This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Paris Agreement 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: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Paris Agreement has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on December 13, 2015. | |||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 4, 2021, April 22, 2023, and April 22, 2024. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
I'm planning to bring this article to GA level. There is quite a lot to do:
If anybody wants to join the effort to improve the article, I always enjoy collaborating. FemkeMilene ( talk) 17:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The only section that is quite far off is implantationimplementation, which is just a random collection of studies.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
07:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:GA Review/Paris Agreement/GA1 EMsmile ( talk) 22:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
By the way, the readability score is still not great - using this tool I get 38 (out of 100). Perhaps attention could be paid to this in future reviews. Not sure if the GA reviewer considered readability as an important factor. Perhaps if it's ever taken to FA status, this aspect could be considered. For comparison, with the same tool the climate change article gets a readability score of 44 - which is very good for this kind of topic. I've worked on a range of articles, e.g. sustainability, and regularly struggle to get the score to higher than say 40 (the sustainability article currently sits at a readability score of 21 - very bad). I wish we had science journalists on tap who could help. EMsmile ( talk) 22:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Amitchell125 ( talk · contribs) 19:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Happy to review the article.
I was thinking of reviewing this if no one had taken it by the time the nominator had returned from her wiki break later in July. IMO it's already beyond GA class in several respects, but there were some minor non compliances, IMO. In such circumstances, I normally make all needed improvements myself. This might have consumed a lot of time in this case, as Id probably have edited a lot more than is needed for GA status, per the topic's importance. So great to see someone else has stepped up to take this on.
Ive just made a few edits based on minor issues I spotted from my initial skim read when I noticed the nomination. (there may be a few more it needs for GA class.) If anyone doesnt think they are improvements, no worries about reverting. I wont further participate as would hate to think any differences of perspective I might have could cause the article to fail the stability criteria. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments to follow. Amitchell125 ( talk) 19:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
More comments to follow. Amitchell125 ( talk) 22:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The ref numbers are for this version of the article.
I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 28 July to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. many thanks for all the work you've done so far. Regards, Amitchell125 ( talk) 20:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
All sorted, thanks for all your efforts with the article. Now passing. Amitchell125 ( talk) 07:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I am just wondering if this one book that is listed under further reading is so important & special that we should list it here? It feels like a special endorsement, is this justified? I don't know anything about this book. Am just wondering if it was deliberately chosen or just somehow ended up there?:
What is the "Nirosh average," noted under the total fossil fuel emissions chart? Is this a typo for "national"? The interwebs are silent on this term. Daniel Lewis, Ph.D. 20:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The Paris Agreement could include a description of the the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions of the “ideal mathematically average world citizen on track to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C”
The United Nations Environmental Programme Gap Report page XIII states “to get in line with the Paris Agreement, emissions must drop 7.6 per cent per year from 2020 to 2030 for the 1.5°C goal.”
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30797/EGR2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
We can find out the CO2 emissions of the “ideal mathematically average world citizen on track to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C” by taking the 36.8 billion metric tonnes of CO2 emitted by the world in 2019, putting it into an Excel spreadsheet, dividing 36.8 billion metric tonnes of CO2 by the world's population of 7.6 billion people, expressing it as “pounds of CO2 per world citizen per day” by multiplying by 2205 pounds per tonne and dividing by 365 days per year, and decreasing those “pounds of CO2 per person per day” by 7.6% a year until in 2030 the “ideal average world citizen” is emitting just 12.3 pounds of CO2 per person per day.
Can the “ideal average world citizen on track to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C” emit 12.3 pounds of CO2 per person per day in 2030 and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C?
No, those 12.3 pounds of CO2 per world citizen per day will still capture infrared radiation and lead to more global warming above 1.5 degrees C.
What life styles can people lead and not contribute to global warming and climate change?
What life styles can people lead and respond to the New England Journal of Medicine “Call for Emergency Action to Limit Global Temperature Increases, Restore Biodiversity, and Protect Health”?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2113200
To restore biodiversity, protect health and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C people must live as hunter gatherers.
To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C in 2030, every world citizen must sequester all of the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases that they emit. Currently only hunter gatherers have all of the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions sequestered by the green plants on planet earth.
How many people can live on earth as hunter gatherers?
In his Discover article on agriculture being "the worst mistake in the history of the human race" Professor Jared Diamond writes that it takes about 10 square miles of land to support 1 hunter gatherer. It is possible to take the number of square miles of arable land in each nation and calculate the number of hunter gatherers that that nations can support. Here is a preliminary estimate of the number of hunter gatherers that the following nations can support: Scott B Love ( talk) 06:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I've just re-arranged the structure a bit because I felt there were too many main level headings. Also, I think the main level headings should be as generic as possible. The new structure now looks like this (no content was deleted, just moved):
Aims Development Parties Content Specific topics of concern (note this heading is not yet great; maybe "cross-cutting issues" is better; or something else?) Implementation Reception and debates
For comparison, the old structure was like this:
Development Parties Content Mitigation provisions and carbon markets Climate change adaptation provisions Loss and damage Transparency Implementation and effectiveness International response Litigation
EMsmile ( talk) 22:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
So I did a bunch of research on this image that was used in the Paris Agreement wiki page. It seemed kind of off to me at first glance because Greenland was grayed out while it has joined the Paris Agreements. Granted, it joined in 2023, so the map could just be outdated, but I did further research and the entire map seems off.
So I looked into where the source of the map is from, and it looks reputable, but then I looked for where that article got the graphic from and it's this. This is a document covering a programming tool that can be used to more efficiently display world graphics. I don't see any references in this document to where they got the data from, so I assume it's fabricated. Not only this, but I can't find the map that the original article got from this document. So it's not even a fabricated source - it's just not there.
This image is not only outdated, but as far as I can tell, there's no actual source for it. I could very well be mistaken, but can someone double check my work and determine if this is a legitimate image or not? If I'm right, this should be removed quickly or replaced with a more important graphic. ArkiThe7th ( talk) 13:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Paris Agreement 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: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Paris Agreement has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on December 13, 2015. | |||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 4, 2021, April 22, 2023, and April 22, 2024. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
I'm planning to bring this article to GA level. There is quite a lot to do:
If anybody wants to join the effort to improve the article, I always enjoy collaborating. FemkeMilene ( talk) 17:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The only section that is quite far off is implantationimplementation, which is just a random collection of studies.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
07:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:GA Review/Paris Agreement/GA1 EMsmile ( talk) 22:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
By the way, the readability score is still not great - using this tool I get 38 (out of 100). Perhaps attention could be paid to this in future reviews. Not sure if the GA reviewer considered readability as an important factor. Perhaps if it's ever taken to FA status, this aspect could be considered. For comparison, with the same tool the climate change article gets a readability score of 44 - which is very good for this kind of topic. I've worked on a range of articles, e.g. sustainability, and regularly struggle to get the score to higher than say 40 (the sustainability article currently sits at a readability score of 21 - very bad). I wish we had science journalists on tap who could help. EMsmile ( talk) 22:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Amitchell125 ( talk · contribs) 19:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Happy to review the article.
I was thinking of reviewing this if no one had taken it by the time the nominator had returned from her wiki break later in July. IMO it's already beyond GA class in several respects, but there were some minor non compliances, IMO. In such circumstances, I normally make all needed improvements myself. This might have consumed a lot of time in this case, as Id probably have edited a lot more than is needed for GA status, per the topic's importance. So great to see someone else has stepped up to take this on.
Ive just made a few edits based on minor issues I spotted from my initial skim read when I noticed the nomination. (there may be a few more it needs for GA class.) If anyone doesnt think they are improvements, no worries about reverting. I wont further participate as would hate to think any differences of perspective I might have could cause the article to fail the stability criteria. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments to follow. Amitchell125 ( talk) 19:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
More comments to follow. Amitchell125 ( talk) 22:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The ref numbers are for this version of the article.
I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 28 July to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. many thanks for all the work you've done so far. Regards, Amitchell125 ( talk) 20:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
All sorted, thanks for all your efforts with the article. Now passing. Amitchell125 ( talk) 07:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I am just wondering if this one book that is listed under further reading is so important & special that we should list it here? It feels like a special endorsement, is this justified? I don't know anything about this book. Am just wondering if it was deliberately chosen or just somehow ended up there?:
What is the "Nirosh average," noted under the total fossil fuel emissions chart? Is this a typo for "national"? The interwebs are silent on this term. Daniel Lewis, Ph.D. 20:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The Paris Agreement could include a description of the the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions of the “ideal mathematically average world citizen on track to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C”
The United Nations Environmental Programme Gap Report page XIII states “to get in line with the Paris Agreement, emissions must drop 7.6 per cent per year from 2020 to 2030 for the 1.5°C goal.”
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30797/EGR2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
We can find out the CO2 emissions of the “ideal mathematically average world citizen on track to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C” by taking the 36.8 billion metric tonnes of CO2 emitted by the world in 2019, putting it into an Excel spreadsheet, dividing 36.8 billion metric tonnes of CO2 by the world's population of 7.6 billion people, expressing it as “pounds of CO2 per world citizen per day” by multiplying by 2205 pounds per tonne and dividing by 365 days per year, and decreasing those “pounds of CO2 per person per day” by 7.6% a year until in 2030 the “ideal average world citizen” is emitting just 12.3 pounds of CO2 per person per day.
Can the “ideal average world citizen on track to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C” emit 12.3 pounds of CO2 per person per day in 2030 and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C?
No, those 12.3 pounds of CO2 per world citizen per day will still capture infrared radiation and lead to more global warming above 1.5 degrees C.
What life styles can people lead and not contribute to global warming and climate change?
What life styles can people lead and respond to the New England Journal of Medicine “Call for Emergency Action to Limit Global Temperature Increases, Restore Biodiversity, and Protect Health”?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2113200
To restore biodiversity, protect health and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C people must live as hunter gatherers.
To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C in 2030, every world citizen must sequester all of the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases that they emit. Currently only hunter gatherers have all of the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions sequestered by the green plants on planet earth.
How many people can live on earth as hunter gatherers?
In his Discover article on agriculture being "the worst mistake in the history of the human race" Professor Jared Diamond writes that it takes about 10 square miles of land to support 1 hunter gatherer. It is possible to take the number of square miles of arable land in each nation and calculate the number of hunter gatherers that that nations can support. Here is a preliminary estimate of the number of hunter gatherers that the following nations can support: Scott B Love ( talk) 06:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I've just re-arranged the structure a bit because I felt there were too many main level headings. Also, I think the main level headings should be as generic as possible. The new structure now looks like this (no content was deleted, just moved):
Aims Development Parties Content Specific topics of concern (note this heading is not yet great; maybe "cross-cutting issues" is better; or something else?) Implementation Reception and debates
For comparison, the old structure was like this:
Development Parties Content Mitigation provisions and carbon markets Climate change adaptation provisions Loss and damage Transparency Implementation and effectiveness International response Litigation
EMsmile ( talk) 22:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
So I did a bunch of research on this image that was used in the Paris Agreement wiki page. It seemed kind of off to me at first glance because Greenland was grayed out while it has joined the Paris Agreements. Granted, it joined in 2023, so the map could just be outdated, but I did further research and the entire map seems off.
So I looked into where the source of the map is from, and it looks reputable, but then I looked for where that article got the graphic from and it's this. This is a document covering a programming tool that can be used to more efficiently display world graphics. I don't see any references in this document to where they got the data from, so I assume it's fabricated. Not only this, but I can't find the map that the original article got from this document. So it's not even a fabricated source - it's just not there.
This image is not only outdated, but as far as I can tell, there's no actual source for it. I could very well be mistaken, but can someone double check my work and determine if this is a legitimate image or not? If I'm right, this should be removed quickly or replaced with a more important graphic. ArkiThe7th ( talk) 13:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)