Talk:Planetary boundaries/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2


Environmental governance

I see there hasn't yet been any discussion about this article. Could someone explain why Environmental governance is related? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It does appear like a rather obvious relationship. One discusses the limits of activities on the planet, the other the required measures to ensure these boundaries aren't violated. __meco (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
What about Environmental management wikilink? (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems a better choice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. __meco (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Add Environmental management then ... ? (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Second that ... (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Since all the IPs posting (in this section) are probably the same person, that should be taken into account. And "better" does not mean "good" or "approriate". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Meco isn't an IP User, and I take offense to your comments as they feel pejorative: Wikipedia:IPs are human too. Add. (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Meco is not an IP; however you continuing to agree with yourself to give the impression of consensus is getting lame. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You miss "108"'s point, there is agreement to add a Environmental management wikilink, but it has not been added for over a half a year. (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
There is an agreement that Environmental management is better than Environmental governance. I'm not sure there's an agreement for either to be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
And stop pretending that 108 and you are not the same person. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Please reread this section, there already is consensus, Meco, you and all the IP users ... (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, in particular Wikipedia:Disruptive editing's I didn't hear that. (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I see the IP on one side, me on the other, and Meco as unclear. Even if Meco agrees fully with the IP, that's not "consensus". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I find the tenor of discussion here to be so consistently poor that as a general rule I am supporting Arthur. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Request translation into Nihongo

{{Expand Japanese|Planetary boundaries}} (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're requesting the Japanese article be extended, not this article be extended from the Japanese. That request should be made over at ja.wikipedia. If I'm wrong, and it's the other way, please at least point to the ja.wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Good idea! (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Add Environmental management per above discussion, please.

Add Environmental management per above discussion, please. (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Also see Sustainability and environmental management ?

Also see Sustainability and environmental management ? (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not if Sustainability or environmental management is linked in the article or in the See also section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Add wikilink to Extinction.

Add wikilink to Extinction. (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A bit weak for "See also" alone. See if you can work it into the text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
extinctions per million species ... see Planetary boundaries: Rethinking biodiversity in Nature (journal) published online: 23 September 2009. (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What is Tg N yr?

What is Tg N yr? (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Tg N yr-1 = Teragrams of nitrogen per year seems likely. Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Include link from each boundaries' corresponding wp article?

Include link from each boundaries' corresponding wp article? Suggest: Global warming, Biodiversity, Nitrogen cycle, Phosphorous cycle, Ocean acidification, Potable water, Land use per table + Ozone layer, ... (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Why link an obscure hypothesis (this one) to articles about real phenomena? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
How is the cover articles of Scientific American obscure? (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The cover articles of Scientific American are unlikely to be scientifically accurate, and, there being hundreds of them, may be fairly obscure. Perhaps you're suffering from WP:RECENTISM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
More Original Research User:Arthur Rubin, or please cite a reference for the unlikely scientific accuracy of Scientific American? (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a reference where I can get to it at the moment, but I recall an editorial in Science apologizing for inaccurate cover articles, and promising not to do it again. A promise best observed in the breach, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A reference please, User:Arthur Rubin. (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Shortened the header for editing ease - we don't repeat our arguements as a header. Also the table is easily viewed in the article, why repeat it here? Vsmith (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a standard wp method for referring to the table, to decrease communication confusion? (Please Mr. Rubin let Vsmith only reply) (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
How 'bout: See the table in the article or as presented in the article or some such... being as the article is quite short and w/out sections. Vsmith (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, more obvious than I thought. Thank you again. (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Subtitle to this section was Suggest: Global warming, Biodiversity, Nitrogen cycle, Phosphorous cycle, Ocean acidification, Potable water, Land use per table + Ozone layer, ... before the table was removed. (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


Let us talk of obscurity. In the section above (on adding backlinks in other articles) there was no claim that "cover articles" in Scientific American are obscure. Rather, the issue is that this topic is obscure. Coverage in a single article in Scientific American — which is a popular magazine about science, not a scientific journal — does not make this topic scientifically notable. Nor even a single article in Nature (journal) (which is a scientific journal). Scientific notability depends on discussion by other scientists — not promotion by the proponents. To quote WP:Notability: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Which you all have yet to show.

Let me point out that even if a case can be made that this topic is not obscure, yet you all have not made that case. You have cited (and very poorly at that) only a single source. And while I would be willing to allow the article (for having possible interest, albeit obscure), there is certainly insufficient notability in other fields to justify spamming other articles with backlinks. Other editors might find that the general lack of WP:Notability warrants deletion. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Planetary boundaries is references in the current issue of Environment magazine, for example. 10:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
That is not reliable source. To establish scientific notability you need to show scientific sources. I know of one mention in the scientific press, but it won't count if the authors of this article can't even cite it properly. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is "Designing the Green Climate Fund: How to Spend $100 Billion Sensibly" (annually) by Lorrae van Kerkhoff, Imran Habib Ahmad, Jamie Pittock, and Will Steffen of the Australian National University. It is in may/June 2011 the issue (Vol. 53, No. 3) on pages 18 to 30, reference 11 from the Nature (journal). For background, see 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference and coming in November 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference. (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly — it is about designing ... the fund ("How to Spend $$"), not the science. Your reference to Nature is unclear, but it may be the other mention I know of. Perhaps it could bolster the case for notability, but it won't count if you can't cite it properly. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Nature (journal), one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world: 2009, "A Safe Operating Space for Humanity," 461 (24 September): 472-475. (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
That is a good citation (and yes, I am familiar with Nature). Do you have more scientific sources? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I was asked to comment on the notability issue.[1] Is this the right thread?   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Will. Yup, here you are. The folks behind this article seem to have proceeded with more enthusiasm than knowledge of the standards. I have twice pointed to WP:Notability (hey, newbies: Read The Fabulous Link!); perhaps you can explain it to them. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks on and I see no effort towards establishing notability. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Add references, taken from nl:Planetaire grenzen ...

Add references, taken from nl:Planetaire grenzen ...

  • Johan Rockström et al (2009) 'A safe operating space for humanity', Nature 461, 472-475 (24 September 2009)
  • Nature editorial: Earth's boundaries? (24 September 2009) ref —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The Limits to Growth is there too. (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Johan Rockström is in the article, from the Stockholm Resilience Centre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Nature 24 september 2009. Planetary Boundaries: Specials

Nature 24 september 2009. Planetary Boundaries: Specials from sv:Planetens gränser (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Already there under References. (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, perhaps that should be Reference (singular), as there is only one. And it is so poorly, so pathetically, and inadequately done that one has to dig a ways down to find the source — which turns out to be an index of several possible sources so, hey, pick which ever one you like. I can see why you all are anonymous, it is just too embarrassing. (I was doing better bibliographic citation in the fourth grade.) If you want to be taken seriously you should at the very least be doing work you are not too embarrassed to sign with a real name. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Besides insults, User:J. Johnson, are you also making Wikipedia:Threats of violence comments with italics on pathetic (derived from "leading to death") or a more subtle Pathos? (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
You must be a magician: you have conjured "threats of violence" out of nothing. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity

Add Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity from Ecology and Society. (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Even if it were a reliable source, it's not necessarily the same boundaries as this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily sounds weasely (Wikipedia:WEASEL. How would you, Mr. Rubin, regard these as the same boundaries as the other references (more to the point than this wp article)? (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Words indicating uncertainty are always appropriate in talk pages, if accurately indicating intent. Would you please stop trying to apply article-only guidelines to talk pages?
With new terms, even if generally accepted, it's not always clear whether everyone using it is using them in the same manner. I don't think it unreasonable to request confirmation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Add The Limits to Growth.

Add The Limits to Growth. (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Would 2004 Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update be more appropriate? (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
That almost makes sense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
How many updates are there, so the most appropriate might be linked, Special:Contributions/ (no need for another non-constructive comment from User:Arthur Rubin)?
None of the updates has "predicted the past", yet, but I suppose they're still notable works of fiction, and hence might be relevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOR (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't apply to talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This is discussion about potential wp article improvement, so it does. Please stay on topic. If your comments are relevant, please clarify them, otherwise your comments will likely be ignored. (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you implying it's a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude Limits to Growth? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You lost me, User:Arthur Rubin, what? (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain what you ( mean, then? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Add wikilink to freshwater

Add wikilink to freshwater (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

More or less reasonable. It's the wikilink from freshwater that is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thanx. (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Mr. Rubin. (plesantly suprisingly helpful) (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't get gushy, see Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:Witchhunt and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing by User:Arthur Rubin. (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:Witchhunt in a nutshell: "Accusations against other editors should not be made in the absence of any value in doing so." It seems necessary to explicitly state what most of us would have thought obvious: nor in absence of any evidence.
This anonymous user seems to be making an accusation against Arthur Rubin, but he is unclear in his reference (is "witchhunt" his characterization of the statement "Don't get gushy"?), has not presented any case (nor, as far as I can see, has any case), can't even form a proper sentence. This yet another instance of the very inferior quality of discussion on this talk page. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What is/are the subject of this article

What 'are planetary boundaries? The article seems to give examples, but it seems to be another kind of tipping point, not necessarily physics or climate, but relating to a planetary phenomenon.

Or is it just the conception of Johan Rockström et al., in which case I would question its notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about Tipping point (climatology) and/or some other kind of tipping point? (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Some other kind of tipping point (as I explained above), for which we don't have a specific article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
At least one is related to Tipping point (climatology) ... (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Possibly more than one. What we need is an article on the general concept of "tipping point", including climatology and physics as examples. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a library at the moment, and am not good at finding sources outside of my specialities, even if I did. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
And then we could discuss whether the appropriate parts of this article be merged into that one. Whether there is anything that should be left here, would be another discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
If you have access to the Internet, you have access to libraries, so you do. (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarify atmosphere to Atmosphere of Earth, please.

Clarify atmosphere to Atmosphere of Earth, please. (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Link goes to atm of Earth now, thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Special:Contributions/Vsmith. Would you add Environmental management per the discussion above also, please? (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The consensus is that environmental management is better than environmental governance, even if the two articles weren't really talking about the same topic. I don't see a consensus that either should be added. In fact, now that the former redirects to environmental resources management (in spite of that being grammatically absurd), it's clearly about a different topic entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Is that a forward slash (/) or an i? (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
An "i", as you can easily tell if you have access to cut/paste into a text processor window. (With your permission, I'd like to make your last comment and mine smaller, so as to note that it's a metadiscussion.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Add Environmental resources management

Combine spread-out discussions here ... Add Environmental resources management (previously named Environmental management. (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And again, why? The article fits even less well than it did when you first brought it up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
And if there isn't some progress in showing this topic to be notable this and related discussions will be moot. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Video: Planetary Boundaries: A Safe Operating Space for Humanity

Video: Planetary Boundaries: A Safe Operating Space for Humanity ... add? (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Add Johan Rockstrom: Let the environment guide our development TED Talk

Add Johan Rockstrom: Let the environment guide our development TED Talk (Uploaded by TEDtalksDirector on Aug 31, 2010 to YouTube)? (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
For this and the following section: YouTube is generally not a reliable source (see WP:RSEX), and having Rockstrom flogging his own idea (in any source) is self-promotion.
You really ought to read a bit about how things are done around here. Hint: start with the links provided. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Add YouTube Johan Rockström explains planetary boundaries (Parts 1 and 2) ?

Add ... Johan Rockström explains planetary boundaries. Part 1 Johan Rockström explains planetary boundaries. Part 2 "Professor Johan Rockström explains the concept of planetary boundaries at the Planet Under Pressure symposium organised by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. 24 September 2009" (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Add Global change wikilink?

Add Global change wikilink? (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Finally a link which doesn't violate multiple guidelines. But still, why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Especially as it's going to be a red-link when this article is deleted for lack of notability. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion will trump edit warring.

I ask the Kalamazoo Kid (aka "99.*") to pay careful attention here, as you seem to be quite clueless. (Or at least simulating that very well.) Please note that this continuing cycle of repeated reversions is an instance of WP:edit warring, an expressly banned behavior. (Please read about this, especially about the three-revert rule.) Now you might complain that Arthur is reverting your edits, which is true, but you are also at a disadvantage here in that your insistence on adding, without discussion, questioned material also violates the policy on WP:consensus. And if you want to get real picky about this, well, deletion of this article will trump all other issues here.

Which leads back to the issue of WP:notability (and please read that link), which was raised above. You have provided one non-notable link, and exactly one notable link. (Which by itself does not show notability of the topic.) And you do not seem to be making any progress in finding more. Now I was going to wait a month before calling for deletion of this article (based on its non-notability) to give you time to do some research. But if all you do is engage in edit-warring then I think it is reasonable to request immediate deletion. So I strongly urge you to 1) stop the reverting, and 2) starting finding references of notability. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning, and potentially Acting out ... and tell two friends ... (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't going to get into your behaviorial characteristics, but now that you mention it, yes, those are points that you might consider. But please don't get side-tracked: the main issue here is the one of notability, and its likely consequent, the deletion of this article. The rest of your efforts here are, well, perhaps you have heard the phrase "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
For what is your Titanic a metaphor? By "Titanic" do you intend Big like an Elephant or would you redact what the Titanic really is? Or maybe you are just another extremist as Paul Collier's book The Plundered Planet who either uses denialism (or willful ignorance) of "It is not authentic" or "It is impossible do anything about It ... so nothing to do? It being a "Titanic" or an "Elephant". (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you truly so clueless that you do not understand a reference to RMS Titanic, the ship that quite famously sank in 1912? The metaphor is to do something that is totally pointless in the face of some overwhelming event. Like rearrange the furniture on a sinking ship — or edit-war over links in an article that just may be deleted. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he is that clueless. I think he may be an AI. He certainly shows no understanding of colloquial English, except for misuse of some phrases, including elephant in the room. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Let the environment guide our development from TED (conference).

Add Let the environment guide our development from TED (conference). About Talk: Human growth has strained the Earth's resources, but as Johan Rockstrom reminds us, our advances also give us the science to recognize this and change behavior. His research has found nine "planetary boundaries" that can guide us in protecting our planet's many overlapping ecosystems. (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Provocative New Study Warns of Crossing Planetary Boundaries from Yale University?

Add from 23.September.2009 analysis Provocative New Study Warns of Crossing Planetary Boundaries: The Earth has nine biophysical thresholds beyond which it cannot be pushed without disastrous consequences, the authors of a new paper in the journal Nature report. Ominously, these scientists say, we have already moved past three of these tipping points by Carl Zimmer, in Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies's "360". (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Planetary Boundaries and the New Generation Gap by Alex Steffen from 30.June.2009 Worldchanging?

Add Planetary Boundaries and the New Generation Gap by Alex Steffen from 30.June.2009 Worldchanging? (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Add How defining planetary boundaries can transform our approach to growth ?

Add How defining planetary boundaries can transform our approach to growth by Will Steffen, Johan Rockström, Robert Costanza, reprint in the Post Carbon Institute's "Energy Bulletin" 25.May.2011 from The Solutions Journal. (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Add From ocean to ozone: Earth's nine life-support systems

Add From ocean to ozone: Earth's nine life-support systems in New Scientist February 2010 ... excerpt:

Last year, Johan Rockström, director of the Stockholm Environment Institute in Sweden, sat down with a team of 28 luminaries from environmental and earth-systems science to answer those questions. The team included Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, NASA climate scientist James Hansen, Gaia hypothesis researcher and "tipping point" specialist Tim Lenton, and the German chancellor's chief climate adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.

They identified nine "planetary life-support systems" that are vital for human survival. They then quantified how far we have pushed them already, and estimated how much further we can go without threatening our own survival. Beyond certain boundaries, they warned, we risk causing "irreversible and abrupt environmental change" that could make the Earth a much less hospitable place (Ecology and Society, vol 14, p 32).

The boundaries, Rockström stresses, are "rough, first estimates only, surrounded by large uncertainties and knowledge gaps". They also interact with one another in complex and poorly understood ways. But he says the concept of boundaries is an advance on the usual approach taken by environmentalists, who simply aim to minimise all human impacts on the planet. Instead, he says, boundaries give us some breathing space. They define a "safe space for human development". And here they are. (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Scientists outline planetary boundaries: A safe operating space for humanity September 23, 2009 PhysOrg

Add Scientists outline planetary boundaries: A safe operating space for humanity September 23, 2009 PhysOrg Excerpts: "New approaches are needed to help humanity deal with climate change and other global environmental threats that lie ahead in the 21st century, according to a group of 28 internationally renowned scientists.", "The research was performed by a working group at UC Santa Barbara's National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), in cooperation with the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University.", "The goal of the Integrated History and future Of People on Earth (IHOPE) project is to understand the interactions of the environmental and human process over the ten to hundred millennia to determine how human and biophysical changes have contributed to Earth system dynamics.", "Planetary boundaries is a way of thinking that will not replace politics, economics, or ethics, explained environmental historian Sverker Sörlin of the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm." (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

See AIMES (Analysis, Integration and Modelling of the Earth System) is the Earth System synthesis and integration project of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP). (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Add ... /PlanetaryBoundaries/tabid/755/Default.aspx

Add Planetary Boundaries: A Safe Operating Space for Humanity is presented in the prestigious scientific journal Nature on September 24th in Tällberg Foundation (Tällberg Forum)? (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


Add Stockholm, September 23, 2009 PRNewsw Press release by the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, The Australian National University, University of Copenhagen and University of Minnesota. (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Even coverage by the Democratic Underground 24.September.2009 ...

Even coverage by the Democratic Underground 24.September.2009 ... Tipping towards the unknown: Researchers propose critical planetary boundaries, transgressing them could be catastrophic. But there is hope. (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Tipping point

Why is tipping point (climatology) more related to this article than other tipping points? In fact, if one were to select a single appropriate link, it would be to a paragraph in catastrophe theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed to catastrophe theory#Tipping point, which seems to be the correct link to use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Add" nauseam

(Given the level of cluelessness here I'll explain: the title is in the nature of a pun on the common phrase ad nauseam. Though strictly speaking this would be a malapropism.) Kid: These multiple "Adds..." (here, and at other articles) are not credible. Possibly you intend these as requests to add the links to the article? (It would help if you could formulate a proper sentence.) But you completely fail to understand the nature (and requirement!) of reliable sources (despite repeated suggestions to study that). What you have provided are, well, a comment on a blog about the Nature article (sorry, no), a press release (boo) about the Nature article, more promotion of the Nature article, etc. All in all, wholly inadequate (can you not find scientific discussion?), and tiresome as well. If you are not willing to take the time and effort to develop a modicum of competence, I would suggest refraining from making a fool of yourself. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Running of out of nitrogen ?

So nitrogen is being depleted from the atmosphere now ? We are running out ? How can this be taken seriously!Eregli bob (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. It can be taken seriously by linking to Human impact on the nitrogen cycle now in effect. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Think of it the other way round - we are fixing all the nitrogen that we remove from the atmosphere. The danger is not that we will run out of nitrogen what happens to the nitrogen that we fix. SmartSE (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1 | Archive 2

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.[2][3][4] 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.[5] 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)


  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

  • 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.[6][7][8][9][10] 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."[11]
  • "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."[12]
  • "The framework presented is an attempt to look holistically at how humanity is stressing the entire Earth system."[13]
  • "We have done a comprehensive search for these critical Earth System processes and their associated control variables (see Supplementary Methods 1)."[14]
  • 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."[15]
  • "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."[16]
  • "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."[17][18][19]
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[20][21] 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 ? (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 ... EarthEnvironment. Human inhabit only the thin surface of the Earth, with its thin atmosphere ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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)
Well, I don't want to diminish the relevance of what "even" you think, JJ, but aside from the many other notable scientists who are in the group you choose to characterize as an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority", are at least 18 Nobel laureates who simply don't agree with you. These all endorsed the statement: "Science indicates that we are transgressing planetary boundaries that have kept civilization safe for the past 10,000 years." Can you find just one laureate who agrees with your position? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree with either of you that this topic may be interesting, and possibly even an important approach to certain "important and pressing" issues; I will even accept that it is notable in a certain discussion. I don't agree that it is scientifically notable. Nor that a list of eighteen Nobel laureates makes it so, because science is not done by lists of scientists (esp. from outside of a field).
Nor is it matter of whether any nobel laureates agree with me, because what I raise is Wikipedia policy regarding appropriate weight. For all that eighteen Nobel laureates have endorsed a statement that "science indicates ...", that may be a useful indication regarding the science, but it is not science as such, and it is indeed a small minority. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The concept of planetary boundaries is not a "science". If you read the article, you will see that it is a proposal to do with sustainability frameworks. Whether or not it is generally accepted as a framework will depend on how useful and acceptable it is to thinking in political and governance areas, as well as to the scientific community. For example, geopolitically the framework will probably not be acceptable in the USA, though elsewhere it seems to getting wide acceptance. It is only if you come down to specific details, such as which boundaries are important, and whether meaningful control variables exist for these boundaries, that scientific issues arise. You "raise" "Wikipedia policy" and "appropriate weight", as though you are invoking something of magisterial significance. What is is that significance? Or is it that you WP:JDLI? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
That WP:WEIGHT (as in WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight) is a principal Wikipedia policy I think gives it a certain "magisterial significance". Please don't be so dismissive of one of the five pillars.
Much of my concern on this point was more about the earliar version, which tended to give the impression that this concept is accepted scientific fact, not "still an evolving concept that should be used with caution...." The current version is much improved (esp. with the "Debate on the framework" section), but given the history here I still have some concern that over-enthusiastic editing might give it more weight than is properly due, especially as there is no clear statement of the degree to which this concept has been accepted (or not). - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not remotely dismissive of WP:WEIGHT. I was just suggesting that you offer specific arguments instead of vaguely waving your arms in the general direction of something you call "policy" and "weight". The concept was only launched about 20 months ago. It's too early to assess "the degree to which this concept has been accepted". It may well just be sidelined and ignored. In the meantime it seems to me that, if it were well written, the "Debate on the boundaries" section could be quite interesting. Particularly if the debate evolves. I want a break from it now, though the article still needs more work. Later I might come back and see if it seems worthwhile to write that section properly. Or maybe you or someone else might find it worth doing. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is about boundaries to human activity on earth. If the majority opinion is that there are not boundaries, it will be reflected in it. Like any article in Wikipedia, this one is open to the visions from all points of view.--Auró (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. If it turns out that the concept of planetary boundaries and a safe operating space for humanity cannot provide an workable framework, then that finding itself will be highly significant. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Even if it does not "provide an workable framework", it could still be notable in regards of promoting an important discussion. My concern has been to avoid presenting it as accepted scientific fact when, as you said above, it really is too early to be notable in that regard. I think you have done a good job documenting the discussion, and am inclined to accept that there has been a prima facie showing of notability. (Much better than the original!) I think you have also done a good job in presenting the material, so my concern is largely relieved, and I am willing to let you run with this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you JJ. I think this is an important initiative which we should all run with. It doesn't seem a trivial issue to me at all; can meaningful boundaries be established across all these areas, and are these the right areas to look at? My guess is it can be established across many of them, but not across all. It is not a trivial issue and the debate should not be unnecessarily obstructed. Let's give it breathing room for a bit and and see how it develops. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:03, 22 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)
I don't think WP:SPI would help. We know these are all the same person. The problem is (WP:BEANS) that we can't do anything about it, once we know. It's too wide an IP range to block, even if only this person is editing from that range.

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]? (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]? (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. " (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was not very satisfied myself. Is it clearer to you this?: "Nevertheless, this capacity has limits, and in the same way that, for instance, when a living organism is subjected to a temperature that is lower that its living range, will probably perish, because its regulating mechanism can not make the necessary adjustments to withstand it, similarly the earth may not be able to react in front of too big deviations of critical parameters.--Auró (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

To the IP sock master

A reference such as "[28]:36–37" means that the relevant point is addressed on pages 36 to 37. There is no error there, though it may be that many people do not know what this notation means. I'm not not sure how to handle that, though that particular problem may be solved when JJ converts the references to Harvard. Please stop using multiple sections when one would do, and please use shorter section headers – your headers are very messy. You could have made the three points above under one simple heading, such as "Three points". And as you have been repeatedly asked, get a proper account. Hopping from IP to IP as you endlessly do is thoroughly bad-mannered. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed Epiplagic. (",) Interaction w/ Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin has had twisting results to my manner. ?(:-( Not offense was intend, a "cultural problem" ... (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Rubin has displayed behavior unbecoming the office of wp Admin from what I have seen (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin). Maybe as a newbie, my expectations for Wikipedia were too high, given Wikipedia:Etiquette, etc ... ? (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The behaviour at issue here is yours, not that of Mr. Rubin. I could point you to WP:Etiquette, but you seem immune to instruction. I don't suppose you have noticed that being annoying tends to undercut anything you have to say. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)