|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ecological humanities article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I had begun nominating this for WP:AFD, but a perceptive wikipedian caused me to reconsider so I retracted my overly hasty step. I still think this is a rather lousy article. As a general principle, I would submit that no good encyclopedia article can contain the statement "Everything is connected through relationships.". Ouch, that hurts. 188.8.131.52 06:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have omitted "Everything is connected through relationships". Please feel free to edit the entry if you think you can improve it, that is what we are here for. If there is original reseach it is in the "contemporary ideas", which seems to be the appropriate place. Sholto Maud 08:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the "original research" tag. Sholto Maud has provided a good overview of The Ecological Humanities, IMO. He has provided extensive references, which check out. I find no evidence of original research. If you disagree, by all means, present some evidence. Sunray 07:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Ecomusicology as an ecological humanity?
Should ecomusicology be included in the ecological humanities?
Explicitly speaking, "ecomusicology" (as a word) comes from ecocriticism and musicology (rather than ecology and musicology). However, the Grove Dictionary definition of ecomusicology is that "Ecomusicology considers musical and sonic issues, both textual and performative, related to ecology and the natural environment."  so I feel it would be a relevant addition to this group, as it currently has a "literature" and "arts" categories but no "music".
- Makes sense to me. Have added it to Template:Environmental humanities. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
"Ecological" vs "Environmental" Humanities
Hi! I am new to Wikipedia and am wondering whether the editors of this page think it should be changed to "environmental humanities" rather than "ecological humanities"? The former term seems to be the more accepted one over at least the past five years. For example, major programs at universities around the world use this term, including UCLA in the USA <http://environmental.humanities.ucla.edu/page_id=52>, KTH in Sweden <http://www.kth.se/en/abe/inst/philhist/historia/ehl>, and Bath Spa University in the UK <http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/schools/humanities-and-cultural-industries/research-in-hci/research-centres-and-groups/environmental-humanities>, among others. Moreover, the major journal in the field is titled _Environmental Humanities_ <http://environmentalhumanities.org>. I am not aware of any major uses of "ecological humanities" in recent years, but I'd love to hear what others think about this issue. Lauren LaFauci (LiU) (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)