Talk:Planetary boundaries

This is a notable topic

There is a considerable and escalating body of reliable sources for this topic. It is also starting to be referenced in academic textbooks. It is unlikely to go away, and Wikipedia should have a decent article on it. Be good if someone here can put energy into referencing the article properly. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see some progress with the notes, but mostly what I see is a big splash by Rockstrom et al. in 2009, and not much discussion since. The notability (or not) would be clearer if there was a single, unitary list of sources, and then have the notes link to the sources (using Harv). Which is easy enough to do, and I would be favorably impressed if any of the backers of this article were to do that, and clean up the other loose ends. And then proceed on with the sources you have found. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked into the claims made by J. Johnson above, and I found that they were not supported.[1][2][3] Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to "favorably impress" you Johnson, particularly after looking at the tone of your comments earlier on this page. Why not see if there is something constructive you can do yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, based on the references already in the article and on many more mentions in the literature since the original papers by Rockstrom et al. I've therefore removed the tag. (I'm afraid I can't access journals at the moment to fix the referencing). SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not convinced, either. As I noted above, there may be two different concepts being conflated; the general concept of approaching a tipping point (science) in the global ecosystem, and these specific 9 "boundaries" which are claimed to fall in the first group. The general concept deserves an article (IMHO), but these specific boundaries probably do not. I'm not going to restore the tag, while discussion is occurring, but I don't see real evidence it should be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right Arthur, that the authors both introduce the concept, and then give specific examples. I don't see your problem with this. It's a framework for looking at things, and the specific examples are going to be argued over, even if the background concept is not argued over. I see the concept of planetary boundaries as a bit like a manifesto, an exhortation that this is a good way to think about things. Rather like the battle that has been waged over the last ten year to get fisheries scientists to think in terms of ecosystems, rather than species. A set of planetary boundaries is to a tipping point somewhat as an ecosystem is to a species. Planetary boundaries suggest spatial metaphors, which encourage thinking in terms of how much space or wriggle room there is. The concept also lends itself to thinking of boundaries as being able to influence other boundaries; so they need not be independent. It is notion that may or may not endure, but for the moment it is getting an escalating amount of attention, so I think it will be around for a while yet. Anyway, there is little point talking about this when the article does not reflect what is actually out there in the literature. So I'll write the article over the next week or two, and then you can resume commenting if you still feel the need. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Epipelagic: The "tone" of my comments is largely in response to the clueless anonymous poster who seems unwilling (unable?) to consider the WP standards and policies, his inane coments, and to his link-spamming other articles. It is quite fine with me if anyone wants to improve this article, but don't cop an attitude with me because no one else wants to fix the obvious and sub-standard deficiencies. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A re-write would be good, especially if it sorts out and clarifies the sources. I would like to suggest that instead of the usual practice of splashing them through out the footnotes they be collected in one section; this would make them stand out better as a body of discussion. (This also implies using Harv templates instead of named refs; I can help you with those if you need it.)

I still doubt if this topic is scientifically notable (in the sense of accepted science), but as a challenge -- or as you put it, a manifesto -- about the current thinking it could be notable as a possibly emergent view, sort of meta-scientific. The key would be to not confound as a settled view or interpretation what is so far only proposed. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well my take, at the moment, is that there are two main threads, as Arthur pointed out. One is about the usefulness of the concept, and the other is about the validity of specific boundaries. Planetary boundaries and the safe operating space provides a conceptual framework. The question is not so much whether the framework is true, but whether it is a useful way to think. It provides a framework for thinking on sustainability, notwithstanding Arthur's remarks elsewhere. There are strong political drivers which shape both how we think on sustainability and fund much of the research. This means the political usefulness of the framework is as much an issue as is its scientific usefulness. On the other hand, there are many scientific issues around the specific boundaries that have been proposed; maybe they belong in another article.

Harvard referencing is great when many citations are to books, and those books in turn are multiply cited to different pages. I see you have written Puget Sound faults, where it was appropriate to use Harvard referencing. That is not the case here. It is too early in the day for books to have much useful information. Also, the scope of this article is not confined to scientific issues, and many citations will not be to peer reviewed scientific journals and may need special formatting. Anyway, for now I want to try and locate material that seems to belong to the article. If you want to help, it would be great if you helped with that. When the material is basically there, there will some basis for discussing formatting and other issues.

As an aside, I am archiving the material above. If anyone objects, just revert it. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

_Much of the prior discussion was inane, and I am quite happy to have it archived.

_I largely concur with what you say about the topic. My comment is that we carefully distinguish between scientific notablity (which I think has not yet arrived) and other bases for notability (such as, e.g., "a proposed approach...").

_I beg to differ about Harv referencing being for books -- it works well for all kinds of references (citations). (In the hundred some references in Puget Sound faults#References I can't recall, offhand, even one standard book.) Even if each reference (source) is referenced (cited) only once, to be able to pull them out of the footnotes and organize them in a list makes it a lot easier to see just what the references are. Not having citations and text mixed together all over the article makes it easier to edit each, to the improvement of each. Truly, pulling the bibliographic details out of the text/footnotes (which Harv referencing enables) is very helpful. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, format it as you will. At the moment I'm just adding possible sources I find to the "Other reading" section. Then I'll work through them, working some into the body of the article, and discarding others. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin is once again disrupting another article by repeatedly adding maintenance tags for no reason. As the sources clearly show, notability is established. If Arthur believes otherwise, he needs to say so. So far, all he can do is say "it isn't notable". That's not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. All that's been established is that the initial article is notable; there are no sources supporting the concept as being notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a nonsensical comment. Your statement that "there are no sources supporting the concept as being notable" is indistinguishable from saying that an article is notable. Do you expect me to accept your contradiction as valid? Please provide a single statement that is based on our notability guidelines and/or relevant policies. Just one statement, please. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no similarity at all. A concept can be proposed in a notable article, without the concept being notable. If the article were moved to Planetary Boundaries, and slightly rewritten to discuss the article and commentary on it, that would be somewhat appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is appropriately titled per naming conventions and its usage in the literature.[4] As I said before, you have not challenged the notability of this article nor its concept in any way shape or form. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, may I ask why you added another maintenance tag to this article that says, "The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed." Could you point me to this information, please? Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I can't add the tag which I think should be there, because of 3RR. This article is primarily about the article, and at most secondarily about the topic. This makes the DYK tag (and most of the lede) faulty, because it's about the topic.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, you are admitting to and defending edit warring. Your repeated maintenance tag warring is not acceptable. While it is certainly true that Rockström et al. came up with the idea, this article is not about the paper. I'm getting the sense that you are falling back into your "nothing but objections" tactical strategy again. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the lede, and part of one section of the article, it is about the paper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is not about the paper. It is about the concept. I've worked on both types of articles so I'm familiar with how to tell the difference between the two. For a simple example of this distinction, see our articles on Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and Newton's laws of motion. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't really tell, but the lead is about the general concept of "planetary boundaries", and the body (and sources) are mostly about the paper and the specific 9 boundaries. If you insist that the article is about the specific 9 boundaries, then, although I strongly question the notability of that, you (Wikipedia editors who want the article to include the general concept) still need to find sources about the general concept, or it shouldn't be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Arthur. The lead and body are consistent and they describe the topic. It is perfectly acceptable to inform the reader about the history of the concept and where it derives. Your objection is again, a non-objection, and I maintain you are continuing to disrupt the talk page with nothing but trivial objections that are red herrings. Unless you have something to add based on our policies or guidelines, or if you would like to compare this topic to another or talk about the articles you've created and built so that I can see an example of a semblance of a point that might exist, I will consider this discussion closed. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerns

1. This article is primarily about the article Planetary Boundaries and related discussions, not about the general concept of a planetary boundary. The lede is about the concept, and part of one section (Debate on the framework) is about the concept. The rest is about the article.
2. (minor) There is no claim presented that this is "science", so that the link [[Earth system science|Earth system]] is faulty.
3. (minor) Tipping point (climatology) should be linked in the body, (as it had been previously), not as a "See also".

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

On what evidence do you base these concerns, Arthur? Which sources are you using, Arthur?

1. This article is about the concept of "planetary boundaries" a scientific framework and approach for addressing sustainable development in the domain of Earth system science. Your argument that this is only about the paper and not the concept is simply not supported. Best practices dictate that we work from the concept to the source of the concept. If the paper requires a separate article due to its own notability, we generally do so only when it is deemed historically notable. Otherwise, we write encyclopedia articles about the concept and use the paper as one source among many, as we are doing here. This does not mean or imply that the paper is not historically notable—it may be. What this means is that the concept is notable to standalone.
2. "A planetary boundaries framework provides a new challenge for Earth System science and may have profound impacts on environmental governance from local to global scales. Many knowledge gaps remain, however, to implement a planetary boundaries framework"..."the planetary boundaries approach rests on three branches of scientific inquiry. The first addresses the scale of human action in relation to the capacity of the Earth to sustain it, a significant feature of the ecological economics research agenda (Costanza 1991), drawing on work on the essential role of the life-support environment for human wellbeing (Odum 1989, Vitousek et al. 1997) and biophysical constraints for the expansion of the economic subsystem (Boulding 1966, Arrow et al. 1995). The second is the work on understanding essential Earth System processes (Bretherton 1988, Schellnhuber 1999, Steffen et al. 2004), including human actions (Clark and Munn 1986, Turner et al. 1990), brought together in the evolution of global change research towards Earth System science and in the development of sustainability science (Clark and Dickson 2003). The third is the framework of resilience (Holling 1973; Gunderson and Holling 2002; Walker et al. 2004; Folke 2006) and its links to complex dynamics (Kaufmann 1993; Holland 1996) and self-regulation of living systems (Lovelock 1979; Levin 1999), emphasizing multiple basins of attraction and thresholds effects (Scheffer et al. 2001; Folke et al. 2004; Biggs et al. 2009). Our proposed framework builds on and extends approaches based on limits-to-growth (Meadows et al. 1972, 2004), safe minimum standards (Ciriacy-Wantrup 1952; Bishop 1978; Crowards 1998), the precautionary principle (Raffensperger and Tickner 1999) and tolerable windows (WBGU 1995; Petschel-Held et al. 1999) (see Supplementary Discussion 2). A key advance is that the planetary boundaries approach focuses on the biophysical processes of the Earth System that determine the self-regulating capacity of the planet. It incorporates the role of thresholds related to large-scale Earth System processes, the crossing of which may trigger non-linear changes in the functioning of the Earth System, thereby challenging socialecological resilience at regional to global scales." ("Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity")
3. Is there a reason you didn't fix the link to Tipping point (climatology) yourself?

Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

1. The paper is for what notability was established, not the concept. You seem unable to understand WP:LEDE, but let me summarize. "The lead is a summary of the article." In this instance, the lede is primarily about the concept, while the article is primarily about the paper. I see now that the concept of a planetary boundary has a long history, although I can't yet confirm it's at all established. If you can expand the "Framework" section based on the references you included in part 2 above, without violating WP:SYN, most of my arguments would be resolved.
2. Again, the references should be in the article. Your tendency to add controversial statements to the lede of articles, only supported on the talk page, has been noted, even if this one isn't yours.
3. Done, I think. Any objections? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Your statements are entirely false. The concept is what is notable, not the paper, and that's what the sources that you refuse to look at show. I have not added a single controversial statement to this or any other article, and the statement I did add to this lead section, is fully supported by the references in the same paragraph and represents one of the most significant findings, as discussed by this article and the sources. Your continued comments from sheer ignorance are disruptive to this project. This was previously pointed out to you on the talk page of the CRU controversy, where you have been repeatedly asked to stop making ignorant comments without doing the necessary research or looking at the sources. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

• Thread which belongs here... copied from Template talk:Did you know#Planetary boundaries --Epipelagic (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Disputed accuracy. (See below for other complaints about the article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is there inaccuracy? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the complaint and I've found no inaccuracy. The concept of planetary boundaries as a new Earth system framework is supported by the sources.[5][6][7][8][9] Unless Arthur Rubin has a specific criticism that is actionable, I don't see the substance of his complaint. Let's break it down:

• that planetary boundaries is a new Earth system framework

• Co-author Katherine Richardson, Professor at the Earth System Science Center at the University of Copenhagen: "What we now present is a novel framework through which our scientific understanding of the Earth System can potentially be used more directly in the societal decision making process."[10]
• "Our proposed framework builds on and extends approaches based on limits-to-growth (Meadows et al. 1972, 2004), safe minimum standards (Ciriacy-Wantrup 1952; Bishop 1978; Crowards 1998), the precautionary principle (Raffensperger and Tickner 1999) and tolerable windows (WBGU 1995; Petschel-Held et al. 1999) (see Supplementary Discussion 2). A key advance is that the planetary boundaries approach focuses on the biophysical processes of the Earth System that determine the self-regulating capacity of the planet."[11]
• "The framework presented is an attempt to look holistically at how humanity is stressing the entire Earth system."[12]
• "We have done a comprehensive search for these critical Earth System processes and their associated control variables (see Supplementary Methods 1)."[13]

• which may be able to identify the safe operating space where sustainable development can occur

• Co-author Jonathan Foley, Director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota: "The researchers stress that their approach does not offer a complete road map for sustainable development, but does provide an important element by identifying critical planetary boundaries. “Within these boundaries, humanity has the flexibility to choose pathways for our future development and well-being. In essence, we are drawing the first - albeit very preliminary - map of our planet’s safe operating zones. And beyond the edges of the map, we don’t want to go. Our future research will consider ways in which society can develop within these boundaries – safely, sanely and sustainably."[14]
• "Our approach does not offer a roadmap for sustainable development; it merely provides, in the context of the human predicament in the Anthropocene, the first step by identifying biophysical boundaries at the planetary scale within which humanity has the flexibility to choose a myriad of pathways for human wellbeing and development. Further work will need to focus on the societal dynamics that have led to the current situation, and propose ways in which our societies can stay within these boundaries."[15]
• "In collaboration with partnering research institutions such as Stockholm Resilience Centre, we present novel research on the governance of earth systems and boundaries. New approaches are needed to help humanity deal with climate change and other global environmental threats that lie ahead in the 21st century. A group of 28 internationally renowned scientists propose that global biophysical boundaries, identified on the basis of the scientific understanding of the Earth System, can define a ‘safe planetary operating space´ that will allow humanity to continue to develop and thrive for generations to come. This new approach to sustainable development is conveyed in the coming issue of Nature where the scientists have made a first attempt to identify and quantify a set of nine planetary boundaries."[16][17][18]

Note, I've changed "earth" to "Earth" in the above hook. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the unjustified link in the hook, and I still don't see notability established. I was willing to wait until Epipelagic finished his updates, before determining whether notability has been established, but the DYK nomination forced my hand. I was wrong; there are no obvious inaccuracies in the article, except for the claim that it's an established usage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how it works. Your claim that notability has not been established is absurd and something you made up out of thin air because you are an admitted climate change skeptic. Please stop POV pushing. This subject has received notable coverage in the best scientific journals and its authors are leaders in the field. Your claim is not just absurd, it is patently false. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Another thread which belongs here... copied from User talk:Arthur Rubin#Planetary boundaries --Epipelagic (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well you really surprise me. You have placed a POV tag on this article and announced at DYK that you dispute its accuracy. That would have been fine if you had said what your dispute is, and why you consider the article is POV. But you do not appear to have done that anywhere. Have you got some reasonable argument? If not, then what is going on with you? Admins should not behave like this. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede sentence is synthesis ("Planetary boundaries is an earth system framework...", and I still doubt the notability of the individual "boundaries", as opposed to other (potential) boundaries and/or values of the boundaries. If you would write an article about the framework (not presently described in the article), rather than about the individual boundaries, it could be a worthy article. I'm not sure that "accuracy" applies to an article about a theory, only weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no synthesis here. The reliable sources[19][20] are based on this summary which describes planetary boundaries as an Earth system framework. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong. It just shouldn't be linked, as there is no claim that it's "science". It does say "earth system".... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why didn't you just unlink it? I realize you have had a long and frustrating history with waring IPs who were trying to write this article. There is nothing personal, Arthur, in me retrieving the article. It was not aimed at you, I just thought it was notable and should be written properly. I see you revert vandalism on Wikipedia, rather than writing articles. But I am not one of your vandals, and I object to you treating me like one. You really should be able to discriminate between vandals and content editors. You state you have an objection about the framework versus the individual boundaries and make a dark comment about "weight". That is opaque and explains nothing. Can you please explain what you are talking about? There is already quite a bit in the article, which I'm only halfway through, about the framework. And why are you attempting to torpedo the article at DYK by publicly damning it as inaccurate? Please strike that comment, or set out a credible defence of your position on the article talk page (which you should have done at the outset). --Epipelagic (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with J. Johnston; this article should not exist under this name. If the general concept of "planetary boundaries" could be sourced, that would deserve an article. You still have not provided evidence of notability. An article which shouldn't exist shouldn't be tagged for DYK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of notability is found in the sources. On what basis do you question the existence and notability of the article? Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is some evidence of notability of the initial article (which should be titled Planetary Boundaries). The subject would be worthy of note, if there was a source. All sources refer to the article, rather than to the concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the article is appropriately titled "planetary boundaries". You are confusing the house style of one publication with the appropriate title on Wikipedia. Please actually read the sources rather than making strange comments and edit warring over tags. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a different issue. The notable subject is the article "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity"] Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32, not the general subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The title is correct per guidelines and the subject is notable. If you claim otherwise, please provide policy and guideline based arguments. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If the subject were as you say it is, the article would be named planetary boundary. It isn't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

False. Do the research, read the literature, and correct your errors. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It would good if you can explain your position, if you have one, with some clarity. Are you now arguing over notability or over the title of the article? You have agreed that the article wasn't inaccurate as you claimed. Then above you seem to be saying it is now notable as well. Then bless you... you move your uprooted posts and drive them in again, claiming the real problem is that the article is wrongly titled, and should be called "Planetary Boundaries" (again without any reasoning). Then in your next comment, are you saying it should be titled "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity" instead? Please present your reasoning on the talk page of the article, where it belongs. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful nitpicking

The behaviour on this page was quite mad before I came here (see the archive). And now look it at it again! I feel like pulling out. On the other hand, it's wrong to allow spoilers to have their way, so I'll come back. I'm on jury service from tomorrow for I'm not sure how many days. So I won't get a lot done anyway. Any contributions from you would be very welcome Viriditas – you might squeak it as a joint DYK. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

See our article on trivial objections to understand what is going on here. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not trivial; as I said before, I was willing to wait to see if you could provide a convincing argument, but you haven't answered JJ's objections. This article (with the exception of the lede, including the DYK tag) is about the article Planetary Boundaries, while the lede and the tag are about the concept. "V" seems unable to understand WP:LEDE, but I thought Epipelagic would take care of the issue before pointing a project to a violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Arthur, for finally contributing a valid point. I have addressed your point by adding the phase "the central concept in" in the lead sentence, as in "Planetary boundaries is the central concept in an Earth system framework..." I'm sure Viriditas and I would have seen your point if you had been able to explain it properly, and had not presented it among a flood of other objections which are erroneous to the point where they seem purely mischievous and obstructive. Even in your last post immediately above, you continue to refer to JJ's earlier concerns about notability. These have been fully addressed by Viriditas and the article itself. Please ask for a third opinion or open a discussion on a noticeboard such as the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm not going to waste more time discussing that matter. And please try and say what you mean with more clarity. I don't know what you mean by "pointing a project to a violation", but it seems provocative and noncollegial. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

JJ's objections have not been addressed in the article, although possibly (as V frequently does) on the article talk page. And, as a further point, I can't really tell from the article, whether the concept has general acceptance. There are some papers that work within the framework, but there are a number of potential pseudoscientific Wikipedia articles that shouldn't be written because the central concept doesn't have general support, but also doesn't have specific (reliable) opposition. TTAPS was pseudoscientific, but later (and, to some extent, earlier, although I wasn't aware of it at the time) supported by real scientific papers on nuclear winter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, you are once again making completely false statements. 1) JJ's objections have been addressed, unless you have something to add 2) If you can't tell whether this concept has general acceptance, then you are supposed to do the research. Your continued edting-by-ignorance is extremely disruptive to the project and to other editors. Stop it 3) Your comments about TTAPS, while widely promoted by the libertarian think tank noise machine, are not supported 4) Your baseless and absurd claim that this topic is potentially pseudoscientific borders on disruption for the sake of disruption. There is approximately zero evidence for your statement—you know it and I know it—and your continued making up of shit as you go needs to end. If you have something to say, support it with sources, otherwise remain silent. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(1) JJ's objections have not been addressed. (If he was willing to say that they have been, I'll concede the point, but they don't appear to have been addressed.) (2) I don't see evidence of general acceptance, especially since we still don't have a definition. It's your responsibility (those editors who wish to imply general acceptance) to provide such evidence in the article. At best, we have general acceptance of a term with that name, which might be adequate for some purposes, but we shouldn't imply that they are all using the same meaning without evidence. (3) On the contrary, TTAPS is generally recognized as being (at the time) unsupported by the science and data. (Most of) the authors had previously published works in which they reported that the (latitude-only) climate model used in TTAPS was inadequate, and some had published works contrasting the results of a "real" climate model to that of a latitude-only model. (4) I'm not saying this concept/framework is necessarily pseudoscientific. However, I haven't seen indications to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 14:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, this is the last time I'm going to say this: Stop disrupting this talk page. You have not explicitly stated which "objections" have not been addressed, nor have you provided any evidence supporting your claims about the title and the article. Until you do, I will consider this subject closed. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the United Nations has incorporated the concept of planetary boundaries into their framework suggests there is general support. I find your logic strange (if a concept "doesn't have specific (reliable) opposition", then that article "shouldn't be written"). --Epipelagic (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are WP:FRINGE subjects where some support is found, but no reliable criticism can be found, including at least one which has UN support. Still, I didn't express myself well, there. I was intending to say that there are subjects which have some (reliable) support, but no reliable criticism, which are WP:FRINGE, and shouldn't have a Wikipedia article until such time as we can find criticism. This article conflates what might be three separate articles, which have separate notability, reliability, and acceptance issues.

1. The general concept of a planetary boundary.
2. The article Planetary Boundaries.
3. The particular 9–11 planetary boundaries.

The lede still covers primarily #1, while the article concerns primarily #2 and #3. I question the notability and general acceptance of #3. I'm still not sure of the notability of #1, but could be convinced. But the article, as written is about #2 and #3, and should be so titled.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 14:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, please stop disrupting this talk page. There is no evidence that this is a "fringe" subject, and there is no evidence for any of your "points". If you believe there is, you will cite sources and diffs supporting them, as you have been repeatedly asked to do. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem of the three separate, but related, topics still needs to be resolved, and would need to be resolved whether this is a WP:FRINGE topic, mainstream topic, or neither. But, in spite of V's edits, some progress is being made toward all three. I don't want to propose a reorganization while material is being added, but sorting the material along those lines might lead to a resolution that all three deserve notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, I'm going to have to ask you, once again, to stop trolling and disrupting this talk page. To recap, there is no "problem" at all, nor have you shown one; that is simply something you invented. Nor have you provided any evidence of any kind demonstrating this is a "fringe" topic. Finally, there is nothing wrong with any of my edits to this article, nor have you been able to show anything wrong. So what we are left with, Arthur, is your continued disruption, false statements, and complete and total failure to support anything you say. Please stop commenting here until you are willing to support your claims with evidence. If your nonsense continues, I will escalate this matter. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, there's quite a bit wrong. Even if notability had been demonstrated for all three concepts, they are still different, but are conflated in the article. Now, I'm not necessarily saying they deserve different articles, but the lede and the body should be about the same concepts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You haven't shown anything is wrong. Cite an actual passage or quote material supporting your claim. The lead and body are about the same concept and you have failed to show otherwise. Put up or shut up. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a semblance of support for the assertion that they are the same topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then, I suggest you haven't read the article or reviewed the sources, or done the necessary research. Please provide a single scintilla of evidence demonstrating they are not the same topic. For what must be the twentieth time you have been informed of this, I am not required to prove a negative assertion. If you have evidence that these are two separate topics, feel free to quote passages and sources showing that. How many times have you been asked to do this now? Stop disrupting this talk page. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, all, but I think there is something to be said for it being my call whether my objections have been met. Now I think there has been some great improvement, but whether this has been sufficient, sorry, I haven't had the time to give it an adequate look. Epipelagic seems to be making progress, so I would like to suggest to Arthur and Viriditas that we hold off on the comments until we have a more definite target(s) to take aim at. It's not like anything is on fire, and I'm certain this is not the most important issue for any of us. What brought me in here (and I suspect Arthur as well) was some silliness that was emanating from here, but that seems to be under control now. So let's take this at a slower pace. Okay? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought progress was being made; I only started objecting when the DYK nomination went in. Let's see how this develops. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Add wikilink to Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth ?

Add wikilink to Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth ? 99.181.140.195 (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Links in other articles should be added on the basis of the relevance or notability of the link to the subject of the other article, not because the Kalamazoo Kid wants to inflate the link count of this article. Consider this a blanket response to all such uncommented and unsourced peremptory "Add ..." requests, past and future. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid a real editor added a link to this article from Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. That's a logical place to dispute it. A link from this article to Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth seems appropriate, as that what it claims to be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment on edit history

Comment on Edit History ... Earth ≠ Environment. Human inhabit only the thin surface of the Earth, with its thin atmosphere ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.85.197 (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The previous statement was irrelevant to the previous section; It was referring to an Easter Egg generated by the floating IP, which I reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the article content

I think this article is worth expanding. I have just added the section "the idea of planetary boundaries or limits". The object is to have a historical framework. May be this section can also be expanded, but avoiding to put much load into it, so that the focus on the main subject is not lost. An other point that deserves expansion is the consideration of each boundary. And finally the comments by prominent scientists in the Nature article.--Auró (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that what you (or even I) think about this is not as important as why. Particularly, is this topic sufficiently notable to warrant such extended treatment? Most of the comment seems to be in connection with the article in Nature. In that regard I would grant that it is notable in regards of having been discussed, and possibly even as a possibly emergent view of possible future significance. I do not see that this view (or concept or theory) has had (yet?) any scientific impact, nor many adherents. Keep in mind WP:WEIGHT: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Expanding the article beyond what is warranted would not only violate WP:WEIGHT, but also verge on violating WP:NPOV. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is my opinion, and may be you are right, and the content of this Nature article has not a high weight. But, on the other hand, this article is not about some obscure and forgotten subject. It is about a very important and pressing one: the limits to human activity on planet Earth. It is not written by amateurs, it has been assembled by a panel of 29 scientists, and it is based in what has been investigated and published during the last forty years by many relevant scientists (The list of bibliography is impressive). Then, Nature has considered it to be relevant enough to publish it, and ask seven prominent experts to give their opinion, that also considered it to be of enough weight to merit their comment. The more I am reading the article, and considering the material that has been used, the more I think it has relevance.--Auró (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop overlinking

To the IP sock master: would you please stop expanding and linking every journal and organisation you can in the references. That is overlinking. The important links are the ones to the actual reference articles. Otherwise, we end up swamped in a sea of blue links, most of which nobody is interested in, a blue dazzle which makes it hard to find where the links are that actually matter. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need an RfC on this; WP:OVERLINK is not precise enough to determine whether journals and organizations should be linked. I've given up on reverting the IP except for incorrect links, easter eggs, clear overlinks (such as emotion), and creating multiple links to adjacent words (such as environmental economics); if you want to help me deal with the IP in other articles, I'll go along with unlinking journal titles and publishers in references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

RfCs are so time consuming, often with unsatisfactory outcomes. Cannot the IP just be investigated at WP:SPI? I will support you if you add something relevant to WP:OVERLINK. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

From the table section Biogeochemical is ":28–29" an error from [26][27][28]:28–29[29][30]?

From the table section Biogeochemical is ":28–29" an error from [26][27][28]:28–29[29][30]? 99.19.43.126 (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

From the table section Ocean acidification is ":36–37" an error from [38][28]:36–37[39][40]?

From the table section Ocean acidification is ":36–37" an error from [38][28]:36–37[39][40]? 99.19.43.126 (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest rewriting sentence for clarification ...

Suggest rewriting the sentence "Nevertheless, this capacity has limits, and like an organism has not capacity to react in front of too big deviations, neither the Earth has. " 99.19.43.126 (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)