| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference 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: 1 |
 | A news item involving 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 December 2023. |  |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
 | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | On 13 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to COP28. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article reads like greenwashing. It is widely accepted that the appointed president of COP28 has a massive conflict of interest and that the conference is unlikely to achieve very much given UAE's current massive expansion of oil and gas production. Further information: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uae-brings-forward-oil-production-capacity-expansion-2027-2022-11-28/ https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/UAE-To-Expand-Oil-Gas-Production-Capacity-With-150-Billion-Investment.amp.html https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/011023-uaes-adnoc-forms-new-gas-company-as-it-seeks-to-expand-internationally 93.82.11.248 ( talk) 12:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- The page should be locked and vetted. Climate denialism has no place here
2A02:A03F:6468:2E01:E028:21BC:2F11:A209 (
talk) 05:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. The article cites a bunch of individuals praising Al Jaber's appointment, and only features a bit of criticism at the bottom: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/18/markey-blasts-decision-to-host-climate-summit-in-uae-00097747 https://www.ft.com/content/34fb5016-d9f4-4d4d-9bb4-174bfcadbe77
- There's a decent chance that this a manipulation attempt, just like Al Jaber's team was trying to wash his article as well: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/30/cop28-president-team-accused-of-wikipedia-greenwashing-sultan-al-jaber Cortador ( talk) 11:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. This article highlights the vulnerability of the UAE to climate change and the efforts it's undertaking to reduce emissions, but almost ignores the fact that the UAE's economy is built on the production of fossil fuels. The bias here is obvious and reads like a PR statement for COP28, not objective information. 152.44.135.26 ( talk) 21:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the issue of employee shilling for the conference and its organisers has been addressed at this point, and the issue is also mentioned in a new section, backed up by reliable sources. Does anyone object to the removal of the COI tag? Cortador ( talk) 07:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Seems neutral enough now. Removed per WP:SILENCE. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Why is the CEO of one of the Earth's leading fossil fuel polluters the chairperson of this global warming summit? Why isn't the fact that the CEO of the UAE oil company, ADNOC, (that has refused to release fossil fuel pollution information publicly for 7 years) is the chairperson of this alleged environmental conference? As controversial as this is, (the US Congress and European Parliament has even weighed in) this should be in the opening summary of the article, not buried in its middle. Are there editors here affiliated with the UAE or petroleum corporations? This article adds to the mockery that the conference has already created by having such a ridiculous appointment. It's like having a convicted child molester in charge of a daycare center or nursery school, and Wikipedia is contributing to it. Stevenmitchell ( talk) 09:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The UAE allows freedom of speech so please correct that. People need to talk respectfully to have their opinions respected
The UAE allows freedom of speech so please correct that. People need to talk respectfully to have their opinions respected, so should global writers who know nothing about UAE leadership 2001:8F8:1335:1333:F0DB:DAE1:C59B:2381 ( talk) 20:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- doesn't seem so.
- "Article 184 decreased the punishment for “anyone who mocks, insults, or damages the reputation, prestige or standing of the state” or “its founding leaders” from 10-25 years to a maximum of five years."
- https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/united-arab-emirates/report-united-arab-emirates/
- "A number of well-known commentators have been jailed in recent years for criticizing the authorities, expressing support for dissidents or human rights, or calling for political reform."
- https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-arab-emirates/freedom-world/2021
- "Previous laws that severely suppress freedom of expression have often been used to stamp out dissent. Local news sites, many of them owned or controlled by the government, exercise self-censorship in accordance with government regulations and unofficial red lines."
- "In October 2020, a UAE court sentenced a UAE resident, Ahmed Etoum, under the previous provision to 10 years in prison based entirely on peaceful Facebook posts criticizing Jordan’s royal family and government."
- "Defamation continues to be criminalized in the UAE under articles 425, 426, and 427 of the penal code, with palpable effects on media freedoms and even on private communications between individuals."
-
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/05/uae-sweeping-legal-reforms-deepen-repression
173.73.251.202 (
talk) 18:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- exactly. and there's a lot more than that: 2368 words written in one section of a Wikipedia article alone, see Human rights in the United Arab Emirates#Freedom of speech JM ( talk) 12:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey I actually live in the UAE. This is so wrong I can't even believe you'd come on here and say that. We cannot criticise the government, we cannot protest, we cannot discuss LGBTQ people in schools, in fact, we cannot be taught that the UAE government is flawed. Instead, we're taught that our nation is a beacon of diversity, tolerance, and opportunity, where everybody can get rich and have a wonderful life, they just have to work for it. In reality, some people get their passports stolen from them, and work long hours in 40C heat for close to nothing.
Who taught you that the UAE had freedom of speech?
"and big meat companies planned to push meat (meat industry is known as a significant source of greenhouse emissions) as "sustainable nutrition" at COP28"
I don't think this belongs in the lede. Of course representatives from various industries are going to try and greenwash themselves at a COP conference - it's not anywhere near as important as the UAE planning to use the conference as a way to get oil deals. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 12:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- I like meat. Many do.
2600:6C48:7006:200:5C10:C716:750B:C3B2 (
talk) 02:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Who said 'are you part of the problem or part of the solution?' Of course people like meat, lots of them. And the meat industry likes profits. The point is, whatever your food preferences, is global consumption of meat sustainable? How important an issue was it at COP28. BobBadg ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently under consideration for In The News (ITN) for the en.Wikipedia.org main page. Arguments for or against this can be presented there, based on the ITN criteria. Boud ( talk) 02:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I think this needs more interesting people pics. They could be swapped every few days for variety. Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
As of 2023 December 13 at 17:43 UTC, the first sentence of the article reads "To whoever is reading this: You are a total bunch of horse dung that should be incinerated. Go jump off a bridge." I believe that this is vandalism but I am not well-versed in what to do about it. To anybody who knows how to remove this, please do on my behalf. Thank you. Sussybaka6000 ( talk) 17:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC) EDIT: As of 17:46 UTC, the sentence has been removed. Thank you to whoever removed it.
- Okay, it looks like that one IP hopper who posts such sentences is an LTA; even that irritates me a little, urgh. – 64andtim ( talk) 02:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- "reads off as vandalism" literally the most obvious vandalism ever JM ( talk) 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
No Cop Out at Cop 28?
While crude, and not very Wikipedia-like, might it not be said that the comment reflects a degree of concern - found within this Talk page - at the way this conference has been Greenwashed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.196.97 ( talk) 17:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- No mention of keywords "nuclear" or "solution" anywhere in this article. 2600:6C48:7006:200:5C10:C716:750B:C3B2 ( talk) 02:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, was that remark aimed at warning about the ever-present risk of nuclear war? Or, as with Dr Strange Love, have you stopped worrying and learned to love The Bomb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.125 ( talk) 21:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number of sufficient arguments on both sides, but clearly not a general consensus for the move. Key to this is the lack of potential consistency with the other meetings. Although a group RM has been briefly considered here, it may be worth editors (re-)considering a mini-naming convention for these articles if need be. ( non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 22:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference → COP28 – COP28 is the clear WP:COMMONNAME for this event and meets MOS:ACROTITLE. It's being used in nearly all the (many) news articles about this event, and it's used in the official graphic. Even the opening sentence of this article says that the event is "more commonly known as COP28". (Similar discussions may need to be held about other COPs if this passes.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Firstly the new name would not be WP:CONSISTENT; I would also oppose a group move, as many of the conferences are not commonly referred to by the "COP+number" acronym (and others just have different common names). Secondly per WP:PRECISE; the COP acronym refers to " conference of the parties" and is used for conferences other than just the UN climate change conferences (for example the UN Biodiversity Conference, the Ramsar Convention and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants all use the COP+number configuration). ~ F4U ( talk • they/it) 23:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom as this is very clearly the common name. Whether this also applies to other COP meetings is a separate issue and not part of this move request. Schwede 66 00:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose All 28 UN Climate Change Conferences have system in names in Wikipedia and fully support arguments of user F4U. Jirka Dl ( talk) 06:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose because biodiversity conferences are also COPnn Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as for F4U; I would also note that a similar argument could have been made for COP21 — the latest truly "landmark" climate conference, in my opinion — and COP26, but even in those cases we decided to stick to the original titles... Oltrepier ( talk) 14:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Plumber ( talk) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as per F4U. yaguzi ( talk) 23:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support if the all the other articles are also renamed for consistency (COP26, COP27, ect.) Alternatively, they could alle be renamed to follow the pattern COP + number + climate conference (eg. COP28 climate conference).-- Marginataen ( talk) 08:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. While I generally support consistency in naming recurring events like this, it's undeniable that the summit is primarily known as COP28. This article has 100+ sources, and the overwhelming majority refers to the summit as COP28, making that its common name. Cortador ( talk) 10:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Who on earth is calling this by its official name? Its almost always COP28. Even the official logos seem to all use COP. Most people don't even know what COP stands for or that it has a different official name.
- User:Freedom4U and those who agree with you... why not just rename all the other articles too per WP:COMMONNAME? When one article's name change is proposed, I don't think it's a good argument to say that it would break an established pattern; I think the proposal itself tells us that the rest of the pattern should also be changed.
- Someone should REALLY propose to change all titles. It would have a far greater chance of passing than this proposal.
JM (
talk) 13:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ JM2023 The reason I'm opposing is two-fold. If we were to just move this article would not be WP:CONSISTENT. However, if we were to move all the articles, then many of the conferences would not be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC nor be at the WP:PRECISE name. ~ F4U ( talk • they/it) 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, not consistent with previous COP articles WP:CONSISTENT. Unless a borader consensus to change the name of all previous articles is done. Gorebath ( talk) 20:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, as per
WP:CONSISTENT.
RodRabelo7 (
talk) 17:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- We can just rename the others as well or is Wikipedia a massive bureaucracy where we need to raise seperate discussions about the exact same issue on all different talk pages seperately?
Marginataen (
talk) 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone can propose to move all pages at once on any single one of the involved pages. I've seen people do it multiple times for English monarchs, where like 12 or more moves are proposed in one requested move on one talk page. It just needs to have a notice put at the top of every page that the proposed move would move. I said above that someone should just propose all of them be moved instead of dragging out this discussion which is unlikely to pass.
JM (
talk) 19:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ Ed, I think the move is to do as described by JM and abandoned this discussion and make a new one about all relevant pages here on this page Marginataen ( talk) 18:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone can propose to move all pages at once on any single one of the involved pages. I've seen people do it multiple times for English monarchs, where like 12 or more moves are proposed in one requested move on one talk page. It just needs to have a notice put at the top of every page that the proposed move would move. I said above that someone should just propose all of them be moved instead of dragging out this discussion which is unlikely to pass.
JM (
talk) 19:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- We can just rename the others as well or is Wikipedia a massive bureaucracy where we need to raise seperate discussions about the exact same issue on all different talk pages seperately?
Marginataen (
talk) 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, as I've only seen the event being referred to by COP28 in the news, and we should call this article by its WP:COMMONNAME regardless of if other articles have different names (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)
JohnR1Roberts (
talk) 21:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
-
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, whereas
WP:CONSISTENT is part of article title policy.
SilverLocust
💬 04:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a hierarchy between
WP:CONSISTENT and
WP:COMMONNAME? Does one override the other, or is it a case-by-case basis?
JM (
talk) 18:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
-
WP:TITLECON#Inconsistency resulting from inconsistent common or recognizable names within a field says that it's common name first: "Consistency is only one of several title considerations, and it generally falls below several other considerations in the hierarchy of title determination."
Ed
[talk]
[OMT] 20:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- But
WP:COMMONNAME isn't one of those title considerations. The title considerations that sentence refers to would be the ones listed by
WP:CRITERIA: recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency. What COMMONNAME states is that the most common name typically fulfills those five criteria the best, but that's not a criterion in and of itself. ~
F4U (
talk •
they/it) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @
Freedom4U: I assume you didn't click through that TITLECON link, which immediately below the sentence I quoted has a section titled "Inconsistency resulting from inconsistent common or recognizable names within a field" that speaks directly about common names and (interestingly) cuts directly against your oppose rationale at the top of this section.
Ed
[talk]
[OMT] 21:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- If this really is the case, then everyone should be voting to move the page to COP28, considering that is by far the most common name. It's amazing the discussion went this far without this information being stated. IMO this should have been made clear in the RM. JM ( talk) 00:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @
Freedom4U: I assume you didn't click through that TITLECON link, which immediately below the sentence I quoted has a section titled "Inconsistency resulting from inconsistent common or recognizable names within a field" that speaks directly about common names and (interestingly) cuts directly against your oppose rationale at the top of this section.
Ed
[talk]
[OMT] 21:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- But
WP:COMMONNAME isn't one of those title considerations. The title considerations that sentence refers to would be the ones listed by
WP:CRITERIA: recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency. What COMMONNAME states is that the most common name typically fulfills those five criteria the best, but that's not a criterion in and of itself. ~
F4U (
talk •
they/it) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
-
WP:TITLECON#Inconsistency resulting from inconsistent common or recognizable names within a field says that it's common name first: "Consistency is only one of several title considerations, and it generally falls below several other considerations in the hierarchy of title determination."
Ed
[talk]
[OMT] 20:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a hierarchy between
WP:CONSISTENT and
WP:COMMONNAME? Does one override the other, or is it a case-by-case basis?
JM (
talk) 18:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
-
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, whereas
WP:CONSISTENT is part of article title policy.
SilverLocust
💬 04:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support COP28 is how everyone knows it. Though if other UN conferences are an issue than I support Marginataen's alternative solution of calling it COP28 climate conference.
- Aure entuluva ( talk) 02:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Freedom4U sums it up nicely. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I didn't even know that this was the official name. DCsansei ( talk) 09:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The photo of Al Wasl Plaza was taken during Expo 2020 and is over two years old, showing the former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro. It should be updated with a photo from the actual COP28 Conference or removed. 170.173.0.22 ( talk) 03:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- while a better picture should be found, the fact that the current picture is outdated does not hold so much importance, since it is meant to illustrate the plaza, it is not claimed to be a photo from COP28 itself. JM ( talk) 13:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I understand that the conference was very controversial and that there were many negative factors. Nevertheless, I think that in its current form the article focuses more on various side details and the actual results of the conference are not really visible. For example, I don't like the detailed description of the negative moments broadly described in the introduction (and again practically repeated verbatim a few paragraphs later) instead of simply summarised in the introduction.
It seems to me that, for example, the form of the presentation on the dewiki is more appropriate. Jirka Dl ( talk) 07:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ Jirka Dl Did you refer to the first section of that page?
- Anyway, I actually think the lead section is quite balanced as it is: maybe the paragraph about the controversies is the only one that could be trimmed a bit more, but honestly, Al-Jaber's conflicts of interest were so many, evident and hard to swallow that it's just difficult to keep it short and simple...
Oltrepier (
talk) 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can't say much else about the rest of the article, though.
Oltrepier (
talk) 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ Oltrepier I was referring both to the first section but also to whole content. I know that the results of COP are not very optimistic, but maybe good solution could be to mention also other results ("loss and damage", pledges on renewables, new members of end of coal coalition etc.) in lead section and leave controversies paragraph as it is. In the following text I would prefer to see clear paragraph "Results", inc. negative results. Maybe good inspiration could be found in Carbon Brief article. Jirka Dl ( talk) 20:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can't say much else about the rest of the article, though.
Oltrepier (
talk) 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- The majority of reports around COP28 are about all the scandals and controversies attached to it, and the article should reflect that. I mean, what reporting has there been on the actual summit, other than the feeble and porous agreement that was reached? The German article, in my opinion, borderline downplays that. Cortador ( talk) 10:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the article was forced to focuses on side-issues because there were few meaningful results to came from Cop (out) 28?
Really needs a section showing which nations/representatives were present 675930s ( talk) 02:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I think this article requires a neutrality check by an expert. It focuses too much on controversial news reports about the cop presidency and host such as alleged oil deals and COP president Al Jaber calling science a hoax, most of which have been addressed and denied by the cop28 presidency, and does not expand on the fact that the world for the first time ever finally agreed to shift away from fossil fuels after a long negotiations session apart from a sentence in the lead without expanding and discussing the differing world views on it. It reads as an article dedicated to Sultan Al Jaber controversy, the controversial choice of its president. It fails to address the OPEC disagreement, the funds established, the small island nations concerns, the under developed countries concerns, the controversial carbon capture technologies, and the participating countries that have all contributed to the conference but instead focuses on Syrian president Bashar Al Assad on the lead. A balance should be achieved in addressing its presidency controversy and the actual outcomes and the climate concerns raised by the world. Gorebath ( talk) 21:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- You misunderstand what neutrality means in the context of Wikipedia articles. Writing an article from a neutral point of view doesn't mean "balance between nice and mean things", it means that the article should reflect how sources report on the article's subject. In the case of COP28, there have been months and months of reports on everything in the controversies section. The reporting on that dwarves what has been reported on the outcome of COP28, also because the summit only just ended.
- Lastly, if you want content in the article that currently isn't present, add it, and don't just leave a comment and expect someone else to do it.
Cortador (
talk) 23:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I never iterated that "balance" should be "balance between nice and mean things", I literally stated in my comment "A balance should be achieved in addressing its presidency controversy and the actual outcomes and the climate concerns raised by the world". Not for "nice..things". Its without a doubt that reliable sources have documented the controversy behind the summit and it should be included, mainly behind its presidency and host. However multiple RS also discussed other climate related controversies, which I have mentioned and I think deserve inclusion considering this article is on the front page of wikipedia.
- I am not obliged to edit the article, but thank you for your suggestion and comments. Gorebath ( talk) 23:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- many such cases JM ( talk) 19:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I would start by removing the current third paragraph, which discusses Al Jabar's conflicts of interest and the UAE as an allegedly poor choice of host, entirely, and also make their coverage in the "Controversy" section (which articles should ideally not even have) much, much more succinct. These were not widely reported aspects of the conference – they were not even the most widely reported controversy of the conference (I would say that dubious honor goes to the various cop-outs in the final agreement and the lack of concrete commitments). -- Tserton ( talk) 18:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- C-Class Climate change articles
- Mid-importance Climate change articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- C-Class United Nations articles
- WikiProject United Nations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class United Arab Emirates articles
- Mid-importance United Arab Emirates articles
- WikiProject United Arab Emirates articles
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference 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: 1 |
|
| A news item involving 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 December 2023. | |
|
| This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
|
| This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
| On 13 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to COP28. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article reads like greenwashing. It is widely accepted that the appointed president of COP28 has a massive conflict of interest and that the conference is unlikely to achieve very much given UAE's current massive expansion of oil and gas production. Further information: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uae-brings-forward-oil-production-capacity-expansion-2027-2022-11-28/ https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/UAE-To-Expand-Oil-Gas-Production-Capacity-With-150-Billion-Investment.amp.html https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/011023-uaes-adnoc-forms-new-gas-company-as-it-seeks-to-expand-internationally 93.82.11.248 ( talk) 12:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- The page should be locked and vetted. Climate denialism has no place here
2A02:A03F:6468:2E01:E028:21BC:2F11:A209 (
talk) 05:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. The article cites a bunch of individuals praising Al Jaber's appointment, and only features a bit of criticism at the bottom: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/18/markey-blasts-decision-to-host-climate-summit-in-uae-00097747 https://www.ft.com/content/34fb5016-d9f4-4d4d-9bb4-174bfcadbe77
- There's a decent chance that this a manipulation attempt, just like Al Jaber's team was trying to wash his article as well: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/30/cop28-president-team-accused-of-wikipedia-greenwashing-sultan-al-jaber Cortador ( talk) 11:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. This article highlights the vulnerability of the UAE to climate change and the efforts it's undertaking to reduce emissions, but almost ignores the fact that the UAE's economy is built on the production of fossil fuels. The bias here is obvious and reads like a PR statement for COP28, not objective information. 152.44.135.26 ( talk) 21:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the issue of employee shilling for the conference and its organisers has been addressed at this point, and the issue is also mentioned in a new section, backed up by reliable sources. Does anyone object to the removal of the COI tag? Cortador ( talk) 07:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Seems neutral enough now. Removed per WP:SILENCE. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Why is the CEO of one of the Earth's leading fossil fuel polluters the chairperson of this global warming summit? Why isn't the fact that the CEO of the UAE oil company, ADNOC, (that has refused to release fossil fuel pollution information publicly for 7 years) is the chairperson of this alleged environmental conference? As controversial as this is, (the US Congress and European Parliament has even weighed in) this should be in the opening summary of the article, not buried in its middle. Are there editors here affiliated with the UAE or petroleum corporations? This article adds to the mockery that the conference has already created by having such a ridiculous appointment. It's like having a convicted child molester in charge of a daycare center or nursery school, and Wikipedia is contributing to it. Stevenmitchell ( talk) 09:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The UAE allows freedom of speech so please correct that. People need to talk respectfully to have their opinions respected
The UAE allows freedom of speech so please correct that. People need to talk respectfully to have their opinions respected, so should global writers who know nothing about UAE leadership 2001:8F8:1335:1333:F0DB:DAE1:C59B:2381 ( talk) 20:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- doesn't seem so.
- "Article 184 decreased the punishment for “anyone who mocks, insults, or damages the reputation, prestige or standing of the state” or “its founding leaders” from 10-25 years to a maximum of five years."
- https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/united-arab-emirates/report-united-arab-emirates/
- "A number of well-known commentators have been jailed in recent years for criticizing the authorities, expressing support for dissidents or human rights, or calling for political reform."
- https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-arab-emirates/freedom-world/2021
- "Previous laws that severely suppress freedom of expression have often been used to stamp out dissent. Local news sites, many of them owned or controlled by the government, exercise self-censorship in accordance with government regulations and unofficial red lines."
- "In October 2020, a UAE court sentenced a UAE resident, Ahmed Etoum, under the previous provision to 10 years in prison based entirely on peaceful Facebook posts criticizing Jordan’s royal family and government."
- "Defamation continues to be criminalized in the UAE under articles 425, 426, and 427 of the penal code, with palpable effects on media freedoms and even on private communications between individuals."
-
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/05/uae-sweeping-legal-reforms-deepen-repression
173.73.251.202 (
talk) 18:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- exactly. and there's a lot more than that: 2368 words written in one section of a Wikipedia article alone, see Human rights in the United Arab Emirates#Freedom of speech JM ( talk) 12:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey I actually live in the UAE. This is so wrong I can't even believe you'd come on here and say that. We cannot criticise the government, we cannot protest, we cannot discuss LGBTQ people in schools, in fact, we cannot be taught that the UAE government is flawed. Instead, we're taught that our nation is a beacon of diversity, tolerance, and opportunity, where everybody can get rich and have a wonderful life, they just have to work for it. In reality, some people get their passports stolen from them, and work long hours in 40C heat for close to nothing.
Who taught you that the UAE had freedom of speech?
"and big meat companies planned to push meat (meat industry is known as a significant source of greenhouse emissions) as "sustainable nutrition" at COP28"
I don't think this belongs in the lede. Of course representatives from various industries are going to try and greenwash themselves at a COP conference - it's not anywhere near as important as the UAE planning to use the conference as a way to get oil deals. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 12:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- I like meat. Many do.
2600:6C48:7006:200:5C10:C716:750B:C3B2 (
talk) 02:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Who said 'are you part of the problem or part of the solution?' Of course people like meat, lots of them. And the meat industry likes profits. The point is, whatever your food preferences, is global consumption of meat sustainable? How important an issue was it at COP28. BobBadg ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently under consideration for In The News (ITN) for the en.Wikipedia.org main page. Arguments for or against this can be presented there, based on the ITN criteria. Boud ( talk) 02:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I think this needs more interesting people pics. They could be swapped every few days for variety. Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
As of 2023 December 13 at 17:43 UTC, the first sentence of the article reads "To whoever is reading this: You are a total bunch of horse dung that should be incinerated. Go jump off a bridge." I believe that this is vandalism but I am not well-versed in what to do about it. To anybody who knows how to remove this, please do on my behalf. Thank you. Sussybaka6000 ( talk) 17:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC) EDIT: As of 17:46 UTC, the sentence has been removed. Thank you to whoever removed it.
- Okay, it looks like that one IP hopper who posts such sentences is an LTA; even that irritates me a little, urgh. – 64andtim ( talk) 02:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- "reads off as vandalism" literally the most obvious vandalism ever JM ( talk) 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
No Cop Out at Cop 28?
While crude, and not very Wikipedia-like, might it not be said that the comment reflects a degree of concern - found within this Talk page - at the way this conference has been Greenwashed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.196.97 ( talk) 17:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- No mention of keywords "nuclear" or "solution" anywhere in this article. 2600:6C48:7006:200:5C10:C716:750B:C3B2 ( talk) 02:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, was that remark aimed at warning about the ever-present risk of nuclear war? Or, as with Dr Strange Love, have you stopped worrying and learned to love The Bomb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.125 ( talk) 21:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number of sufficient arguments on both sides, but clearly not a general consensus for the move. Key to this is the lack of potential consistency with the other meetings. Although a group RM has been briefly considered here, it may be worth editors (re-)considering a mini-naming convention for these articles if need be. ( non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 22:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference → COP28 – COP28 is the clear WP:COMMONNAME for this event and meets MOS:ACROTITLE. It's being used in nearly all the (many) news articles about this event, and it's used in the official graphic. Even the opening sentence of this article says that the event is "more commonly known as COP28". (Similar discussions may need to be held about other COPs if this passes.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Firstly the new name would not be WP:CONSISTENT; I would also oppose a group move, as many of the conferences are not commonly referred to by the "COP+number" acronym (and others just have different common names). Secondly per WP:PRECISE; the COP acronym refers to " conference of the parties" and is used for conferences other than just the UN climate change conferences (for example the UN Biodiversity Conference, the Ramsar Convention and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants all use the COP+number configuration). ~ F4U ( talk • they/it) 23:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom as this is very clearly the common name. Whether this also applies to other COP meetings is a separate issue and not part of this move request. Schwede 66 00:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose All 28 UN Climate Change Conferences have system in names in Wikipedia and fully support arguments of user F4U. Jirka Dl ( talk) 06:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose because biodiversity conferences are also COPnn Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as for F4U; I would also note that a similar argument could have been made for COP21 — the latest truly "landmark" climate conference, in my opinion — and COP26, but even in those cases we decided to stick to the original titles... Oltrepier ( talk) 14:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Plumber ( talk) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as per F4U. yaguzi ( talk) 23:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support if the all the other articles are also renamed for consistency (COP26, COP27, ect.) Alternatively, they could alle be renamed to follow the pattern COP + number + climate conference (eg. COP28 climate conference).-- Marginataen ( talk) 08:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. While I generally support consistency in naming recurring events like this, it's undeniable that the summit is primarily known as COP28. This article has 100+ sources, and the overwhelming majority refers to the summit as COP28, making that its common name. Cortador ( talk) 10:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Who on earth is calling this by its official name? Its almost always COP28. Even the official logos seem to all use COP. Most people don't even know what COP stands for or that it has a different official name.
- User:Freedom4U and those who agree with you... why not just rename all the other articles too per WP:COMMONNAME? When one article's name change is proposed, I don't think it's a good argument to say that it would break an established pattern; I think the proposal itself tells us that the rest of the pattern should also be changed.
- Someone should REALLY propose to change all titles. It would have a far greater chance of passing than this proposal.
JM (
talk) 13:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ JM2023 The reason I'm opposing is two-fold. If we were to just move this article would not be WP:CONSISTENT. However, if we were to move all the articles, then many of the conferences would not be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC nor be at the WP:PRECISE name. ~ F4U ( talk • they/it) 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, not consistent with previous COP articles WP:CONSISTENT. Unless a borader consensus to change the name of all previous articles is done. Gorebath ( talk) 20:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, as per
WP:CONSISTENT.
RodRabelo7 (
talk) 17:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- We can just rename the others as well or is Wikipedia a massive bureaucracy where we need to raise seperate discussions about the exact same issue on all different talk pages seperately?
Marginataen (
talk) 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone can propose to move all pages at once on any single one of the involved pages. I've seen people do it multiple times for English monarchs, where like 12 or more moves are proposed in one requested move on one talk page. It just needs to have a notice put at the top of every page that the proposed move would move. I said above that someone should just propose all of them be moved instead of dragging out this discussion which is unlikely to pass.
JM (
talk) 19:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ Ed, I think the move is to do as described by JM and abandoned this discussion and make a new one about all relevant pages here on this page Marginataen ( talk) 18:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone can propose to move all pages at once on any single one of the involved pages. I've seen people do it multiple times for English monarchs, where like 12 or more moves are proposed in one requested move on one talk page. It just needs to have a notice put at the top of every page that the proposed move would move. I said above that someone should just propose all of them be moved instead of dragging out this discussion which is unlikely to pass.
JM (
talk) 19:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- We can just rename the others as well or is Wikipedia a massive bureaucracy where we need to raise seperate discussions about the exact same issue on all different talk pages seperately?
Marginataen (
talk) 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, as I've only seen the event being referred to by COP28 in the news, and we should call this article by its WP:COMMONNAME regardless of if other articles have different names (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)
JohnR1Roberts (
talk) 21:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
-
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, whereas
WP:CONSISTENT is part of article title policy.
SilverLocust
💬 04:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a hierarchy between
WP:CONSISTENT and
WP:COMMONNAME? Does one override the other, or is it a case-by-case basis?
JM (
talk) 18:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
-
WP:TITLECON#Inconsistency resulting from inconsistent common or recognizable names within a field says that it's common name first: "Consistency is only one of several title considerations, and it generally falls below several other considerations in the hierarchy of title determination."
Ed
[talk]
[OMT] 20:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- But
WP:COMMONNAME isn't one of those title considerations. The title considerations that sentence refers to would be the ones listed by
WP:CRITERIA: recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency. What COMMONNAME states is that the most common name typically fulfills those five criteria the best, but that's not a criterion in and of itself. ~
F4U (
talk •
they/it) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @
Freedom4U: I assume you didn't click through that TITLECON link, which immediately below the sentence I quoted has a section titled "Inconsistency resulting from inconsistent common or recognizable names within a field" that speaks directly about common names and (interestingly) cuts directly against your oppose rationale at the top of this section.
Ed
[talk]
[OMT] 21:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- If this really is the case, then everyone should be voting to move the page to COP28, considering that is by far the most common name. It's amazing the discussion went this far without this information being stated. IMO this should have been made clear in the RM. JM ( talk) 00:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @
Freedom4U: I assume you didn't click through that TITLECON link, which immediately below the sentence I quoted has a section titled "Inconsistency resulting from inconsistent common or recognizable names within a field" that speaks directly about common names and (interestingly) cuts directly against your oppose rationale at the top of this section.
Ed
[talk]
[OMT] 21:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- But
WP:COMMONNAME isn't one of those title considerations. The title considerations that sentence refers to would be the ones listed by
WP:CRITERIA: recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency. What COMMONNAME states is that the most common name typically fulfills those five criteria the best, but that's not a criterion in and of itself. ~
F4U (
talk •
they/it) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
-
WP:TITLECON#Inconsistency resulting from inconsistent common or recognizable names within a field says that it's common name first: "Consistency is only one of several title considerations, and it generally falls below several other considerations in the hierarchy of title determination."
Ed
[talk]
[OMT] 20:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a hierarchy between
WP:CONSISTENT and
WP:COMMONNAME? Does one override the other, or is it a case-by-case basis?
JM (
talk) 18:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
-
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, whereas
WP:CONSISTENT is part of article title policy.
SilverLocust
💬 04:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support COP28 is how everyone knows it. Though if other UN conferences are an issue than I support Marginataen's alternative solution of calling it COP28 climate conference.
- Aure entuluva ( talk) 02:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Freedom4U sums it up nicely. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I didn't even know that this was the official name. DCsansei ( talk) 09:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The photo of Al Wasl Plaza was taken during Expo 2020 and is over two years old, showing the former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro. It should be updated with a photo from the actual COP28 Conference or removed. 170.173.0.22 ( talk) 03:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- while a better picture should be found, the fact that the current picture is outdated does not hold so much importance, since it is meant to illustrate the plaza, it is not claimed to be a photo from COP28 itself. JM ( talk) 13:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I understand that the conference was very controversial and that there were many negative factors. Nevertheless, I think that in its current form the article focuses more on various side details and the actual results of the conference are not really visible. For example, I don't like the detailed description of the negative moments broadly described in the introduction (and again practically repeated verbatim a few paragraphs later) instead of simply summarised in the introduction.
It seems to me that, for example, the form of the presentation on the dewiki is more appropriate. Jirka Dl ( talk) 07:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ Jirka Dl Did you refer to the first section of that page?
- Anyway, I actually think the lead section is quite balanced as it is: maybe the paragraph about the controversies is the only one that could be trimmed a bit more, but honestly, Al-Jaber's conflicts of interest were so many, evident and hard to swallow that it's just difficult to keep it short and simple...
Oltrepier (
talk) 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can't say much else about the rest of the article, though.
Oltrepier (
talk) 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ Oltrepier I was referring both to the first section but also to whole content. I know that the results of COP are not very optimistic, but maybe good solution could be to mention also other results ("loss and damage", pledges on renewables, new members of end of coal coalition etc.) in lead section and leave controversies paragraph as it is. In the following text I would prefer to see clear paragraph "Results", inc. negative results. Maybe good inspiration could be found in Carbon Brief article. Jirka Dl ( talk) 20:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can't say much else about the rest of the article, though.
Oltrepier (
talk) 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- The majority of reports around COP28 are about all the scandals and controversies attached to it, and the article should reflect that. I mean, what reporting has there been on the actual summit, other than the feeble and porous agreement that was reached? The German article, in my opinion, borderline downplays that. Cortador ( talk) 10:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the article was forced to focuses on side-issues because there were few meaningful results to came from Cop (out) 28?
Really needs a section showing which nations/representatives were present 675930s ( talk) 02:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I think this article requires a neutrality check by an expert. It focuses too much on controversial news reports about the cop presidency and host such as alleged oil deals and COP president Al Jaber calling science a hoax, most of which have been addressed and denied by the cop28 presidency, and does not expand on the fact that the world for the first time ever finally agreed to shift away from fossil fuels after a long negotiations session apart from a sentence in the lead without expanding and discussing the differing world views on it. It reads as an article dedicated to Sultan Al Jaber controversy, the controversial choice of its president. It fails to address the OPEC disagreement, the funds established, the small island nations concerns, the under developed countries concerns, the controversial carbon capture technologies, and the participating countries that have all contributed to the conference but instead focuses on Syrian president Bashar Al Assad on the lead. A balance should be achieved in addressing its presidency controversy and the actual outcomes and the climate concerns raised by the world. Gorebath ( talk) 21:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- You misunderstand what neutrality means in the context of Wikipedia articles. Writing an article from a neutral point of view doesn't mean "balance between nice and mean things", it means that the article should reflect how sources report on the article's subject. In the case of COP28, there have been months and months of reports on everything in the controversies section. The reporting on that dwarves what has been reported on the outcome of COP28, also because the summit only just ended.
- Lastly, if you want content in the article that currently isn't present, add it, and don't just leave a comment and expect someone else to do it.
Cortador (
talk) 23:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I never iterated that "balance" should be "balance between nice and mean things", I literally stated in my comment "A balance should be achieved in addressing its presidency controversy and the actual outcomes and the climate concerns raised by the world". Not for "nice..things". Its without a doubt that reliable sources have documented the controversy behind the summit and it should be included, mainly behind its presidency and host. However multiple RS also discussed other climate related controversies, which I have mentioned and I think deserve inclusion considering this article is on the front page of wikipedia.
- I am not obliged to edit the article, but thank you for your suggestion and comments. Gorebath ( talk) 23:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- many such cases JM ( talk) 19:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I would start by removing the current third paragraph, which discusses Al Jabar's conflicts of interest and the UAE as an allegedly poor choice of host, entirely, and also make their coverage in the "Controversy" section (which articles should ideally not even have) much, much more succinct. These were not widely reported aspects of the conference – they were not even the most widely reported controversy of the conference (I would say that dubious honor goes to the various cop-outs in the final agreement and the lack of concrete commitments). -- Tserton ( talk) 18:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- C-Class Climate change articles
- Mid-importance Climate change articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- C-Class United Nations articles
- WikiProject United Nations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class United Arab Emirates articles
- Mid-importance United Arab Emirates articles
- WikiProject United Arab Emirates articles
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press