Jump to content

Talk:Rights of nature

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that there is a school of legal thought that promotes the recognition of rights of nature, based on the utilitarian argument that humans' survival depends on a thriving nature, and the ethical argument that nature itself has as much right to exist and prosper as humans do?
    • ALT1:... that the recognition of rights of nature is already part of the law in 12 countries around the world?
    • ALT2:... that there is a school of legal thought that aims to recognize the rights of nature, following the same ethical principles that underpin human rights?

Converted from a redirect by LindaSheehan (talk). Nominated by Al83tito (talk) at 02:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Just FYI, you usually shouldn't have more than four citations in a row. Either move the citations closer to the content they support, or drop the weakest ones. Also, it would be appreciated if you quoted the source which supports "twelve countries", there are several citations in the article. buidhe 15:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT1 has unsuitable editorializing ("already"). A MOS-compliant version would be...

Hi there, I have made several suggested edits, and addressed other several matters in my message to reviewer Buidhe's talk page. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: ALT1b looks good. This is my first review in at least 9 years so please let me know if I messed something up here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Al83tito:@LindaSheehan: Thank you. But it's unclear why you need three cites in a row for one sentence fact. Meanwhile, I did a cursory check of the three cites given for this sentence: He warned against humanity’s current path, stating that “the deepest roots of our present failures” lie in the direction and meaning of economic growth and the overarching rule of a “deified market." and could not find the quote in any of the three refs. I am not prepared to check the cites for every sentence, but I think you should. Yoninah (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yoninah, the quotes not showing in the citations is the result of deleting some of the inline citations, and in error deleting the textual source that included it. You can find the complete sources we had initially provided, in this version from two days ago. Let me dive a bit deeper in two ways. First, I can unpack the rationale for overall having multiple citations in a row, and then more specifically provide the rationale for why there were five inline citations in this particular instance you mention.
    • First, in general, my understanding of the Wikipedia Verifiability and Notability policies suggest to me that more citing is generally better than less. I reach this understanding in part based on the fact that Verifiability is core policy, while Wikipedia:Citation overkill is an essay. So while I understand that we should use common sense and not go overboard with citations, there isn't a policy that limits or constraints editors to only one inline citation per sentence or paragraph. Also important in this case is the fact that Rights of Nature is a legal and ethical theory that may be unorthodox to a good number of readers and editors, and it is also a strong Wikipedia policy tbat exceptional claims have multiple citations to reliable sources, and not just one. I would not want to go so far as to say that everything in the article falls under the "exceptional" claims policy, but that more sourcing makes for a more robust article. So in my view Wikipedia policies more strongly suggest a floor for the number of citations, than a ceiling. A ceiling becomes more of a subjective and even stylistic choice, for which different approaches by different editors may be valid and respectable.
    • Looking into the sentence you mention is actually a good example to dive into. The quotes you mention came from a Papal Encyclical (reference in wikitext named "Pope Francis 2015"), which, per WP:USEPRIMARY is a valid source, it just needs to be used carefully, and not to infer other than straightforward meaning. We aimed to be very careful by using that source only for quotes, and then use very recognizable secondary sources to provide further context and interpretation. Making the claim that a pope is taking a specific stance on capitalism and on enviornmental issues is a strong and consequential claim, and it would actually be a poor practice if the editor writing the line in Wikipedia would only use one secondary reference. That would be insufficient because it could be questioned as that source having been picked to advance a particular biased point of view. So instead, we are citing three separate and well recognizable independent sources: Time Magazine ("Boori 2015") is useful as it provides broader context on the Pope's views, without directly diving into the encyclical. Then the Guardian ("Vidal 2014") and the NYT ("Yardley & Goodstein 2015") directly speak to the Pope's pronouncement in the encyclical. Finally, there is another source, a white paper, that collects religious quotes, including some from Pope Francis (reference named "Pope Francis 2014") which also helps provide some further context and insights into the Pope's views. This latter one I'd say is a more discretionary inclusion, and, in following your request to trim down the number of quotes, what we should have done is to eliminate that one, and leave the other four. So to recap, a world leader makes an important pronouncement in a text he authors, so we cite that as a primary source. We provide further context on the history of that leader's views through one secondary source, and we provide two other secondary sources that demonstrate the notability of that pronouncement, and interpret it. Whether all four of the inline sources that I suggest be kept, are strictly necessary, is still a judgement call; each editor may have a different opinion, and more than one approach can be valid. While I would want to heed your advice to trim down and eliminate that fifth citation, I'd request that you also provide some deference to us who worked in detail in the article, and support us in keeping the other references.
    • So while I respect your recommendation to trim down some inline citations if we have gone too far in some instances, I wouldn't say that there isn't at times a reason for going over 3 inline citations in a row. We have endeavored to address your concerns by trimming down, with the unfortunate consequence of actually having by mistake eliminated one that actually was very necessary, causing you to then question the validity of the sentence, which is what the original string of inline citations were there to support. We have endeavored to follow the best practices in writing the best article possible. It definitely can still be improved, and we appreciate your interest, time, and fresh views and perspectives, which can make the article better. So what I would suggest is that we do away with the 3-citations-in-a-row limit, and then LindaSheehan and I will go over it again and heed your advice to remove some citations that way. Thank you, Al83tito (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Sorry, but I disagree with your logic. If only one out of five cites contains the sentence fact, then only one cite is needed at the end of the sentence. You are adding another layer of meaning to your selection of cites that is not at all apparent to the reader of your article, and instead comes across as citation overkill. @BlueMoonset: and @Nikkimaria: would you mind chiming in here about featuring an article with an overabundance of citations for each sentence/paragraph on the main page? Yoninah (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yoninah, I will try to not say too much more and first wait for other editors to chime in. I'd just like to note a couple of things. First, that specific line contains both quoted text, and non-quoted text; the sentence draws the quoted text from one source, and the other non-quoted text is better backed up by the secondary sources. A single in-line citation would not be sufficient, in my view. I believe that it is more objectively necessary to have more than one inline citation in this situation, and that the subjective call is how many more than one is a good number. Secondly, I would like to re-emphasize what I mentioned earlier; that often times more than one editorial approach is respectable, and that editing an article should not be viewed as there only being one right way. You established a ceiling of 3 inline citations in a row. I have referred to some policies and explained my interpretation for how they don't set a limit. It would be helpful to me in our conversation here if you could point me to policies that speak to that ceiling. Overall, I would hope that we can have a conversation that is respectful of each other, demonstrated by reasoned explanations, and the good will to find validity wherever possible in each other's explanations, and the desire to find common ground. For example, I have recognized that you may have a point in at times there being too many inline citations, while respectfully explaining a different view on a specific ceiling of three. I have also already agreed with you to eliminate one of those five citations. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If different citations are being used to cite different things, it would be helpful to make that clear, either by rearranging the citations or bundling them with explanatory text. There is no specific ceiling on how many citations you may have in a row, but it is more than a stylistic concern if it's not clear which citations support what. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone ahead and made the adjustment as advised. I have placed the inline citation from which the quotations are taken, right at the end of each one of those. I have placed one NYT inline citation just after the clause talking about economic growth, and I have kept the Time magazine and The Guardian's inline citations at the end of the sentence, because they back up the overall sentence, and/or also because they specifically back up the second half of it. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if you realize this, but what you have created in the last two sentences of this paragraph is a citation nightmare. You have a citation after every clause, plus two more after the period for good measure. This is not the spirit of WP:CITE at all. You might wish to try Nikkimaria's other suggestion of WP:BUNDLING, with one footnote number at the end of each sentence that contains all your other cites inside it.

More recently, Pope Benedict XVI, head of the Catholic church, reflected that, “[t]he obedience to the voice of Earth is more important for our future happiness...than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive.”[1] His successor Pope Francis has been particularly vocal on humanity’s relationship with the Earth,[2][3] describing how humans must change their current actions in light of the fact that “a true 'right of the environment' does exist."[4] He warned against humanity’s current path, stating that “the deepest roots of our present failures”[2] lie in the direction and meaning of economic growth,[3] and the overarching rule of a “deified market"[2].[5][6]

  • Alternately, you may wish to request editing help at WP:GOCE, which has very experienced editors who edit articles every day.

Yoninah (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Catholic News Agency 2007 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Pope Francis 2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Yardley & Goodstein 2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Goldenberg & Kirchgaessner 2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Boori 2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Vidal 2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  • I have re-arranged them again, so they are all together at the end, and trimmed their number again to your ceiling of three. Unlike the situation that started this exchange, the source that includes the quotes is now cited. Al83tito (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pinging @Yoninah: again, as LindaSheehan and I have endeavored to address all of the review points. LindaSheehan has done a complete review of inline citations related to quoted text, and has made some tweaks to referencing. We have also already reduced the number of inline citations in a row. I request that Yoninah or someone else in the community remove the tag of the article, and continue with the approval of this article for inclusion in DYK. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. And sorry that unbeknownst to your almost simultaneous response here, I had also written on your talk page. 16:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • OK, I've removed the tag and am restoring the tick. The only question I have is why that lengthy note is cited in three different places. The first would seem to be enough. Thank you for your additional work on this. Yoninah (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Proposal to spin-off the Rights of nature law section

[edit]

Hi, I think that the article has reached a size where it could be preferable to split it into two, by spinning off into a separate article the section of Rights of nature law. If anyone has a different view, please share it here. Otherwise I may proceed ahead in a few days. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article split completed today. There are now two articles: Rights of nature and Rights of nature law. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rights_of_nature&oldid=1239743592"