Talk:Climate justice
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate justice article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 28 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LuckyDatLlama (article contribs).
Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis
editThis article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acs08 (article contribs).
Let's improve the reading ease score
editThe articles still has far too many long sentences. I think long sentences are generally a no no for Wikipedia articles. There is usually always a way to break a long sentence into two without losing any of its meaning. Remember we are writing for the general public, not our peers. If you want them to read and understand we need to keep the Reading Ease Score high. Currently the score of the main text is only 26 (with this tool). The lead is slightly better with 28. I think we should at least bring it up to 35 as an aim. (I could have a go at shortening sentences but I first wanted to reach consensus regarding those textblocks that I removed, or that I proposed for removal) EMsmile (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- @EMsmile: You won't need that agreement to deal with issues in the remainder of the text. Also, you should enumerate which sections still have unresolved debates about the removals.
- I agree with the cut of the "Systemic issues" section, which was unclear and gave undue weight to a single publication.
- The cut to the "Political approaches towards climate justice" and the creation of the "Objectives" section was definitely a positive move for improving neutrality, though the new section is still hard to read for reasons you just described. However, I agree with your perspective that "Objectives" does require background information about the urgent situation of the global climate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Since this comment was posted, the Flesch–Kincaid reading ease score has improved to 49.1, based on your tool, but that is still insufficient. The Coleman–Liau index, which measures the U.S. grade level of the text and uses different metrics than the Flesch–Kincaid grade level, also stands at 13.8, equivalent to a first-year college student. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I don't understand what you meant with "However, I agree with your perspective that "Objectives" does require background information about the urgent situation of the global climate." Was there a "not" missing in this sentence? In any case, your comment inspired me to do a bit more work on this section. Let me know what you think. It's still a bit weak. I think it would be good to include any other definitions of "climate justice" there or any other publications that explain its objectives well. EMsmile (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Update: I've done a bit more work on improving readability by simplifying some of the long and convoluted sentences. EMsmile (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I don't understand what you meant with "However, I agree with your perspective that "Objectives" does require background information about the urgent situation of the global climate." Was there a "not" missing in this sentence? In any case, your comment inspired me to do a bit more work on this section. Let me know what you think. It's still a bit weak. I think it would be good to include any other definitions of "climate justice" there or any other publications that explain its objectives well. EMsmile (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Politics
editThis article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2024 and 20 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bionicgem (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Bionicgem (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Removed section on geopolitical tensions
editI've removed this recently added section because its connection to climate justice was not clear. Maybe it's relevant to Climate security but not here. The brief mention of Ukraine and inflation is Global North centric and news-y. EMsmile (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Geopolitical tensions and conflicts:
Geopolitical tensions can harm climate action, and can prevent just distribution of needed resources. Climate change can increase conflicts, creating a vicious cycle. Inflation, caused by the war in Ukraine and climate change, hurt vulnerable layers of populations, creating instability and disturbing climate action.[1][2]
References
- ^ Shahiqi, Din (5 September 2023). "Can War in Ukraine Be A Step Back on Climate Change Fight?". Access to justice in Eastern Europe. doi:10.33327/AJEE-18-6.4-a000401. Retrieved 18 December 2024.
- ^ Laybourn, Laurie; Dyke, James (9 December 2024). "A 'doom loop' of climate change and geopolitical instability is beginning". The Conversation. Retrieved 18 December 2024.
EMsmile (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- After some thinking, I agree totally with editor EMsmile. Nubia86 (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)