Talk:Planetary management

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

Article is semi-protected[edit]

Dear IP account: Please present arguments for your proposed edits here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Planetary (disambiguation) is not equivalent to World (disambiguation).[edit]

Note: Planetary (disambiguation) is not equivalent to World (disambiguation). (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about or why you continue removing the relevant categories. Please explain your edits or I will file for semi-protection because your edits do not make any sense and appear to be vandalism. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Calm down. To be more clear, from the title of this article the word "Planetary" has a much different connotation, in total, than "World" (see above: World (theology), World_(philosophy), and World view for example, note particularly the subjective aspect, the individual organism view). The content of the article current named "Planetary management" has little or nothing to do with so-called "World Government" (cue Galactic Empire (Star Wars) theme song). This article is not about an individual or even just Humans, it is about preservation of Earth's Ecosystem services Sustainability for the all known Life. (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not clear on what you are trying to say, but my guess is that you misunderstand the concept of "world government" and how we use categories. You also need to read the article and the sources used. Planetary management requires a working world government, informal or formal, in order to function, and is often used as a synonym for systems approach to world government. Any working world government would rely on planetary management as their primary system for controlling and maintaining ecosystem services. Please do some research on the topic. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, help more understand more efficiently, what is an "informal World Government" and where a wikilink directly to it? (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You are free to read the article on superpower if you like. Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like you need a rest before you read? "Superpower" is hardly informal "World Government", and not related to the content of "Planetary management" (even with its somewhat confusing current title). The subtly of words is important. (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
On my own, I have found that "Planetary management" is in "Template:"Sustainability"" and "Template:"World government topics"", so my guess is: do to simplistic wp rigid ways Planetary management was included in the broadly nuanced Template titled "World Government", in the "Theory (practice)" subsection (unfortunately with such unrelated topics and New World Order (conspiracy theory), Pax, etc ...). Since there is one Biosphere incorporating all life inter-sustained (thus ultimately un-separate-able along human political lines) on Earth, the need for coordination and harmonization of law enforcement globally (in parallel to the global Scientific community for monitoring and understanding) and that combination of the two inferring the word "management" ... leading to "Planetary management" categorization into limited array of Template choices, resulting in Template"World Government"; about right? This assumes there is not a seperate wp article for the law and enforcement aspects of maintaining general global habitability on Earth. For obvious reasons (see content) it is in TemplateSustainability. For any additional comment, please respond in one Discussion (below). (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not waste my time with such comments. Try to keep your comments short and to the point. To point you in the direction of information about superpowers and world governments, please see David Newman, professor at Ben-Gurion University. He writes:

From the outset of the Cold War, the two superpowers asserted their positions of hegemony by failing to respect the borders or sovereignty of other states...For forty-five years, the US and the USSR represented a kind of informal world government that was operated bilaterally and from within the formal sphere of the UN Security Council by vetoes.[1]

Now that you have been corrected on this point, I will move on to the next one. You claim that the concept of "world government" is not related to "planetary management", yet the sources appear to say otherwise. What sources are you using? From your comments on this matter, I get the impression that you are confusing the concept of world government in political science with the fringe concept espoused in conspiracy theory. They are not the same. That misunderstanding seems to be the problem here. World government is a valid topic of scholarly study, and I suggest you visit Category:World government to see what kind of articles we are talking about. Until we are on the same page together, this discussion is not going to go anywhere. Do some research on planetary management and come back here when you are finished. You cannot manage the planet without some form of world government, and managing the planet is a subset of world government, which is why I included the category. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarify wp article title per content; suggestion: "Planetary habitability maintenance".[edit]

Clarify wp article title per content; suggestion: "Planetary habitability maintenance". (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making nonsensical edits to this page. Please try to create a single registered account and use it, because it is not possible to have a discussion with you when you change your IP with every edit. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
How about the title "Earth habitability maintenance"? (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I really don't know where you are getting these ideas, but this is a real topic and I don't know why you are trying to change the title or scope. Is this some kind of joke? Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not. Please help me understand how the title suggestion could be considered a "joke" (Have I lost my sense of humor)? The suggestion doesn't even look controversial to me (Have I lost my focus). It seems clear just from the first paragraph: "Planetary management is global-scale strategic and integrated management of Earth's biological, chemical and physical processes and cycles (water, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, and others). Planetary management also includes managing humanity’s influence on planetary-scale processes.[1] Effective planetary management aims to prevent destabilisation of the planet’s climate, protect biological diversity and maintain or improve human well-being. More specifically, it aims to benefit society and the global economy, and safeguard the ecosystem services upon which humanity depends – global climate, freshwater supply, food, energy, clean air, fertile soil, pollinators, and so on." ... am I missing something, if so please advise? (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are missing the original research policy. Please do some research on this topic and ask questions about it. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
What? That is not my original it is the first paragraph of the wp article "Planetary management", of this Talk page! To help our communication, please tell me about your educational background, any in Environmental Science, Ecology, Earth sciences, Biology and the like? (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
No, to help our communication, please do some research on this topic and come back here when you have sources to support your statements. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You, User:Viriditas, removed the PortalBox "

" added by User: Was this a mistake? (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a mistake. Portal boxes do not get stacked in the lead section like that, and I hardly think they belong here. Please don't spam the article with such things. Do some research, and help expand it. Also, why are you referring to your own IP in the third person? This is getting ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you didn't answer that you have any Life Science background, should I assume you don't then? Do you have any Natural Science background then, and to be clear don't count Political Science and any study of Human-only activity? (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stop speculating about other editors and start researching this topic and citing sources for the material. This is the last time I'm going to remind you. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Add Biogeochemical cycle to clarify: "Earth's biological, chemical and physical processes and cycles (water, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, and others)."[edit]

Add wikilink Biogeochemical cycle to clarify: "... Earth's biological, chemical and physical processes and cycles (water, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, and others)." This a very flat first sentence, and misses the dynamic quality of the topic, for an attempt at an self study encyclopedic-level informative article. (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to specify where to add or replace the link. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Include Environmental management as this article is about global environmental management of Earth.[edit]

Include Environmental management as this article is about global environmental management of Earth. (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not a particularly good argument, but, at least, it is an argument. I would like to see a better argument before including a link proposed by a POV-pushing anon editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
What is with the Self-righteousness attitude User:Arthur Rubin? Would this be of interest: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles? This seems like a No-brainer addition to me, IMHO. (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Pot. Kettle. Black. (Note that I'm not adding fake links, like the POV-pushing anon editor.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No-brainer is what you've got, what is a fake link? (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Easter egg (media), for example [[oil]] [[Pipeline transport|pipeline]], [[emotion|affect]], among others recently suggested by the IP swarm. Yesterday there were far worse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
What? (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Still, not a very good reason, considering the IP-hopping spam-linker's history. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see this history ... (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not add Sustainability and environmental management link?[edit]

Why not add Sustainability and environmental management link? (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you find a link "questionable" User:Arthur Rubin you are in Wikipedia:DOUBT, thus deletion without explanation isn't the correct process...[edit]

If you find a link "questionable" User:Arthur Rubin you are in Wikipedia:DOUBT, thus deletion without explanation isn't the correct process... It will be reverted if you don't respond within a reasonable timeframe. (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. The WP:BURDEN is on those adding material, including links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
No material was being added, it is simple understanding of the article itself: the management is Environmental management. (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like an addition to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Environmental governance[edit]

Add Environmental governance. (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? No reason given. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Since Planetary management is global-scale strategic and integrated management of Earth's biological, chemical and physical processes and cycles (water, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, and others) it is governance of the Environment, thus Environmental governance. (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. Still, there may be justification available somewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Any suggestions for somewhere? (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Any constructive comments, Mr. Rubin? Looks like is too vague, and clearly is too much. I have certainly been wrong before, so odds are I will be again sometime. If I am missing something, please help me understand. (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't have a constructive comment, other than to note that you don't have a constructive comment. It's a stretch, at best. If you can find justification in reliable sources, go ahead. I don't think you can. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)