Talk:2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Remove Nagorno-Karabakh from this article?

I propose removing all mentions of Nagorno-Karabakh from this article as out of scope. Otherwise there will be timewasting arguments all year Chidgk1 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this is a climate change conference page. We have to restrict the attention to the substantive matters, such as climate finance, energy transition and other matters. I have nothing against the discussion on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue but that is a page on its own. User:Vanezi_Astghik already made such claims and posted a talk message on my profile, see User_talk:NurlanLalaev.

Note that Armenia also voted for Azerbaijan to host COP29 in December 2023. Hence, ideally we restrict issues related to Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict.

Please let's focus on climate change issues or other matters that relate to Azerbaijan's Presidency. NurlanLalaev (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Depends on whether reliable sources cover the conference in the context of that conflict. As it stands, there are no RS in the article currently that cover COP29 in the context of that conflict (there are some non-RS that make the link), so it should be removed. Thenightaway (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, User:Vanezi_Astghik please keep WP:RS. NurlanLalaev (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Thenightaway thanks for your comment. What sources concern you? Please take them to WP:RSN if you think there is need, but the sources look good to me and are third party. And Nagorno-Karabakh is IN Azerbaijan currently. Even Aliyev said he wanted this conference to be a testament to "peace". Source for "peacewashing": "Meanwhile, as hopes dwindle of Azerbaijan clinching its own peace deal with neighbour Armenia by COP29, Laurence Broers, associate fellow with Chatham House’s Russia and Eurasia Programme, warned about the risks of the “peace COP brand” looking “empty of content”." [1]. Vanezi (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The Choice of Location paragraph

The paragraph mostly contains information irrelevant to the location choice issue. On contrary, necessary information is absent. For instance, the fact that Armenia took hostages 2 Azerbaijani soldiers before quitting its COP29 initiative is absent.

The Choice of location paragraph should be either removed or rewriiten, due to multiple refernces to denialists and negationists like the Lemkin Institute, Michael Rubin etc. Hew Folly (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC).

What does “negationists” mean please? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Those who negate history through falsification and distortion of history. Hew Folly (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

And the Lemkin Institute is (or at least, was) an institution linked to the ARF [2], a left-wing nationalist organization that took part in war crimes against the Azerbaijani people during the First Karabakh War. It was even banned in Armenia (from 1994 to 1998) due to its involvement in political assassinations in Armenia [3]. Hew Folly (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead

The information on the Aliyev's family members allegedly being partners of the conference is of no value for the lead section. Hew Folly (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Instead, the lead should disclose the main goals of the conference.

International endorsement

Several international leaders, including Joe Biden, Xi Jinping endorsed the conference. Information on that should be added. Hew Folly (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

List of participants

A new section must be added. The list of high-ranking participants that would include not only the head of states but also high-ranking officials. Hew Folly (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Structure of the article

The article structure, as edited by Thenightaway, doesn’t follow the WP:MOS guidelines and deviates from the consistent format used across other COP-related articles (see COP28 for example). To keep things consistent, all criticism should be grouped into one section rather than interspersing it with information and then refuting it immediately. This isn't meant to be an agree/disagree essay where points are selectively omitted; it’s an encyclopedic entry that needs to be balanced and clearly organized. This consistency helps readers navigate and understand the content more easily, and sway from POV. — Toghrul R (t) 06:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. What other articles do is completely irrelevant (WP:OTHER) – the goal is not to replicate existing articles. Every random piece of criticism or controversy should not be lumped into a criticism or controversy section per WP:CSECTION. The politics of choosing the host should be in the section on the choice of location, the politics of choosing the COP29 Organizing Committee should be in the section for that, and anything related to the Pre-COP29 negotiations should be in the section for that. Thenightaway (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You're right, WP:CSECTION recommends avoiding connotative words like '"Criticism" or "Accolades" in section titles because it conveys a biased connotation to many readers. 'Alternative section titles which avoid a...connotation include..."Critiques"' 

WP:CSECTION states that 'the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title...if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material' WP:CSECTION also states that the approach to have a "criticism section ..."is sometimes used for politics," listing World Bank, Oracle, as examples. It is clearly a political decision to award the presidency of COP29 to Azerbaijan.(Reuters source) For example, as per Reuters, “Armenia agreed on Thursday not to block Azerbaijan's candidacy to host next year's COP29 U.N. climate conference as part of a series of mutual goodwill gestures intended to promote reconciliation between the estranged South Caucasus neighbours.”

At a very minimum, the subsection "Controversies" is inappropriate as per WP:CSECTION: "Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled. Criticisms are specific appraisals or assessments, whereas controversies are protracted public disputes, with opposing opinions rather than universal disapproval." 

For COP29, there is a tendency for universal disapproval rather than protracted public dispute here. The criticism here is very specific, namely the political choice to award a climate change conference in a fossil-fuel-producer country with a history of human rights violations and corruption.

I think that the critical content should be put in a section called "Critique of choice of location." 

In addition, the content currently under “Controversies” contains some WP:NOTNEWS which should be removed (like the Brazilian president cancelling attendance and Andrzej Duda skipping a group photo). Vanezi (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Article 6 article needs you

As you can see Cooperative Mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement could do with your loving editing if you have the time and interest Chidgk1 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)