Jump to content

Talk:Environmental issues in China/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bdybas1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 20 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leonardcisneros.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ssprak.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Close as a clear consensus in opposition to a merger. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The articles Climate change in China and Pollution in China describe environmental issues in China. Since there are no clear boundaries between the articles and since all three articles in total are not very long I propose they should be merged with this article. "Environmental issues in ---" seems to be the standard title used for such issues in Wikipedia and merging to this article is thus preferred rather merging with the "Pollution in China" article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, I think I made a similar proposal a while back but I support the rational for retaining "Environmental issues in China" title. These articles cover the same topic so they should be merged. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait - I think air and water pollution in China deserve their own articles; short summaries should be added to Environmental issues in China. This article should actually be split into air and water pollution, at least. They're very separate things, have separate histories and separate effects on health; also shielding against them works differently. --Sigmundur (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There are already 3 Wikipedia articles about water pollution in China. I have proposed merging them into one here: Talk:Water supply and sanitation in the People's Republic of China. This still would not merge water pollution with this article but keep water pollution as a separate article. There is not much material in Wikipedia about air pollution in China at the moment so I do not see a need for separate article for now. If much new material should be added in the future then a separate article about air pollution could then be created. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
If much new material should appear we can obviously create new articles if needed. But that is not the case currently. Even more importantly, there are no clear boundaries between "Environmental issues in China" and "Pollution in China". If there should be many articles there should be clear boundaries. So if more articles are needed, then better titles are needed also. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you serious? Pollution is a subset of environmental issues and they are completely different topics. Quite obviously the latter will only contain a summary of the former. Also, have you tried splitting articles once they get too big? I can tell you that it is not easy. All in all it is better to have reasonably sized articles about topics (assuming they are notable and in this case they are) from the start. Finally. the articles are long enough and merging them will make an unnecessarily long article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Most nations do not have an article called "Pollution in ---". "Environmental issues in ---" is the common top level article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Please have a look at Category:Pollution by country, Category:Pollution by country, Category:Environmental issues by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "Environmental issues in ---" is by far the most common title. The "Pollution in ---" articles are often in facts redirects to other titles or short stub/link articles while the real content is in "Environmental issues in ---". Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish. One redir and five articles (of varying quality) out of a total of eleven. Also have a read of WP:Other stuff exists. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:Other stuff exists does in fact state that consistency is sometimes a useful guide. Locking through all the linked "Pollution in ---" articles, the only ones having any significant content is "Pollution in China", "Pollution in New Zealand‎", "Pollution in Canada", "Pollution in the United States". All other nations have their contents in "Environmental issues in ---". Even for the United States, Pollution in the United States is just a short list with links to other articles with little real contents of its own. Sure, we can keep both Chines articles but there is not enough material for both. "Environmental issues in China" will essentially just become a glorified list of links if the pollution material is moved to the Pollution article and the water material is moved to the water articles. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I will reiterate - all the articles in question are notable topics so they are "allowed" to have their own articles. And since Environmental issues in China is an overview article there is a summary of the sibling articles left per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree that 'pollution in the PRC' is a distinct subject worthy of its own article, and that 'environmental issues in the PRC' can and should be more encompassing. I'll add that I hope this page can be fleshed out more and expanded to also include issues such as desertification, deforestation, resource scarcity (particularly relating to water—ie. problems posed by irrigation, sinking water tables, etc), and so on.Homunculus (duihua) 03:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • An addendum: the above comment is in reference to the proposal to merge 'pollution in the PRC' article with this one. I would support a merge of the climate change article, either with this one or with the pollution page (or both). The climate change article is principally concerned with discussing carbon emissions and China's participation in multilateral talks and treaties to regulate carbon output. This very easily falls under the broader category of pollution. The actual effects of climate change could fit within the purview of this page.Homunculus (duihua) 04:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The Climate change in China should be more comprehensive. It is an extremely notable topic so it is deserving of its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both Climate change in China and Pollution in China are important topics in their own right; both articles need substantial further development. Environmental issues in China include both of these areas, but go well beyond, as indicated in the beginning outline of the present article. Best to have one overview article and multiple, more focused articles than one mega article -- indeed it could be (and has been) a book... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Devolution of this article

I understand the general direction that this article has been taking, but in my opinion that direction has gone too far. It seems to be devolving into a list or outline, and a rather incomplete one at that. Better, in my view, for this article to serve as a general introduction and overview to this critically important topic. I would urge the editor(s) responsible for this devolution to rethink it & put some substance and overview back into this article. Alternatively, perhaps it could be reverted to an earlier form. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Environmental issues in the United States is little more than a list. Anyway, I have been mainly correcting various errors and moving some very detailed arguments to the appropriate subarticles. I will add short short introductions. Academica Orientalis (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I wouldn't necessarily hold up the "Env issues in the US" article as a model; room for improvement there, too. Thanks for adding introductions back in -- better! I would recommend using this talk page to outline & discuss plans for further development of this article & the topic(s) more generally. Eg. What other environmental issues should be included? How might coverage of current issues be expanded? Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
For now I intend to continue with a general clean-up of these articles. Correcting the many incorrectly and not sourced statements. Centralizing the many detailed but scattered statements into core articles while leaving short summaries in the broader overview articles. Once the clean-up is done one can better see what is lacking. Academica Orientalis (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears that much of the article is sourced to news reports and, occasionally, NGO reports. I would recommend relying on sources like Elizabeth Economy's The River Runs Black (Cornell University Press, 2005) to help provide a broad overview of the subject, and give us some basis to evaluate how to weigh specific topics and challenges. Judith Shapiro's Mao's War Against Nature might provide a bit more of a historical look at the origins of some of the contemporary problems, though I can't say I've read it myself.Homunculus (duihua) 00:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One thing that could be added to the article is a References section; both of these works could be included there. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"10 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are in China"

This lead statement is very dubious. It is sourced to an article [1] that quotes China's environmental agency regarding the 10 most polluting cities in China. Supposedly this also applies to the world as a whole. As far as I can see Chinese sources that mention this list do not make worldwide claims. See for example this source: [2]. Furthermore, World Bank data on different cities show that this statement is dubious. For example, Cairo has the top spot for particulates and Milan for nitrogen dioxide.[3]. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I suggest removing (or at least moving it into somewhere where comparable studies can be discussed in a less selective manner). There are many different lists of world's most polluted cities which employ different sets of criteria. The 2007 World Bank list of 20 most polluted cities included 16 in China,[4] but other top ten lists don't contain any Chinese cities.Homunculus (duihua) 02:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Environmental issues in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Data on China's Current Environmental Policy

Under 1. Environmental Policy, it states that "The Center for American Progress has described China's environmental policy as similar to that of the United States before 1970. That is, the central government issues fairly strict regulations, but the actual monitoring and enforcement is largely undertaken by local governments that are more interested in economic growth."

Upon clicking on the hyperlink "Center for American Progress," I found no information on that page related to China's environmental policy, or it's outdated regulations. The statement that China's environmental policy is similar to the United States' before 1970 is quite an assumption if there is no data to back it up. While it might be true that the central government has strict regulations, consider finding data that proves how local governments act upon the regulations. While some local governments do focus on economic growth, perhaps there are some local governments that focus on both environmental justice and economic growth. Please let me know if I missed any resources that do include this data!


Chenashley (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Ashley Chen

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Environmental issues in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Your in trouble

Pollution 117.193.169.19 (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

There are twenty-three entries, in three subsections, in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
  • WP:ELCITE: ...access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. Trimmed section. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Move content to Environmentalism in China

I propose moving some of the content in "Responses" to Environmentalism in China, as that article's scope covers much of the content here and probably belongs better there. It would refine the scope of both articles. Any thoughts? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

No, here is better and should also to stay as responses to issues are crucial about how they and if they are addressed. About Environmentalism in China, it is philosophical concepts and the movement and as I saw many issues are already under the scope of that article and responses as national environmental protection policy, sustainable development strategy, and scientific concept of development are also covered. Nubia86 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_issues_in_China/Archive_1&oldid=1183884181"