OK, so here we have a lengthy discussion of the ideas in the "Earth & Sky" radio series, posted by User:Earthsky. That looks like either original research or vanity. Naturally I assume good faith, but could we have some citations from other verifiable sources besides a radio series please? Thanks, Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Please see the citations listed under Outside Referrences on the Human World page. The Human World project of the Earth & Sky radios series has many partners, including the National Academy of Sciences and 80 individual scientists who are world leaders in sustainability issues. This information is still very new, and the scientific studies themselves are extremely varied. But we'll do our best to indicate support for the Human World concept, from sources beyond Earth & Sky's own [web site]. Earthsky 18:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- With respect, those are not external to the show. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I would submit that they are external to the show. The PhysOrg article came from a piece about Human World that was distributed by the National Academy of Sciences. Clark University is the home university of B.L. Turner, who was one of the scientists in the 1990s originating the concept of a coupled human-environment system. Several scientists from the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program are among Earth & Sky's advistors to our project of presenting the American public with the concept of a Human World. But I see what you mean. I need to get across the fact that the concept is not "original research." It is a synthesis by the science journalists at Earth & Sky of the ideas and knowledge of many scientists. We at Earth & Sky have spoken with many scientists -- hundreds every year -- since 1991. As science journalists, it's our job to "package" scientific ideas in an understandable way. Human World is "packaging" if you will, of ideas that are extremely new. We have 80 volunteer advisors to this project, scientists who are world leaders in their field, including two Nobel Laureates (for example Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen, who first wrote of the Anthropocene is an advisor to Earth & Sky for this project . . . so is B.L. Turner). I would like to paste the list of advisors into the article about Human World. Can you help me understand the best way to do that? I'm not as famliar with Wikipedia as you are. Earthsky 13:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's as may be, but all the reerences are back to the same programme. So either this is an article about the Human World series on Earth & Sky, in which case it should be written as such (and some Wikipedians would suggest that it be merged to the main article), or it's an article about the Human World concept (which is how it currently reads), in which case it is original research unless you have evidence of the same concept being discussed under the same name outside the context of the Earth & Sky series. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I see. I think I can fix it. I've asked one of our staff to compile a bibliography of the references we used in 2004 to begin to understand the concept of a human world. Earth & Sky did coin the term, and we can indicate as much. What we can't do is reference our actual interviews with hundreds of scientists per year over many years. Many scientists used the words "human world" back to us, after we used those words to them. The words are catchy, you see. It is the job of science journalists to create catchy phrases that capture more complex scientific ideas. Here's a link to a use of "human world," in [a piece written by a scientist], but again it's on our own web site. Human World is actually just a popularized and expanded version of Paul Crutzen's notion of Anthropocene . . . the citations to that concept on Wikipedia by the way are inadequate, and I'll try to beef them up. It's going to take me some time to get to all of this, but I do appreciate your help, and I want you to know I'm working on it.Earthsky 15:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe the easiest way round it is to document it explicitly as a radio series based on the concept of the Anthropocene, and note some of the contributors and discussions of it. There have been enough POV environmentalist articles created and deleted that people can be a bit sceptical about this kind of content, so references and a clearly defined focus are important in my view. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
If you get a chance to read the current version, I would appreciate your comments. I have more references to add, but they'll have to wait until I get back to the office on Monday. Still, I think this version is closer to what might be acceptable to Wikipedia. Thank you. Earthsky 10:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Have a look at the first couple of paragraphs, see if you get my drift here. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I do see your drift. It rings a bit wrong to me, because we coined the term "human world" before we found Crutzen's article on the Geology of Mankind. It's not that we had the concept because of him. It's that he and we had the same concept. He had his concept because he's a scientist working in this area. We had it because we're a daily science radio program, and we speak with hundreds of scientists each year. We've seen thousands of research papers on human activities affecting Earth, in all kinds of big and little ways. The Earth & Sky staff thrashed around with this for months before we found Crutzen's work, trying to figure out how to present scientists' research results about the global and/or local environment (nearly all of which is bad news) without sounding so grim. We had bottomed out on sounding grim, I guess. We sat down as a group, in a series of meetings, and came to the idea of just accepting humanity as the current dominant species on Earth . . . and arrived at the words "human world" as an effective way to popularize what we've seen, for a decade, of scientists' research results. Then we started searching the internet for more about this concept and found Crutzen's article first. We contacted him and called the scientists he referenced . . . and they got very excited, and started calling each other, because the words "human world" really do describe what they see, what they know from their research, and what they feel in their guts, about the Earth. That's how we got 80 advisors, really prominent scientists, as advisors. They were thrilled about this. Now we have our Special Report on the Human World on our web site, and many radio shows with a Human World focus. And we are organizing a meeting to invite other U.S. science educators to hear talks by scientists on the Human World . . . with the idea of encouraging others to present environmental information in a more realistic and hopeful light. So. What shall I do here? I'll have another crack at rewriting it later today. Thanks so much for all your input! Earthsky 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I know what you're saying, but the point here is that you did not originate the concept of the earth being currently dominated by humans, and even if you did Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original thought. What you have done is to play a part in documenting that line of thinking. I don't think you're the only people to have applied this label, and if you had it would be a neologism (and thus not for Wikipedia). It is arguable that this content whould be merged with the article on Earth & Sky, I'm keeping an open mind. In the mean time I see you as an observer, not an actor, in the political debate on global warming and other anthropoene issues. As an observer you are able to draw together many strands, that is worth documenting. This is not a commercial for the programme, it's a discussion of what it is about and why. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Let me try again. It could be that Human World should be incorporated into the article on Earth & Sky. But I'd like to give it another shot, and in the meantime I'm enjoying learning the ways of Wikipedia. I'd like to do two more articles as well . . . one on "sustainability science" and one on "human footprint." Both are well documented and won't be nearly as tough as this article. Earthsky 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay . . . what do you think? Earthsky 02:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think this is a lot better. I have moved on para to make the context clearer up front, but apart from that any differences between your view and mine are essentially stylistic and not substantive. I removed the importance tag as well, it's no longer needed. As to whether this should be merged, I am still in two minds, but at least this article is now (to my mind) closer to the Wikipedian ideal of NPOV and verifiability from reliable secondary sources. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Your comments helped a lot in my own thinking about the Human World concept, and Earth & Sky's relationship to it. I enjoyed this discussion. Thank you. Earthsky 19:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirected edit
The article has been redirected to Anthropocene based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 17#Human World. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)