Talk:Air quality law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This is a sub-article of the article Environmental law.

Merger proposal[edit]

I am an attorney in the United States specializing in environmental law. I have recently been working on the WikiProject Law Environmental law pages. I have significantly expanded the Environmental law page (work ongoing) and - I believe most importantly - have redesigned the Template:Environmental law. The taxonomy set out in the template (pollution control, resource mgmt and conservation, etc, with subcategories) is a pretty standard approach to organizing the topic and I have begun working on pulling together the sub-pages. Part of this process will be attempting to reduce duplication with other pages, and I propose merging, to the extent possible, related pages into the taxonomy I am following. I propose merger of Clean air act into this page for the following reasons:

1. Despite the title of the article targeted for merger, "clean air act" is not often used as a general term. This is precisely because of the confusion that arises with the U.S Clean Air Act, or any other country's (or state's) act that is designated "the" Clean Air Act within a particular jurisdiction.

2. "Clean air acts," if you want to use that term, are "air quality laws." However, so are international treaties such as MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI, and so are indoor air quality laws. They can all be discussed on the same page.

I would thereafter propose converting the page "Clean air act" into a disambiguation page, where CAA might stand for (list all the clean air acts with pages) or a type of [Air quality law|air quality law]].

I am making this proposal rather than being bold because of the prior lack of consensus regarding merger on this page. I will make this change in several days unless negative consensus emerges. Please confine discussion to this page.Ado2102 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Disagree. I think the page should be left as is and not merged. Here's why: the comment re. the confusion with the US CAA is US-centric and not globally shared. If one uses the term "Clean Air Act" in any of the countries that have such legislation, the term is understood to apply to that country and not the US. In these countries one would typically say "US Clean Air Act" to refer to the US legislation and not "Clean Air Act". Thanks, (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


The article's purpose is to give an overview of the legal mechanisms, implemented worldwide, for regulating air pollutants. The article is meant to provide a general guide to the world's air quality laws.

Some proposed guidelines[edit]

  • Separate discussions by emissions control jurisdiction, e.g., nationally (United States) or by continent or other area (e.g., worldwide or Europe).
  • Where possible, do not duplicate articles that describe specific statutes, treaties, etc. Nonetheless reference them and provide links where appropriate. E.g., the Clean Air Act; Kyoto protocol.
  • Who/what/when/where/why - who enacted the laws, on what timeline, throughout what jurisdiction, for what purpose, how does the law work.
  • Separate discussion of controversies to its own heading.

Do it[edit]

There is all too much duplication in wikipedia in many subjects. This leads to several parallel tracks in which there is different material. Often the articles do not cross refer to each other, and if started in different countries or disciplines may not even understand their vocabulary. Many of them are started by people who take joy in multiplying the number of short uninformative articles without any wish to take part in editing, improving, researching, or etc... Please bring some order to the chaos. Avram Primack (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Dont Do it[edit]

While their is all too much duplication in wikipedia, This is an important issue, and topic, and it deserves a page all to itself. While much of the contents of this page could be moved, I suggest leaving the Clean Air Act page open, with refrences to the act itself, it's provisions and regulations, for easy refrence. The clean air act is of great importance to many people and industries in the US. Please leave a page open for The Clean Air Act! Jfirewind (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Doin' it[edit]

I am in process of merging Clean air act into this article. I have moved all the contents across and now am beginning to make the enlarged article coherent. I will explain my actions later. --Greenmaven (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been convinced by the arguments above in favor of merging Clean air act with this article.

My reasons are as follows:

  1. 'Air quality law' is a more generic description for the article's title. Names of legislative Acts may vary over time.
  2. Much of the content was common to both articles (clearly cut'n'pasted)
  3. The two supporters of the merger User:Ado2102 ("I am an attorney in the United States specializing in environmental law" ) and User:Primacag appear to be better qualified to adjudicate than an IP editor and a very inexperienced editor, who opposed it.
  4. This (merged) article contains the Template:Environmental law, and is consistent with it, and therefore with the organisation of related articles.

I have not lost any significant part of the content of either article. --Greenmaven (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)