is supposed to reflect the article's current content. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current proposed target is a redirect to Conservation biology. I'm concerned that moving this page to the proposed title will cause unnecessary confusion. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * what about Conservation (environment) or Environmental conservation or do you have any better alternative? At least I hope you agree that the current title does not make much sense anymore. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current title isn't great. "Environmental conservation" already redirects to Environmental protection so that probably won't work either. I'd suggest moving it to Nature conservation, which already redirects here. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is also perfectly fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, well just to make it official I support move to Nature conservation. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conservation Community
I have added conservation community to the "See also" section.

Rosenbergwrite (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Introduction
"In the United States of America, the year 1864 saw the publication of two books which laid the foundation for Romantic and Utilitarian conservation traditions in America." May need to cite this. B7lam916 (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Biology
Conservation of nature 41.191.104.72 (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

what is conservation of Nature and it's important
yes 117.249.187.27 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)