Wikipedia

Talk:Kyoto Protocol/Archive 9

< Talk:Kyoto Protocol
Latest comment: 2 years ago by PrimeBOT in topic Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

NPOV Merger Proposal

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

To comply with WP:NPOV I propose merging Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol with Kyoto Protocol The violation of NPOV comes from a section of the NPOV policy:

  • Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

It's pretty easy to see that what is happening here is that the "Kyoto Protocol" article has templates and pictures and graphs and weighs in at a healthy 13,000 words. the "Criticism of Kyoto Protocol" is an enemic 2,000 words isolated by themselves. What I propose is not 13,000 words of criticism ( since that would be a gross violation of NPOV giving undue weight to crticism) What I propose is merging the two articles together for a single article that does not give undue weight to criticism but also does not unfairly represent it by isolating it in it's own article.

The main condern from the merger will likely be length. it is important to note that NPOV cannot be overruled by other policies (include WP:Article Size) or Editor consensus. So we have to find a way to honor NPOV and then deal with the length issue. I propose moving the Carbon trade specific content to the article "Carbon trade" this will leave a very tiny couple of paragraphs that can get put into Kyoto Protocol without burdening the length too much. Any feedback or suggestions are appreciated, The discussion won't entertain arguments that are not NPOV related since NPOV is our cardinal rule, our polestar, and our prime directive in this discussion. Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • This proposal is based on a false premise that the Criticism article is NPOV. There is no evidence to support this claim. andy (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Andy, you aren't allowed to try and hide the merger from discussion by deleting the merger proposal. I'm putting it back up. answer these three questions.
  • does Banning criticism from Kyoto Protocol article gives readers of the Kyoto Protocol a fair representation of all verifiable sources?
  • Does banning criticism from Kyoto Protocol proportionately represent all views on the subject?
  • Does banning criticism from Kyoto Protocol article show a lack of bias?

If you can answer all 3 of those questions I'd appreciate your feedback on it. until then I'm putting up the banner so that people can participate in the discussion. Bryce Carmony (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The word we're looking for may be responses. If the main concern is length, then in order to have two NPOV balanced articles, the second one may be called Responses to the Kyoto Protocol, so that there can be criticism and 'praise' of the protocol in due measure (according to what's found in the reliable sources) in both, but the split occurs on the basis of the original plan and its implementation being in this article, and everything that has happened since in the other. --Nigelj (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Nigel, I'll be honest I really like that idea. "Response to the Kyoto Protocol" would be an awesome article. Every country is implementing it in different ways. every country is complying in it in different ways. every country has had different feelings about it. I think "Response to the Kyoto Protocol" would be so good a article of addressing all of that. I'm 100% in favor of that. if that article gets to big, we can break it into other sub-topics as well. I really appreciate your feedback I really like the idea. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed this discussion. Good ideas all around. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nigelj: Hmm, Responses is a bit too wide for the scope probably, as there are many responses that rightfully find their place in the main wiki at the moment (ratification, implementation etc). There is a section "Views of the Protocol", with a "main-link" to Views on the Kyoto Protocol. To me it sounds that is a perfect place (and name) for a pro-con discussion, so why not merge the criticism article with that article?.... L.tak (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Urgenda's climate case and klimaatzaak

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the Netherlands, Urgenda (http://www.urgenda.nl/en/climate-case/ ) won a lawsuit against the Dutch state for not doing enough against climate change. I'm wondering whether they reffered to their Kyoto protocol commitments, or any other commitments they took. The same goes for Klimaatzaak, a similar lawsuit being undertaken in Belgium.

If it referred to their Kyoto protocol commitments they didn't reach; it should be mentioned in the article. KVDP (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The decision is available here and requires some close reading. The UNFCCC and the Kyoto protocol are not considered directly applicable towards people/organizations, but the Netherlands has a duty to take care of its people and their living environment (Constitution article 21). The judge decides that scientific international consensus dictates a reduction of 25-40%, and thus requires the state to do the minimum: 25%. L.tak (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kyoto Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Targets

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wow, what a mess. The table showing the GHG Annex I commitments is a mess. First, it is important. Hiding it is nonsensical. Second, the title is VERY confusing:"Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol, their 2008-2012 commitments (% of base year) and 1990 emission levels (% of all Annex I countries)". There are NOT two parenthetical fields for each of the 38 countries listed, despite the clear implication in the title that there are. Which of the two are actually represented in the actual parenthetical information is not obvious. I suggest that the table be totally reconstructed and should have the following (sortable) rows. Country name. Kyoto 2008-2012 ratification status. 2012 Target compliance status. Base Year. Base year equivalent emissions. 2012(?) equivalent emissions. It would probably be useful to also have base year(1990) GDP's and 2012 GDP's
A June 2016 news article claims a study done (ref below) claims most states met their targets, but there are reasons to doubt the report's accuracy and neutrality. Igor Shishlov et al. Compliance of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period, Climate Policy (2016) Abitslow (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could add more information on why Canada decided to back out, and its plans now that there is a new Prime Minister in office. Sources to be used: [1] [2] Paige Kremer (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Paige Kremer

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Kyoto Protocol. 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).

  • 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) 08:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Kyoto Protocol. 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).

  • 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) 23:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Map update

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone know why we haven't updated the map for the Kyoto protocol in 2 years? Normally, I would change it myself, but I don't know how to. Could somebody please contact me about this? Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Undid changes to fix breaking page

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Undid revision 881124694 because it broke the first map on the page -- didn't attempt to figure out what user meant to do in the first place. Hoping someone who knows this page better can take a look and make sure things look okay. Also, not sure about the changes by AnomieBot, but left them in place. Would feel better if someone looked those over too -- I have a suspicion the bot made its fixes as a result of the user error that broke the page. Cheerful word nerd (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Mistake in content

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

" It entered into force on 31 December 2020, following its acceptance by the mandated minimum of at least 144 states, although the second commitment period ended on the same day. Of the 37 parties with binding commitments, 34 had ratified. " - doesn't it end in Dec 2020? Sorry I don't have the time to research and fix that, but that seems a mistake to me.. for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Climate_Change_conference#2012:_COP_18/CMP_8,_Doha,_Qatar says kyoto ends in 2020 (but sure, check outside of wiki!)

There is some irony in that the Doha amendment of Kyoto (not Kyoto itself) entered into effect on the last day of the period it governed, but that is the case, as the references referenced in the article show... L.tak (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paige Kremer, Saratorresinda, Sarias19. Peer reviewers: Graycake.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/1540-9295-13.10.528/full
  2. ^ http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/01443330310790318
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyoto_Protocol/Archive_9&oldid=1196119505"