Talk:InterAcademy Partnership

The statements section

I've started a section on the statements. My idea is that it should explain what the statements are, list them, in a few sentences describe each one, and refer to separate articles for each statement. Right now, the introductory explanation is not totally unsatisfactory, but the rest is.

I used a good source (a proper reference should be added instead of the ad hoc one I've made); but unhappily, the layout includes putting images behind signatures, making them hard to count. I'm printing the document, and my plan is to read it in the next few days, in order to be able to summarise the statements (and to make proper calculations of the signatures). Of course, I'll be rather happu if I discover that some people already added such stuff before I can get back to this.

Apart from the 11 articles, I'm thinking of a category and a navbox. After all, these statements are the closest thing to officially recognised scientific consemnsi on a number of more or less controversial questions you could find in the world to-day; whence it is not at all undue to give them weight. Of course, wherever anybody knows of controversy around the statements, or criticism of the statements from encyclopedically interesting sources, such criticism should be added. However, criticism just noting that these or tose people ignore some statements with which they do not agree is not very interesting; and the fact that some people in other contexts have propagated for other views would be suitable as background sections in the separate articles, but not as "criticism of the respective statement" in itself. JoergenB (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've now counted the numbers of signatures carefully, at the jubilee document, and added what I think are the exact numbers. I'll not be unhappy if someone checks the numbers, or (better) finds a primary source where IAP lists them; I've found some single numbers, but nothing comprehensive.

I'm also curious about the practical procedure. My guess (from the numbers) is that IAP publishes the statement with signatures, as soon as they get the required two thirds, and that the ratification process normally then is discontinued. However, at least in some cases, there are academies whose signatures were added later; I saw a notice of this concerning the statement on the teaching of evolution. If anybody knows the procedure more precisely, I think that one or two sentences about this could be added. JoergenB (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this...

12. IAP statement on ocean acidification, 2009. Signed by 70 members.

"Ocean acidification is expected to cause massive corrosion of our coral reefs and dramatic changes in the makeup of the biodiversity of our oceans and to have significant implications for food production and the livelihoods of millions of people..."

or like this...

12. IAP statement on ocean acidification, 2009. Signed by 70 members.

"Ocean acidification is expected to cause massive corrosion of our coral reefs and dramatic changes in the makeup of the biodiversity of our oceans and to have significant implications for food production and the livelihoods of millions of people..."

The quote is not from the document itself, but from IAP's summary introduction to their statement.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer: Neither. My intent is that the various statements should get their own articles - possibly with the exception of a couple who were published jointly, and might have a joint article. I've done this for the first item, and will continue to do so, when I get the time, and if no other editors get it done before I do. The red links are there as a temporary measure, in order to make them filled in.

Several of the statements are clear positionings in issues in important non-scientific circles. On the other hand, IMHO the statements represent the most clear-cut scientific consensus possible in the world to-day, at least from the scientific community as a whole. References from and to such a statement should involve a separate article, not just a section of this one. This is one reason why I think they should be made to separate articles.

Of course, a separate article will largely consist of a presentation of the statement in question - more so, than just from the respective press release. However, apart from linking and categories, also explanation of the context, and of course a reference of relevant criticism (in case anyone comes across this) should be included.

Do you have another suggestion? JoergenB (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm stepping in to update the statements on the page, updating the statements from previous years. If folks think it's a good idea, I might also update so that the newest statements are at the top of the list for reference, but also happy to hear others thoughts. Peas and Thank You (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Updating: I've made those changes to statements, but idk if I can pick up the mantle for making statement pages for each one. In the meantime, maybe in another edit I'll add a sentence for each one trying to summarize the statement? In the meantime, I've added external links to the statements. Haven't reordered the statements, so they're still in order from oldest to newest. Peas and Thank You (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

The status of the Copenhagen 2009 statement

I do not quite understand the status of the statement now listed as number 13, i.e. the IAP statement on tropical forests and climate change, 2009, signed by 54 members. According to the statement information, it was presented at or in close relation to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Possibly, this meant that it was processed somewhat faster than other statements. Be that as it may, on the one hand, it does not seem to have the regulated 2/3 majority necessary for ratification (yet), nor states itself as ratisfied; but in all other respects, it is listed and presented as a statement on par with all the other statements.

Thus, I do not understand whether or not this should be listed uncommentedly among the others, or be listed in a separate section for "proposed statements" or "preliminary statements", or something of that kind. JoergenB (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The reports section

I added a reports section since these aren't captured in the statements section (and undergo a different process for consensus). I haven't added any descriptions of what the reports say, so maybe that's a job for another day (or another editor). Peas and Thank You (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Add wikilink "... represent a global view, the governing nations are of diverse levels of economic development."

Add wikilink "... represent a global view, the governing nations are of diverse levels of economic development." 99.181.137.215 (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think our article economic development is even related to what the organization means by that? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Add science education wikilink.

Add science education wikilink. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? You've tried the ridiculous science book before, and now this one. These are too obvious to be linked, even if the article was relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved Non-controversial requested move Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

---

InterAcademy Panel on International Issues → InterAcademy Panel (IAP) –

• The original title is misleading because the organizations real name is simply InterAcademy Panel. International Issues is part of what the organization does but not the only thing. It is a "Global Network of Science Academies" and focuses more on scientific international issues, bringing world science academies together and helping them grow and contribute to global discussions. See www.interacademies.net/About.aspx Tinak3 (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• The acronym should not be appended. The page title should be InterAcademy Panel if this is the name of the organisation. --MegaSloth (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Looking at their statutes, the name is indeed InterAcademy Panel, supporting the statement of MegaSloth. But I suggest to follow the "Requesting a single page move" procedure as explained underneath, so other people can be involved in the discussion. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support under the condition the acronym is dropped. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 19:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Move to InterAcademy Panel per SchreyP and my comments above.--MegaSloth (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.