This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
The article SDG 14 and the Rio Conventions was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 May 2019 with a consensus to merge the content into Sustainable Development Goals. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.
Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The post-2015 SDG process is gathering pace, with the final negotiations by Heads of State to happen in September 2015 in New York. The problem is I'm not sure how we should go about reflecting current positions on this page, it seem that things are moving quite fast and we might find that the information goes out of date quite quickly. I think perhaps for the avoidance of confusion, we might want to leave off some of the detail until it becomes clearer, or we may well just have to go back and edit it all out. Thoughts? JMWt (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I guess we could start with adding any suitable references that we are aware of which have been published or which are available online? And yes, it will have to be a dynamic page; I guess the page on MDGs must have also been quite dynamic. I wonder if we also need to think about this page as Post-2015_Development_Agenda? EvM-Susana (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be misunderstanding my point, I am wondering about whether we shouldn't do that in this case, given that the thing is being negotiated and the position papers today might change tomorrow. I am not sure how much detail we should add that would not just make things more confusing.JMWt (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is this: if a Wikipedia reader wants to understand the SDG thing, they would enjoy a fairly up to date page. And if something has been published, it can be cited on Wikipedia. There are lots of "dynamic" pages like this on Wikipedia, e.g. describing a certain disease outbreak, the development of ebola, describing the life of someon.... anyhow, question is if anyone has time and energy to contribute to this page... EvM-Susana (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article right now says nothing about the overarching principles of the 2030 agenda, including the principle of "leave no one behind", which is quoted numerous times in the resolution. Any ideas on how to fix this? (See also comment below that "Another phrase which might be worth referencing separately is leave nobody behind."). --balthas (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the leaders make a load of speeches and then sign the document. It has all been negotiated and the final document has already been written, so it is unlikely that anything surprising will happen. JMWt (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Ending poverty in all its forms everywhere" is not an encyclopaedic title, not an encyclopaedic topic. This part of the Sustainable Development Goals is better covered in the main article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the title doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic, the question is whether we have enough sources to write an article on that topic in specific. Looking at the amount of sources it currently has and the fact that it has a sourced criticism section, I'd say maybe, though it can really go either way. ~Mable (chat) 06:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am on two minds about this. Whilst it is clear that the phrase is a part of the SDGs, I think it might be worthwhile to discuss some of the main concepts in isolation to avoid making one really long page here. Another phrase which might be worth referencing separately is leave nobody behind.
On the other hand, currently there isn't a whole lot of point in starting a lot of new pages on issues relating to the wording of the SDGs given that this page is not yet very long anyway. So on balance, I'm going to come down on the side of Support the proposed merge with the proviso that it might end up being worthwhile to eventually have a collection of pages rather than one long one. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image with icons needs to be replaced (icons 9 and 16 have been updated since, please find the most up-to-date icons here (single hi-res image here), and more resources here on the UN Department of Public Information's Trello page regarding the SDGs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svwrd (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Rio +20 image needs to be replaced with the correct Global Goals image, here. I have initiated discussions about whether we should upload this image on Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions and the advice appears to be that it can be, but not on the commons as it is non-free. I'm not entirely clear how to do this, so anyone else who actually knows might like to take this on? The MCQ thread is hereJMWt (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did that. However, in view of the recent edit, with summary "The sustainable development Goals are not known as Global Goals. Global Goals is a campaign by two entities that seek to create awareness, but is not sanctioned by the UN. SDGs are not a replacement to MDGs. SDGs incorporated MDGs areas not achieved by 2015", I am now far from convinced that I was right to do so. Is what that IP editor from Kenya says correct? If so, the use of the logo in this article is not justifiable under our WP:NFCC, and should be removed. Please note that I have zero knowledge/expertise in this area, so am dependent on others for clarification. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well I am less sure that I was. It does appear that the Global Goals website is run by two organisations that are not the UN, however the twitter account @globalgoalsUN associated says it is the "Official twitter account of the United Nations on the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. Transforming our world by 2030," and the UN D-G is quoted on the UN website as saying "“Our task now is to get to work on meeting the SDG targets and making good on our promises to give girls all the opportunities they deserve as they mature to adulthood by 2030,” said Mr. Ban in his message on the Day, referring to the newly–adopted 2030 Agenda and its landmark 17 Global Goals."
I therefore think that it is correct to say that the Sustainable Development Goals are also known as the Global Goals, but it might need more verification as to whether this logo is owned and used by the UN. It was certainly being used in the background of the conference which adopted the SDGs in New York, see this official UN video. I'd be interested to hear an explanation of why the logo and name was being used if it was not at least semi-officially accepted by the UN.
As to the point whether the SDGs replaced the MDGs, I think the final statement adopted by the UN General Assembly is quite clear on this point. From paragraphs 16 and 17:
"16. Almost fifteen years ago, the Millennium Development Goals were agreed. These provided an important framework for development and significant progress has been made in a number of areas. But the progress has been uneven, particularly in Africa, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, and small island developing States, and some of the MDGs remain off-track, in particular those related to maternal, newborn and child health and to reproductive health. We recommit ourselves to the full realization of all the MDGs, including the off-track MDGs, in particular by providing focussed and scaled-up assistance to least developed countries and other countries in special situations, in line with relevant support programmes. The new Agenda builds on the Millennium Development Goals and seeks to complete what these did not achieve, particularly in reaching the most vulnerable.
17. In its scope, however, the framework we are announcing today goes far beyond the MDGs. Alongside continuing development priorities such as poverty eradication, health, education and food security and nutrition, it sets out a wide range of economic, social and environmental objectives. It also promises more peaceful and inclusive societies. It also, crucially, defines means of implementation. Reflecting the integrated approach that we have decided on, there are deep interconnections and many cross-cutting elements across the new Goals and targets."
The MDGs will no longer be applicable at the end of 2015, and will be replaced by the SDGs. I'd be interested to hear any other way these words can be read.
Well the correct title of the outcome document of the sustainable development summit last weekend, of which the SDGs are a part is "Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development". I think this is the natural place to continue describing the agenda and therefore should redirect any other pages here, although we should note in the text somewhere that it has been called Agenda 2030. I have not seen this being used - the preferred UN wording seems to be to call them the " global goals". JMWt (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for "Agenda 2030" (in quotes) produces 927,000 results, search also produces links to "2030 Agenda", I think some kind of redirect would be good. (It would help Google searchers to find the WP article, right?) I'm not expert on making redirects but I did it once. If no one objects I'll redirect it here and ref the other name in the lede. Google search for "Global Goals" doesn't show Wikipedia in the first 100 results. Maybe make a redirect for that too? Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected Global Goals and Agenda 2030 here, although I'm a bit less sure about whether the latter is really needed. I guess we'll see if anyone complains. Hopefully anyone searching on wikipedia for "Agenda 2030" or "2030 Agenda" will find one of these, but I don't think it will have much impact on the google search results for a long while. JMWt (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had deleted Global Goals logo and also mentioning of Global Goals in the introductory paragraph. My change was almost immediately deleted by User:JMWt. I had, I hope clearly explained reason of my change. So once more: There is difference between official "Sustainable Development Goals" - UN official initiative - see https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics - with official logo and Global Goals. Global Goals are a public private partnership activity by a UK based organisation - http://www.globalgoals.org/. In the section http://www.globalgoalsmerch.com/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=4 you can clearly see that this is not UN page. There is sometimes even within some UN bodies misunderstanding about this. It can be mentioned in the article, but not using it in the head of the article.
see discussion above. Let's discuss this before you arbitrarily remove things.
I agree that there is a level of confusion - but the DG of the UN used the term, and the logo was used in the UN conference in September. Clearly the logo and term is being used by the UN, a version of it even appears on the link you've used above. We even discussed the license issue above. Do you have anything to add to that discussion? JMWt (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had not mentioned the discussion about Global Goals and SDG as only now you have changed the title of that discussion - I looked it. I do not really know, where is the problem, but arguments in the discussion are not correct - the link to logo goes to private page, not to official UN page, in video you link there is logo which I already linked - to be precise the logo, which includes UN logo + words "Sustainable Development Goals". For deletion of wrong logo and mentioning of Global goals I was asked by colleagues from Women major group who were directly present in UN Session as they really have problem with Global Goals private initiative. I agree, that wording "Global goals" could remain on the page, but logo is definitely wrong. I had even downloaded UN official graphical manual and had not found "Global Goals" logo there. --Jirka Dl (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the multicoloured circle appears on the page you link to above. And you have not addressed the point about SG Ban using the term. Clearly at a high level the yerm Global Goals and versions of the coloured circle are being used by the UN. JMWt (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, James. :) You might want to ask opinions at WP:MCQ or get feedback at WT:NFC. Those are some of my go-to places when I'm in volunteer mode, and I feel like they'll be able to give you good advice! Of course, when engaged as WMF staff, we can't provide advice on content changes (or provide legal advice). We have to keep a clear division between our role as staff and editorial decisions to protect the projects. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about we add the official UN SDG logo to the top of the page and move the Global Goals logo further down? It looks to me that there are three graphics on the UN page referred to above which could be described as a "logo", as far as I understand, the words in a general font are not considered to be under copyright anyway as per WP:LOGOS. That seems to me to suggest that only the coloured circle and blue UN crest could be considered to be non-free anyway. Maybe someone else can sort this out, as I'm not sure how to upload images to en.wiki. JMWt (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had saved logo taken directly from the UN SDGs graphical manual to Google drive - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6sYFv6B8PktSGxGSnRrNm5fWWs - if this is Poblic Domain, than it can be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons and directly used on the page. There are also logos for each goal available in this UN Manual - so if somebody will solve directly the Copyright, I can upload also those logos.--Jirka Dl (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this moment, do not use the SDG logo in article - there is a request to delete it from Commons, probably the approval for free using in UN page is not enough. Still it exists other solution - to upload it to enwiki.--Jirka Dl (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already went around this bypass before (see the discussion above) and the powers-that-be at Commons determined that it was non-free. So the solution was to upload a low res version to en.wiki - as has been done with many different logos for brands, etc. The problem is that I don't know how to do this. JMWt (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was the one who uploaded the (non-free) Global Goals logo, I feel some responsibility for making sure that it is used only under a proper claim of fair use. In view of this discussion and the recent changes to the article, I am far from convinced that fair use applies. I've commented out the logo for now, but plan to request deletion of it unless I'm persuaded otherwise. Meanwhile, the deletion request for the UN logo on Commons was closed as "kept", so that could be used here. Doc James, we could of course have two logos if they were both free to use, but I can't persuade myself that using the non-free logo of a different organisation (Project Everyone?) is justifiable here. Am I wrong? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I'd like to add the following to this article, but before I do, I want to know if it's OK with you. I need to create a wiki which can be accepted by anyone as the offical wiki of the GlobalGoals club as described in my article. I intend to push this subject as described in the web site quoted, so expect many many wiki entries. My thought is that I'd create a page for each of the 17 goals, but it would suffice if a "goal Ref" could be included with each article to identify which goals it's meant to address. Is it OK if I include it here, or would you like me to start a new page? How do I begin the assosiated wiki? Here my proposed article:
The GlobalGoals Club
On 23 Nov 2015 a proposal was openly published in the internet calling on the creation of a club with One Goal, creating a platform for all people, the world over, to work as a team in irradiate the causes and effects of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals on mankind.
Proposed was that every human on the face of the earth, who can afford to help in this task, should pay a monthly BigOhman (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)“membership fee” of at least $1.00 or 1 of whichever currency they use. This fee should be donated to the WFP with the text “The Club” annotating the donation as “for club purposes”. It was also proposed that this money be made publicly visible to anyone who is interested, with the purpose of making the funds and how they’re used, completely transparent.[reply]
The club will establish a WIKI, editable by anyone, which has the purpose of answering questions pertaining to the 17 goals, to give everyone the life saving tips needed to get and stay out of poverty and eliminate hunger as well as the other scourges named by the UN. Additionally, a BLOG will be created to allow anyone to ask a question, which someone can attempt to answer within the wiki.
unfortunately it appears what you want to do is not suitable for Wikipedia, see this link: WP:NOT. Remember the point here is to create an encyclopaedia not a blog or campaign tool - and if you attempt to do what you describe above it will likely be removed quickly.
But I disagree with you, my article directly relates to the topic and should be seen as the reason for a wiki. The blog will be somewhere else, not in WP! Originally I was going to create my own wiki, but it's info important to humanity, so should be here. My 1st article will explain how to set up a garden using drip irrigation, the second an improved, yet to be developed, computer automated drip system. In my opinion, it belongs here. Thank you for you opinion, I know answers to this problem can be found, they must be made available to all.BigOhman (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I've been considering that, but why create something that already exists and is accepted? I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, but to fill in the blanks in the wheel.BigOhman (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you'll just have to believe us when we trll you that this content is not suitable for Wikipedia, friend. Have you thought about working on appropedia? It sounds like your idea would fit there. Once again, if you do it here, it will just be deleted. JMWt (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am making small edits to improve readability, as part of the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA) effort to improve public education about anything sanitation-related. SuSanA's mission is to achieve SDG6 (water and sanitation for all). We believe public education about sanitation will help, thus the Edit-a-Thon happening right now in the lead up to World Water Day. I'm an editor, not a sanitation expert.
Please comment here if you object or are concerned about any my edits. My goal is to retain all the information--and accurately--while using shorter words, shorter sentences and shorter paragraphs. To anyone monitoring this article: 1) please see what you think about my edits to the first few paragraphs 2) are you in agreement that it would be good for me to continue and try to improve readability throughout?
I don't think there is anything much to be concerned with from your edits. I think the second para in the lead should probably have some kind of reference, I don't really like reading that something is "oft quoted" without some evidence of it. But your edits are constructive and things can always be corrected. Keep going as you are and don't be offended if someone else comes along and changes things again, that's the way things often happen on wikipedia.. JMWt (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the odd-ness of "oft quoted," but didn't see an obvious solution. I wasn't able to find the first instance of Plan B and Planet B being used in one of his speeches.PlanetCare (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think that this, an official UN record of the UN S-G is good enough: "we don’t have plan B because there is no planet B. We have to work very hard, very seriously and urgently" hereJMWt (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if it's helpful to include some of the targets for each goal. E.g. for SDG6 I have now added the first three. I don't think we should include all targets as we are not doing a repeat of the UN website, but adding a select few might be useful. Is it OK to copy them across, using quotation marks and citing the source? I couldn't find an open access statement on their website although I see here on the talk page it has been discussed previously in 2015 what the copyright situation is. Ping User:JMWtEMsmile (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes they are sourced but I am in two minds: if we copy all of them then it's like we're recreating the UN website which perhaps defeats the purpose? They are important though (and they cannot be summarised). - See how I've done it for Goal 6 a little while ago; I think it's useful if we can cite any relevant discussions with references where they exist already - more will come in future. EMsmile (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see consistency in how each of the 17 goals are covered. Same amount of detail and same format. I agree with an earlier editor who thought we should NOT quote the Targets wholesale. See my current edit of Goal 1 and Goal 2, where I tried out a format. Quote the Goal exactly, then select four bullet points giving information readers would consider most relevant. (this allows us to omit some of the detailed caveats and clauses and all-inclusive language that people can find for themselves on the UNGD page.) I would also include one paragraph at the end about which might be a summary of the challenges in achieving the goal. PlanetCare (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand (as a reader) what the bullet points in the Goal 1 section signify? I am missing a sentence before them like "The main targets are...", or something like that. Also remember that bullet points are a bit frowned upon in Wikipedia. We should only use them if we really have to. In general, prose is preferred. If bullet points, then the question is also where to put the citation. I would normally put it at the end of the sentence that goes just before the bullet points. Or at the end of each bullet point. - Also, I don't think every SDG needs to be covered in the same amount of detail. This will depend on where the energy is and which Wikipedians are active. Some of the SDGs might get bigger than others, and then be spun off into a separate article. E.g. SDG6 might warrant its own spin-off article in future. EMsmile (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also what do these double dashes mean? This is not clear to me: "There is no poverty – End Poverty in All its Forms – Everywhere"EMsmile (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I thought the bullets were someone's way of making it possible to give more information, but I think they are there because they were lifted from the list on the UNDP page. I'd be quite happy to revert to paragraphs for each SDG, and then not be quite as constrained. of course, everyone would make a different judgment about what details to include and not include. I also learned that the article doesn't use the exact wording found in the UNDP doc. There's a mix of the communications team's shaved down language, and some longer phrases, but none are the exact words. I'll wait to you finish up on this and then go back to it in an hour or so. Paragraphs it is. and good to know you think it won't be a big problem to make some shorter than others. I do think we have to list all 17, and I'm inclined to use the exact language for the single phrase. then add paragraphs. OK?PlanetCare (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yea - for some of the Goals the bullets are actually listing some of the "main targets" (which could be OK); whereas for other goals they seem to list - what? I am not too sure. I haven't looked at them in detail, only the SDG6. Keeping the original language for the Goal (together with a shorter version) makes sense. But we wouldn't want to have all the targets listed, right? It's not meant to be a repeat/replacement of the UN website (or the "World we want" website)... EMsmile (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reformated all 17 goals. I just noticed that this format does affect the "Contents" section. I like how the text looks, and having both the actual language from the colorful chart, and the actual single statement from the UNDP goals. Can we live with what this does to the Contents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanetCare (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for forgetting to sign the last comment. I think we are in good shape now with the formatting? It would be nice to have subject matter experts for each SDG do the selecting of targets, indicators and 2017 progress to highlight under each goal. As is, I'm making choices based on what interests me. I welcome other to add information (or even make completely different choices if you disagree with what I'm including.)PlanetCare (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae/tlk 22:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Stricken per request; see also User talk:Diannaa#Copyvios on Sustainable Development Goals. /wiae/tlk13:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt: I've gone ahead and struck out the text of the notice. As for the content, if it's not a copyright violation then anyone would be free to reinsert it into the article. My personal preference would be to summarize the goals rather than quote them wholesale, but I certainly wouldn't object if you or other editors here wish to reinsert the text. Thanks, /wiae/tlk13:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad the copyright issue has been resolved. I am still undecided on whether it makes sense to copy all the targets across or not (see the sub-heading just above this one), User:Wiae. I can't see a way of really "summarising" them. One option would be to list the first 5 targets for each goal, for example, or the most important ones. Then there are also the indicators for each target. Some could be of interest, especially if they have led to ongoing discussions for which we could cite other publications. EMsmile (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The result of this discussion was no consensus, because this has been left open over three years during which both articles have changed considerably. I suggest anyone wanting a merge create a fresh proposal with an updated rationale. Pontificalibus15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that the content of the above page be merged here. It was describing the process of agreeing the SDGs, but as these are now agreed, it does not seem to serve much purpose outside of the remit of this page. Anyone have any thoughts - I have added the section here to keep all the merge proposals together. JMWt (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good idea. As I said below, I read the article about Sustainable Development Goals in the New York Times yesterday, which also said it is called Agenda 2030 so I picked the easiest title to Google and had a hard time finding out what Wikipedia has to say about it. Thanks! Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: the most important sections of Post-2015 Development Agenda should be merged to here and then a redirect be placed. Or at the very least the old article needs to be updated to make it clear that the process is now concluded (I've just modified the lead to that effect). It might be OK to keep the old article but it must be clear that it's kind of a history part for the SDG article. What do you think, User:PlanetCare? EMsmile (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually after I wrote this, I felt inspired to take a closer look at the history section. I have now re-arranged things a bit. I hope you all agree that it's better: the article started off with a long bit on history in the section "background". I have now moved that to a dedicated history section towards the end of the article. I think most readers what to know at the start what the SDGs are all about and not how they came about. I find the structure a fair bit cleaner now. Based on this new structure, we probably don't need to do the merger anymore but perhaps just revisit the page Post-2015 Development Agenda and make it really clear that this is the detailed history page for the SDGs, I guess. EMsmile (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I've made a start with adding more images. Who else can help? At first I thought about adding the official logo for each SDG. We could to that. But perhaps more interesting are real photos giving some indication of a bad situation and of a good situation. This might work better for laypersons reading this? EMsmile (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely need more images, so I hope someone will work on that. Two thoughts on existing images: I would rather see the image of the homeless man associated with the SDG 11, on cities and affordable housing. Also, I question using a photo of an airplane, even an SDG livery airplane. Would it be OK to delete that in favor of finding images that relate to sustainable fuels to put alongside SDG 7.PlanetCare (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also question the photo of the UN document. It's so tiny that it can't be read, and it's boring enough that it doesn't add to the interest factor, which we count on images to do. How about taking that one out, too, along with the airplane?PlanetCare (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like having the images appear on the left once in a while. Could someone move the image of the reef up so it appears alongside "life below water"? This one is a good candidate for moving to the left.PlanetCare (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: These logos of Sustainable development goals are copyrighted. For instance, the Portuguese version File:Sustainable Development Goals POSTER PT.jpg for instance, has a source that points to the writing:"UNITED NATIONS Copyright 2017". The Spanish version claims CC by-sa, but the Propriedad intellectual page says: "Ninguno de los materiales contenidos en este sitio se podrá utilizar, reproducir ni transmitir, en su totalidad o en parte, en forma alguna y por ningún medio, ya sea electrónico o mecánico, incluidas la fotocopia, la grabación o la utilización de cualquier sistema de almacenamiento y recuperación de información, salvo lo dispuesto en las Condiciones de utilización de los sitios de las Naciones Unidas en la Web, a menos que se cuente con la autorización escrita del editor." However, the Indonesian version (see Sustainable Development Goals.jpg) obtained an OTRS permission. Can we consider all the works listed here as DW from this Indonesian version?
Hello. The lead contains a statement that might not be true. I added a citation needed flag. There's no question that the SDGs concern "all countries." Of course they do.
"Unlike the MDGs, the SDG framework does not distinguish between "developed" and "developing" nations."
For example, a number of targets say "in developing countries, in particular least developed countries". Also this page states "we underscore the special challenges facing the most vulnerable countries and, in particular..."[long list]. How can the United Nations really equate every country at this time? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Report of the UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda explains that "MDG 8 is the only Goal that gave direct responsibility to the developed countries. This perpetuated the “donor-recipient” paradigm, rather than calling for collective action at the multilateral level to achieve a stable global economic environment." and then "The post-2015 agenda should replace donor recipient relations with collective action". This is understandable but it is not what this article says. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SusanLesch. I've done some further work on this. I think it's useful to have a comparison with the MDGs which I have now created in a separate sub-heading (but it's not necessary to go into that level of detail in the lead).EMsmile (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sustainable development goals
The Carnegie Mellon Heinz University College of Information Systems and Public Policy and the Brookings Institution Global Economy and Development Program sponsored an event in November 29, 2018 to determine how the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can assist United States cities deal with local economic, environmental, and political concerns crucial to health and wellbeing of inhabitants.
https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/https://www.brookings.edu/about-global-economy-and-development/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/12/19/us-cities-leading-on-the-sustainable-development-goals/
The United Nations General Assembly embraced the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in September 2015 which included 17 so-called Sustainable Development Goals. The principle was to leave no one behind. This agenda underscored a complete approach in attaining sustainable development.
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/envision2030.html
According to the UN, the target is to reach the community farthest behind. The Body aims to ensure that commitments are transformed into effective actions requiring a correct perception of target populations. However, numerical and non-numerical data or information must address all vulnerable groups such as children, elderly folks, persons with disabilities, refugees, indigenous peoples, migrants, and internally-displace individuals.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/leaving-no-one-behind
193 governments including the United States ratified the SDGs. However, the UN reported minimal progress after three years within the 15-year timetable of this project. Funding remains trillions of dollars short. The US stands last among the G20 nations to attain these Sustainable Development Goals and 36th worldwide.
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/12/16/on-philanthropy-un-sdgs-fall-short/https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-g20-3306114
Thanks for your contribution, LOBOSKYJOJO. Of the paragraph you proposed, most of it is a repeat of general information that should already be in the article. But this part is potentially worthwhile to add:
How about you give it a go and add it in the right place? Be sure that you don't copy sentences 1:1 from the newspaper article but rather paraphrase them (perhaps you have already done so, I haven't check that yet). EMsmile (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just did a rather complex merge to here from an article that was proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDG 14 and the Rio Conventions. The creator of that article created some useful content with sources for SDG 14, which has been merged into the SDG 14 section here. I fear that this section might now be repetitive or out of order, so the regular folks here are welcome to fix that section as needed. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)18:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that User talk:Doomsdayer520. It's maybe a bit long now but that's OK. I hope that eventually each SDG will get its own separate article. When that happens, we could move some of the content to there. EMsmile (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you getting at or proposing, ClemRutter? Are you saying the article should be named "Sustainable development goals"? That's not how it's spelled in all the publications though. EMsmile (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP is mega touchy about the over use of capital letters for common nouns as distinct from proper nouns. Look at the list in the lead N and compare with the same list used in the index Y below. There are tricky border-line cases such--what may experts thought of as sustainable development goals were not included in the published Sustainable Development Goals. or This is one of the sustainable development goals under discussion.ClemRutter (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not sure about this, User:ClemRutter. It seems a bit like an academic discussion. In my opinion it would probably be better to be consistent. Right now we have a mixture, sometimes it's with capital letters (Sustainable Development Goals), sometimes it isn't (sustainable development goals). Already in the lead we have now the two different versions. Is that really helpful for the reader? Wouldn't it be better to be consistent and just make it capitals throughout because it's a "proper noun"? What does everyone think, e.g. User:Ad Huikeshoven? EMsmile (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this little essay piece about population growth because it had no references. If someone has references for it, it could probably go back in: "Risk factors - The goal of achieving sustainable human population and lifestyle levels, and the scientific issues of matching ecosystems (and the Earth as a whole) to the number of human beings that they can sustainably support at a certain life-style level, seem neglected and largely unarticulated. Human population levels and reproductive rates are independent variables in trying to reach the SDGs and in aiming at an overall sustainable Earth/Human Community, they need to be scientifically recognized as such." EMsmile (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference I found about population growth related to the SDGs is on the UN website that shows population, consumption, and the environment from 2015 which is this. This page shows the wall chart that details the latest data on the indicators of the SDGs that relates to population. I hope this helps. --~~~~ Peech87 (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much to say about each goal, it seems like it would be advantageous to have separate articles for each of the 17 SDG's instead of trying to cover all of that in one place here. That way editors can focus on particular areas and build the content for each goal. --KarenCang (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please go ahead and create them if you have time, KarenCang. So far, only SDG 6 and SDG 16 have their own articles. When I have time later this year I would also work on the other 15 new SDG articles. EMsmile (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be an overview of each SDG here with links to each SDG. Each goal has a complex array of characteristics, progress, history, etc. Debbie Goss (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:Elliot321. What do you mean by template and linking? I see them simply as sub-articles of the overall SDG article. As a starting point, do we all agree that the article for SDG 6 (created years ago by me) is in principle a good one? The other individual SDG articles could follow a similar outline then? EMsmile (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am undecided whether the sub-articles on the SDGs should list all targets and indicators (like it was done here Sustainable Development Goal 15 or be more like prose where targets are mentioned and discussed where relevant, like here Sustainable_Development_Goal_6#Targets. I think the latter style is preferable but of course a bit more time consuming. Or have a combination of both: pure listing plus discussion/explanations. EMsmile (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should SDG 5 have its own article and is there copyright violation when listing the targets?
@User:Sphilbrick please participate in this discussion if you don't agree that each SDG can have its own article (after you deleted my creation of SDG 5. Also @User:Sadads. If it's a copyright issue according to you, then let's get clarification on that. The indicators were in UN resolutions. If it helps, here is the UN resolution with the SDG targets (not the indicators): https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/L.85&Lang=E This is in the public domain so how can this be a copyright issue? EMsmile (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I could also copy the targets from here if you prefer. Their website has as a licence CC-BY SA 3.0 which is compatible. @User:Sphilbrick please clarify for my why you wanted the SDG 5 page deleted? One reason that I could understand is that it's still too short. We can work on that in our sandboxes but I thought it's acceptable to start with a stub? EMsmile (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EMsmile, UN documents are not, in general, in public domain. If you think this one is, please provide some evidence. I looked very briefly and did not see it on the document. If it is noted elsewhere, I need to see it. S Philbrick(Talk)15:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sphilbrick Please point me to the website that says UN resolutions are not in the public domain? Here it says: "With regard to treaties and conventions, while each individual text is in the public domain, the online UN Treaty Collection is proprietary." Meanwhile, would you have less of a problem if I used this website as a source for the targets of the SDGs?: See here for SDG 5 at the bottom: https://www.globalgoals.org/5-gender-equality If you look at their licence it's CC-BY SA 3.0, so I could just copy from there right? Meanwhile, the discussion is still to be had whether the readers would find it helpful to see the entire list of 10 targets for SDG 5 or just a somewhat truncated list, like we currently did for SDG 6. Would you in that case not have deleted it? Would you be tempted to delete SDG 6 as well? And I don't know why you put this in the edit summary when you reverted, even though that pdf file is not even cited anywhere: "Copyright issue re https://www.gnhc.gov.bt/en/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/SDGS-AND-INDICATORS.pdf" Was that particular pdf file flagged somewhere by someone to be a copyright violation? EMsmile (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are many UN resolutions happily sitting in Wikimedia Commons, see here. The most recent ones that someone has uploaded are from 2017. It says there under licensing "This text document, published by the United Nations without a copyright notice, was left in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications" (detail). It falls into one of the following categories outlined in Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 (paragraph 2):
Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, periodic supplements, compilations of resolutions, etc.)
United Nations documents issued with a UN document symbol
Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including material that is offered for sale)" EMsmile (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EMsmile, I think you are misunderstanding how this works. All documents created by authors in countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention, (created after becoming a signatory to the Berne Convention), are automatically subject to full copyright unless there is explicit legislation (or case law) stating otherwise. For example, the major exception is works created by a United States federal employee in the course of their employment are automatically public domain. There are a few other examples, such as the specific language of statutes, and some case law related to the statutes. Other than that, documents are presumed to be fully copyrighted unless they are explicitly licensed otherwise.
As your link to the commons site indicates, the full text of the UN " treaties and conventions" is deemed to be public domain. I'm not aware of any other classes of exceptions, although it is possible that individual documents are specifically licensed but those licenses are typically part of the document.
I'm happy to see the specific licensing at this site. That's a rare and welcome exception to the way the UN has typically worked. I hope it's a positive sign for their general practices.
I don't know the status of a sustainable development goal, meaning whether it qualifies as a "treaty and conventions" or not. If there is some evidence that it does qualify then everything's fine but those things don't sound like treaties and conventions to me, so I like to see something in writing rather than just assuming that it qualifies.
I have e-mailed a bunch of people on Friday to find out if that particular UN resolution is in the public domain (free of coyright) or not. I mean this resolution which contains the SDG indicators: https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313 . Meanwhile, if we just copy a section from there (e.g. only the indicators for SDG 5), then shouldn't this be allowed based on "Excerpts from a non-sales publication: No permission is necessary to reproduce excerpts from a non-sales publication provided that proper credits are given." (see here: https://shop.un.org/rights-permissions )? Like we have done here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goal_14#Targets_and_indicators Overall, our aim is to have for each SDG article plenty of prose and discussion, including references that are specific for that SDG. If we do that for SDG 5 would you User:Sphilbrick drop your objection to having a separate article for SDG 5? EMsmile (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Sphilbrick I got this information by e-mail "The document that put the masthead documents, like the resolution mentioned, in the public domain (on an experimental basis) is ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2, see paragraph 2(b). The document that indefinitely extended the experiment is ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2/Add.2" I think this matches what it says here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Nations But I am not sure if I need to supply further proof or what I can do to make it completely clear? EMsmile (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EMsmile, I'm fine with that. Please be aware that our copyright detection tool CopyPatrol, looks to see if new edits include text that matches text elsewhere. That tool does not have the capability to determine whether the text elsewhere is public domain by definition, or explicitly licensed. For that reason, we get many false positives due to matching text. You can help us out by noting the existence of the proper license or permission in the edit summary. This is not directed to you personally, in general, adding text by any editor ought to be text in the editor's own words with some exceptions. In the case of any exceptions (restoration of improperly removed material, addition of properly licensed material, etc.) it is always helpful if the editor explains the edit with an edit summary. an edit summary explaining that the material is properly licensed will be read by the volunteer working on CopyPatrol reports, and will help ensure that it isn't incorrectly reverted. While volunteers who help out with CopyPatrol are familiar with some of the common PD sources (material produced by federal employees in the course of their employment) and typically look for signs of a license, it is unfortunately common that a site owner might put a general copyright notice at the bottom of the page while including acceptably licensed material elsewhere on the page and not make the license perfectly clear. Explaining yourself in an edit summary will help ensure that the volunteer looks carefully in the right places. S Philbrick(Talk)18:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the following table because in my opinion it doesn't fit here. Perhaps move to a sub-article? Also the source is not easily accessible so the data cannot be easily checked (edit: the report seems to be here). Here is the table:
Country
2019 Global Index Rank
2019 Global Index Score (0-100)
Goal 1 Score
Goal 2 Score
Goal 3 Score
Goal 4 Score
Goal 5 Score
Goal 6 Score
Goal 7 Score
Goal 8 Score
Goal 9 Score
Goal 10 Score
Goal 11 Score
Goal 12 Score
Goal 13 Score
Goal 14 Score
Goal 15 Score
Goal 16 Score
Goal 17 Score
Denmark
1
85.2
99.57
68.29
96.11
98.25
84.83
90.75
93.64
83.91
88.09
96.49
90.18
49.75
90.16
48.87
87.17
92.81
89.83
Sweden
2
85.0
99.03
63.32
97.76
99.30
88.87
93.53
98.68
83.55
91.66
100.00
90.31
52.18
87.20
42.26
75.17
83.84
98.20
Finland
3
82.8
99.84
58.22
96.23
98.89
89.24
92.60
96.39
82.53
83.66
97.86
88.31
48.72
70.98
55.47
82.13
92.94
73.96
France
4
81.5
99.54
66.03
94.26
97.39
86.51
87.91
96.96
78.07
73.63
85.65
87.04
53.41
86.36
64.23
76.67
76.60
75.14
Austria
5
81.1
99.19
71.58
94.93
96.56
79.05
94.90
93.83
82.03
80.24
87.40
85.82
45.52
84.29
71.44
92.03
68.02
Germany
6
81.1
99.64
68.69
94.80
88.98
77.00
89.45
93.24
84.37
80.45
83.41
90.86
47.37
90.22
40.54
82.56
83.44
83.15
Czech Republic
7
80.7
99.41
63.10
92.41
96.28
71.07
87.95
91.80
85.14
63.21
92.27
89.41
70.75
89.06
91.03
82.71
55.52
Norway
8
80.7
99.48
57.03
97.89
99.87
87.72
87.45
98.56
78.48
79.96
100.00
86.10
30.50
54.35
66.17
63.15
84.94
99.57
Netherlands
9
80.4
99.61
65.41
96.43
94.21
81.55
92.65
91.55
83.05
82.34
94.57
91.07
44.05
88.28
41.21
83.20
83.54
53.69
Estonia
10
80.2
99.68
58.34
88.82
95.27
75.29
89.72
88.94
84.81
61.50
72.25
90.30
58.70
85.03
81.30
90.51
87.76
55.53
New Zealand
11
79.5
99.97
63.08
94.64
98.10
84.71
90.73
95.88
88.15
73.88
83.04
51.52
91.53
57.01
47.06
92.61
64.91
Slovenia
12
79.4
99.67
64.62
92.69
96.65
75.31
82.35
93.57
84.68
61.03
100.00
85.94
60.77
91.23
33.31
82.52
88.06
57.55
United Kingdom
13
79.4
99.69
66.38
94.55
99.41
81.29
95.09
93.01
82.91
81.42
71.40
90.79
42.93
84.62
57.52
73.73
85.71
48.94
Iceland
14
79.2
99.70
62.58
96.88
97.43
85.49
87.36
99.37
83.04
75.50
99.21
89.90
50.59
88.55
35.89
34.49
93.05
67.40
Japan
15
78.9
98.98
68.03
94.89
98.09
58.49
84.46
93.38
88.49
79.90
76.77
75.36
55.57
90.39
53.60
69.96
90.35
64.88
Belgium
16
78.9
99.54
70.24
94.14
94.74
83.90
79.25
91.94
81.41
75.88
93.42
82.33
46.65
82.94
30.65
84.96
86.87
62.29
Switzerland
17
78.8
99.88
62.62
97.79
91.87
82.16
95.49
96.71
79.79
93.31
80.01
98.35
27.91
88.95
57.74
83.00
53.32
Korea, Rep.
18
78.3
99.01
77.87
92.35
95.82
63.94
81.49
92.50
86.20
83.72
86.47
80.31
63.53
87.72
54.79
57.19
75.36
53.35
Ireland
19
78.2
99.69
70.15
95.24
95.17
73.07
81.97
92.50
87.74
67.19
84.77
84.53
46.28
91.72
53.43
82.43
90.37
33.42
Canada
20
77.9
99.21
60.20
94.78
99.92
80.40
84.22
95.28
84.03
74.43
78.85
80.39
50.15
68.49
59.49
60.74
88.13
65.38
Spain
21
77.8
98.06
56.17
95.44
95.36
82.73
88.07
94.72
75.20
68.05
69.16
89.05
53.41
93.34
59.42
65.41
80.59
59.09
Croatia
22
77.8
98.38
64.63
87.09
87.36
63.72
82.51
89.46
78.07
48.63
69.85
76.24
73.54
93.59
74.85
79.22
70.59
84.73
Belarus
23
77.4
99.89
57.23
81.73
96.79
78.04
92.17
90.10
77.42
39.34
85.81
80.95
82.58
92.25
78.14
69.15
74.24
Latvia
24
77.1
98.73
60.36
84.50
95.69
70.20
88.99
91.16
83.26
49.30
76.46
86.34
67.93
87.80
50.94
92.23
76.96
50.44
Hungary
25
76.9
98.93
64.19
85.93
90.39
64.05
89.01
91.61
82.11
49.65
75.60
86.07
71.01
94.91
87.31
73.39
51.49
Portugal
26
76.4
98.74
56.03
92.14
95.47
80.71
87.03
94.60
82.35
56.13
57.35
84.42
54.83
91.52
51.78
73.38
84.13
58.66
Slovak Republic
27
76.2
98.23
68.84
87.96
83.76
68.92
84.40
92.17
80.70
49.74
83.45
82.02
64.99
77.17
86.86
79.93
55.11
Malta
28
76.1
99.75
58.25
92.69
97.49
59.06
86.43
92.43
87.43
43.29
94.65
83.08
48.37
91.12
50.22
70.56
76.85
62.15
Poland
29
75.9
99.91
61.23
87.56
94.39
71.12
81.95
89.72
84.40
54.91
53.71
78.48
73.68
89.16
43.72
92.00
81.44
53.40
Italy
30
75.8
97.31
64.31
95.08
97.61
71.20
84.77
93.09
78.71
63.77
69.86
73.96
51.74
84.68
41.11
82.91
75.21
63.11
Chile
31
75.6
98.91
63.32
86.57
92.76
70.45
96.58
91.04
80.65
49.25
27.32
80.66
72.45
94.67
66.18
59.26
75.91
79.41
Lithuania
32
75.1
98.44
58.50
84.65
98.68
72.07
85.72
83.47
80.45
45.43
49.57
83.15
67.45
84.13
62.50
90.40
80.52
51.64
Costa Rica
33
75.0
97.60
52.38
85.83
79.45
82.27
75.41
94.12
77.92
41.51
34.74
90.15
82.74
93.44
66.17
67.21
74.47
79.18
Luxembourg
34
74.8
99.85
62.43
96.41
94.39
74.57
90.03
66.67
69.91
69.42
88.26
94.53
23.90
78.75
62.29
90.15
58.38
United States
35
74.5
98.92
66.04
89.54
89.34
73.36
84.98
93.21
85.18
83.35
47.66
82.47
36.55
66.12
60.85
76.94
76.14
56.18
Bulgaria
36
74.5
96.98
58.20
80.18
71.03
69.20
78.01
90.80
80.44
41.22
61.80
81.34
66.58
87.70
65.34
93.31
68.79
75.90
Moldova
37
74.4
99.57
54.50
74.82
82.66
68.65
73.95
89.89
73.99
26.07
92.62
79.65
97.01
97.91
64.08
62.96
85.91
Australia
38
73.9
99.03
52.41
96.45
92.81
78.90
96.98
91.00
81.09
84.20
76.96
80.59
40.85
33.90
56.29
47.76
85.69
61.14
China
39
73.2
97.40
71.93
81.07
99.67
76.26
71.75
76.85
87.42
61.86
59.52
75.13
81.97
92.02
36.16
62.73
63.35
49.48
Thailand
40
73.0
99.99
60.18
76.70
88.65
64.69
78.27
82.94
80.16
42.83
58.89
83.03
79.46
93.91
54.70
66.95
70.90
58.75
Ukraine
41
72.8
99.67
53.12
71.76
92.55
62.82
79.99
91.59
68.36
25.15
99.03
75.98
80.39
95.56
38.59
63.51
61.88
77.88
Romania
42
72.7
98.83
58.03
80.63
84.17
64.47
77.98
88.97
80.44
41.34
29.97
81.25
71.93
95.23
53.30
84.25
76.10
69.53
Uruguay
43
72.6
99.88
58.68
82.62
87.42
73.76
78.76
96.53
77.59
38.31
50.13
85.27
72.38
86.85
42.23
51.44
69.32
82.22
Serbia
44
72.5
99.40
63.52
84.16
94.29
57.84
75.71
84.89
71.47
42.41
72.35
71.75
83.74
85.04
49.51
73.41
82.05
Argentina
45
72.4
97.03
60.83
80.19
94.27
77.41
80.23
91.42
72.21
40.54
39.66
83.51
79.12
92.15
39.94
52.98
62.96
85.52
Ecuador
46
72.3
88.15
47.76
76.99
93.18
76.77
73.45
90.16
75.36
27.01
35.46
90.45
84.83
93.89
70.20
60.05
64.43
80.81
Maldives
47
72.1
90.40
46.63
91.10
99.19
43.58
72.07
96.85
79.59
39.12
69.30
96.04
76.43
78.86
52.42
38.13
74.84
81.52
Kyrgyz Republic
48
71.6
82.79
58.08
70.08
91.07
61.02
67.89
89.26
69.86
26.97
79.30
87.86
91.75
94.19
68.05
63.24
75.36
Israel
49
71.5
99.21
58.64
95.83
96.78
75.24
74.32
93.98
85.02
77.49
50.18
80.14
41.50
91.16
17.38
50.64
73.59
54.90
Greece
50
71.4
96.66
61.18
90.16
90.13
62.61
90.60
90.66
62.95
49.93
50.91
82.07
39.40
82.24
59.36
78.74
72.82
53.55
Peru
51
71.2
89.86
61.29
77.96
91.60
68.14
76.93
83.72
75.61
32.89
41.83
73.09
78.77
93.05
78.76
71.31
58.20
57.14
Uzbekistan
52
71.1
69.42
64.00
77.62
93.62
65.52
57.09
88.12
71.95
24.77
78.03
90.85
92.05
93.42
62.25
70.21
69.57
Algeria
53
71.1
97.84
52.66
75.48
85.93
51.11
63.56
85.91
69.69
29.83
88.74
66.61
86.54
94.28
41.87
63.23
72.40
83.03
Vietnam
54
71.1
95.34
62.59
74.78
91.71
71.96
70.77
82.39
74.16
26.37
78.28
77.64
87.08
94.52
45.22
48.59
61.76
65.31
Russian Federation
55
70.9
99.95
45.56
78.06
97.21
67.19
89.01
91.19
75.48
50.08
54.00
82.33
69.08
82.23
42.49
66.21
50.58
65.36
Cuba
56
70.8
64.88
85.19
96.05
82.42
73.75
85.07
90.61
12.43
56.10
90.61
56.72
60.06
68.34
63.27
100.00
Brazil
57
70.6
86.16
62.10
76.89
84.62
67.46
79.39
94.01
72.56
48.81
25.56
78.27
78.66
91.69
63.22
60.92
55.41
74.73
Iran, Islamic Rep.
58
70.5
96.80
58.22
77.35
95.55
42.60
49.92
87.69
68.26
39.85
64.74
76.11
80.65
88.96
73.19
68.05
64.71
65.64
Azerbaijan
59
70.5
100.00
58.22
75.29
90.76
53.91
62.80
91.01
68.10
37.30
68.31
83.08
89.11
90.64
22.45
66.88
70.16
69.76
Albania
60
70.3
96.85
46.06
82.21
93.40
53.30
77.25
88.64
62.24
27.97
59.78
78.57
83.18
92.08
40.99
79.96
67.34
64.83
Cyprus
61
70.1
99.88
52.54
92.83
97.02
71.28
70.13
92.22
74.52
54.26
77.36
77.69
41.72
72.24
32.79
77.49
81.22
27.24
Fiji
62
70.1
90.98
55.81
73.90
95.07
57.60
76.62
68.42
79.88
27.38
74.08
95.60
83.62
70.07
50.60
38.71
86.82
66.02
Tunisia
63
70.0
97.77
52.46
77.47
84.80
52.67
61.42
91.80
63.59
31.23
61.20
62.53
86.65
90.70
59.44
65.56
70.33
80.19
Dominican Republic
64
69.8
94.98
55.57
66.61
84.66
73.28
72.32
89.72
78.60
27.63
32.80
80.04
85.95
88.90
67.84
75.18
51.95
59.93
United Arab Emirates
65
69.7
59.81
86.15
85.70
56.33
55.75
90.69
70.62
60.84
85.89
75.99
40.92
33.41
62.50
45.38
81.52
100.00
Singapore
66
69.6
98.37
71.77
94.97
99.56
68.52
88.95
94.75
71.85
85.56
94.72
34.98
50.51
15.19
27.39
88.52
35.58
Colombia
67
69.6
85.82
56.05
79.29
83.28
70.46
76.86
91.02
71.86
31.77
21.66
81.56
84.76
90.66
74.91
56.42
58.31
68.00
Malaysia
68
69.6
99.98
45.24
79.04
91.35
55.56
76.31
89.96
80.43
56.82
42.51
82.62
77.13
87.75
49.21
43.00
68.48
57.08
Bosnia and Herzegovina
69
69.4
99.72
65.01
80.26
99.38
39.86
72.58
80.28
62.19
24.94
82.20
71.81
89.04
72.28
8.67
61.91
72.57
96.91
North Macedonia
70
69.4
89.35
61.19
80.00
88.32
54.37
75.18
80.86
64.18
31.03
48.83
72.94
81.22
85.84
74.00
74.10
77.38
Tajikistan
71
69.2
86.32
47.21
70.15
95.96
57.05
56.80
91.94
69.74
9.56
67.92
79.33
93.16
96.23
68.59
72.29
73.88
Morocco
72
69.1
94.92
53.82
73.67
78.05
42.90
66.13
87.71
67.41
32.37
61.47
72.16
82.46
92.37
48.24
75.61
69.03
75.86
Georgia
73
68.9
83.88
51.22
73.21
98.33
61.18
75.60
88.63
72.83
30.11
32.60
87.10
82.23
91.28
42.97
60.56
81.93
57.85
Jamaica
74
68.8
86.00
47.75
80.38
85.79
69.96
73.39
85.98
74.14
31.69
49.30
88.94
90.79
86.97
21.82
55.75
67.31
73.60
Armenia
75
68.8
91.21
56.53
78.52
89.75
56.92
66.93
95.35
63.16
33.89
50.06
67.25
90.12
95.01
61.22
75.44
57.05
Bahrain
76
68.7
67.42
90.37
93.46
50.02
54.54
93.66
82.26
43.23
52.01
72.08
65.69
57.79
54.79
67.09
60.27
Kazakhstan
77
68.7
99.87
50.89
75.77
90.98
77.15
74.81
85.77
76.75
35.21
62.09
78.40
62.44
75.08
43.35
58.57
69.02
51.91
Mexico
78
68.5
87.53
54.66
81.88
92.63
77.37
79.11
86.53
73.03
36.27
14.57
81.16
78.82
90.60
69.54
47.64
53.08
60.25
Turkey
79
68.5
99.49
55.83
83.61
93.70
45.25
82.14
89.16
73.84
46.49
41.24
70.40
73.76
89.86
27.41
53.27
68.08
70.78
Bolivia
80
68.4
85.32
53.25
66.44
87.30
66.22
67.66
73.41
79.44
23.01
48.59
82.21
87.62
94.38
73.11
48.39
72.58
Jordan
81
68.1
86.80
45.38
76.28
77.99
42.71
54.75
92.17
62.49
41.73
55.87
75.17
85.78
94.75
27.86
90.25
74.52
72.96
Nicaragua
82
67.9
85.06
45.75
76.79
76.51
82.05
66.81
70.57
72.33
14.66
46.41
77.48
90.25
94.93
59.17
73.78
61.51
60.96
Oman
83
67.9
49.96
83.91
94.81
35.76
37.91
86.70
71.26
44.91
77.48
69.82
71.06
65.09
51.67
74.92
74.71
Bhutan
84
67.6
88.31
50.63
68.78
69.65
45.80
63.60
75.77
71.29
28.19
68.21
82.59
87.66
96.98
58.66
81.20
65.11
Trinidad and Tobago
85
67.6
98.44
45.30
75.96
88.55
67.92
73.43
87.12
78.26
30.51
67.57
75.18
49.14
52.53
64.11
57.32
100.00
Paraguay
86
67.5
94.88
66.87
73.87
76.21
66.57
77.49
87.34
77.69
23.77
42.40
77.39
81.80
93.04
44.71
48.44
61.57
Montenegro
87
67.3
99.90
51.02
79.88
96.27
54.39
74.43
84.98
67.04
32.95
62.90
68.23
60.60
79.42
28.36
32.22
70.68
100.00
Suriname
88
67.0
56.00
55.75
70.35
70.24
66.48
71.30
86.45
74.54
23.91
79.32
79.83
79.08
71.17
71.33
70.61
76.11
El Salvador
89
66.7
91.55
48.65
77.26
75.89
68.44
71.97
88.47
70.17
17.93
38.93
89.00
86.43
90.61
27.80
65.86
56.53
68.96
Panama
90
66.3
93.53
49.59
78.88
78.83
65.33
71.81
87.82
77.38
29.33
25.35
88.66
80.20
90.24
55.42
57.21
64.73
32.89
Qatar
91
66.3
59.70
87.67
86.44
57.59
54.00
88.24
73.85
56.95
35.50
58.01
49.92
45.46
59.55
81.27
69.02
Egypt, Arab Rep.
92
66.2
90.41
55.97
68.86
82.93
46.13
62.34
92.78
63.58
32.07
37.39
59.65
82.87
97.83
56.56
68.41
70.23
57.49
Sri Lanka
93
65.8
91.17
52.70
79.47
97.23
48.57
65.81
64.66
82.81
17.23
36.43
80.61
77.92
92.29
55.71
63.37
67.32
46.00
Lebanon
94
65.7
99.93
45.92
80.11
70.31
42.47
79.45
88.91
67.40
42.33
69.51
59.94
75.61
77.41
36.59
56.61
65.89
57.93
São Tomé and Príncipe
95
65.5
37.80
64.65
62.03
84.71
45.18
66.61
38.55
66.75
16.80
90.70
84.02
94.92
89.62
79.36
57.39
77.33
56.80
Cabo Verde
96
65.1
54.27
46.48
73.30
78.46
65.38
69.14
81.17
73.54
25.66
36.58
81.00
91.80
89.87
45.51
54.71
74.45
64.55
Philippines
97
64.9
74.37
53.10
58.89
89.39
64.05
67.62
69.92
72.51
33.67
35.29
72.60
94.20
94.36
62.19
55.43
57.87
48.46
Saudi Arabia
98
64.8
45.64
81.61
97.64
39.14
53.77
89.18
72.56
57.46
40.57
56.73
59.70
55.71
47.10
68.46
73.42
Gabon
99
64.8
85.90
52.71
50.27
79.02
46.28
61.69
80.79
62.91
29.31
46.96
54.02
91.10
94.66
62.82
85.49
53.12
63.94
Mongolia
100
64.7
95.58
44.51
65.74
97.53
67.06
65.42
55.26
76.09
23.31
73.05
48.20
80.84
64.49
72.29
64.60
59.48
Turkmenistan
101
64.3
99.56
56.00
67.77
99.64
59.39
56.18
81.34
70.58
10.29
72.45
87.76
51.50
25.79
50.58
71.08
64.42
Indonesia
102
64.2
74.01
53.66
62.93
90.05
61.16
68.73
73.36
75.96
33.78
34.76
67.40
90.95
94.79
50.37
41.90
70.58
46.88
Nepal
103
63.9
62.31
55.08
58.67
82.58
57.90
62.92
62.69
72.58
20.24
83.18
45.39
98.24
97.96
68.77
53.33
58.68
Ghana
104
63.8
69.02
61.58
54.39
69.17
54.11
52.85
58.62
76.61
30.19
58.63
50.00
97.32
96.52
51.03
75.44
69.74
59.41
Mauritius
105
63.6
98.59
46.03
79.12
89.40
48.93
57.04
89.44
75.10
27.50
39.16
90.80
61.35
67.95
54.11
23.50
69.51
63.47
Kuwait
106
63.5
60.80
83.84
86.46
51.25
55.02
92.03
56.33
48.89
48.77
22.17
50.17
42.43
41.03
76.95
100.00
Honduras
107
63.4
57.67
46.23
75.28
64.25
65.01
70.33
73.45
72.88
13.77
26.66
80.80
88.29
94.37
66.16
65.18
48.73
68.98
Venezuela, RB
108
63.1
35.01
47.52
66.19
76.26
69.03
79.87
91.89
78.60
24.66
25.95
62.70
78.55
89.02
51.39
78.88
36.77
79.65
Belize
109
62.5
68.54
59.89
71.54
75.62
58.04
72.76
88.28
63.69
23.45
72.64
76.54
87.27
31.21
43.88
56.78
76.08
Myanmar
110
62.2
80.40
53.27
53.82
73.06
60.64
61.35
49.68
69.76
21.92
70.14
67.74
96.13
95.02
42.82
52.57
66.68
42.03
Lao PDR
111
62.0
54.77
61.05
49.84
78.28
67.32
67.31
44.75
71.72
15.21
74.93
73.43
94.55
96.48
53.55
58.37
46.57
Cambodia
112
61.8
87.51
52.69
62.58
69.86
54.84
60.29
42.94
62.03
19.47
90.85
77.77
97.08
92.75
34.37
44.39
52.40
48.50
South Africa
113
61.5
49.85
52.52
48.74
78.06
80.05
66.99
78.97
61.20
44.95
0.00
77.93
68.80
87.03
56.51
59.10
54.91
79.55
Guyana
114
61.4
84.87
54.39
61.91
83.26
61.94
73.25
78.31
52.55
14.80
82.64
58.23
72.00
55.05
59.45
56.47
57.70
India
115
61.1
71.41
42.57
58.76
80.24
33.19
56.58
65.38
83.24
28.67
48.96
51.12
94.46
94.47
51.24
51.06
61.26
65.70
Bangladesh
116
60.9
58.21
51.15
59.60
79.75
48.23
65.48
55.97
77.10
15.44
76.38
51.90
96.52
97.12
51.88
60.85
50.48
38.83
Iraq
117
60.8
84.06
41.74
62.65
44.35
38.18
46.34
87.82
61.52
20.87
94.37
59.71
90.59
89.96
28.52
39.40
65.16
78.24
Vanuatu
118
59.9
58.70
50.33
68.56
67.75
37.08
77.55
32.19
73.99
17.74
72.31
73.35
79.35
71.82
53.59
45.51
71.40
66.63
Namibia
119
59.9
55.14
39.81
49.79
82.17
87.31
59.00
48.50
64.63
23.65
0.00
76.79
79.43
61.12
60.52
85.52
69.61
74.77
Botswana
120
59.8
56.67
36.60
54.74
88.31
66.17
60.58
59.05
63.47
28.96
0.00
82.52
67.36
71.51
71.70
65.73
88.12
Zimbabwe
121
59.7
38.90
43.25
68.80
76.42
52.42
46.09
68.94
11.35
55.96
80.60
93.69
96.35
77.68
51.13
65.69
Guatemala
122
59.6
74.31
43.33
70.51
70.98
53.18
69.26
70.82
74.99
12.03
20.24
84.31
85.56
94.88
41.10
52.99
50.41
45.09
Syrian Arab Republic
123
58.1
28.16
63.88
48.77
34.33
63.21
91.00
52.84
12.42
76.62
47.73
85.38
96.71
30.00
47.61
53.53
62.41
Senegal
124
57.3
29.30
53.66
54.25
37.10
53.10
57.81
52.82
73.10
15.50
52.52
58.38
95.02
94.75
52.22
74.87
59.75
59.95
Kenya
125
57.0
29.80
49.88
50.42
71.00
67.46
43.90
46.07
70.20
19.74
36.29
62.16
93.07
94.79
58.13
59.22
57.21
60.14
Rwanda
126
56.0
17.11
51.69
60.02
60.89
80.47
56.19
11.15
69.77
15.72
27.31
58.58
95.81
98.65
66.45
70.91
57.13
Cameroon
127
56.0
47.59
56.65
40.64
63.80
51.89
52.53
54.82
68.02
14.30
43.19
39.72
94.86
97.90
50.22
68.55
45.97
61.69
Tanzania
128
55.8
21.47
48.19
45.09
47.96
70.68
46.47
31.35
73.84
15.69
60.15
66.30
97.92
98.22
65.03
56.88
50.53
53.17
Côte d'Ivoire
129
55.7
43.50
48.55
34.82
39.79
35.07
51.89
52.49
74.99
28.29
46.66
58.93
96.25
99.43
54.56
76.03
52.21
53.46
Pakistan
130
55.6
77.86
34.35
50.19
47.49
28.87
46.33
72.37
65.73
14.99
57.96
50.57
92.10
98.73
47.61
66.98
49.13
43.35
Gambia, The
131
55.0
62.16
45.30
43.18
45.71
34.92
59.97
21.93
69.31
8.24
44.26
64.64
93.59
93.53
60.39
74.91
60.14
52.85
Congo, Rep.
132
54.2
11.27
42.84
48.45
57.71
51.84
38.32
49.16
56.34
6.68
29.37
57.93
93.09
95.20
59.29
91.10
53.00
80.10
Yemen, Rep.
133
53.7
26.29
43.84
54.52
10.39
33.46
66.39
36.48
7.17
74.08
50.43
95.49
98.43
63.74
50.99
35.76
71.90
Mauritania
134
53.3
80.91
36.37
47.17
29.37
30.84
54.30
40.64
45.60
13.57
86.17
37.24
93.72
73.22
62.46
65.85
44.88
64.31
Ethiopia
135
53.2
32.53
48.59
44.63
33.50
53.31
39.43
40.68
71.42
9.96
67.32
60.56
98.03
95.71
56.66
51.62
46.77
Mozambique
136
53.0
11.04
45.09
31.16
41.59
60.03
41.11
37.99
53.36
11.86
49.20
68.21
98.74
92.15
73.97
66.65
52.63
66.79
Comoros
137
53.0
49.16
41.56
50.43
47.16
32.10
66.64
41.56
48.28
10.39
50.77
76.17
83.89
97.39
28.31
41.20
67.59
68.08
Guinea
138
52.8
35.50
49.79
33.28
24.74
35.68
43.65
13.42
65.37
5.52
82.50
55.98
94.90
99.24
70.85
78.15
48.31
60.98
Zambia
139
52.6
13.46
42.94
46.53
62.68
63.64
52.57
43.48
67.22
16.60
16.62
63.41
89.74
98.36
70.33
45.43
46.93
Uganda
140
52.6
28.31
48.27
46.64
53.21
58.36
41.08
9.68
72.01
17.45
62.01
46.46
95.76
98.64
67.18
47.55
46.65
Burkina Faso
141
52.4
24.26
51.89
47.99
27.03
34.62
44.15
9.07
69.21
12.43
78.08
57.85
93.67
90.79
82.07
57.03
56.21
Eswatini
142
51.7
22.13
54.05
42.71
60.29
55.62
56.08
55.52
45.89
9.79
0.00
82.68
89.69
52.70
63.35
53.66
80.02
Papua New Guinea
143
51.6
29.25
27.60
46.32
48.28
44.03
27.47
13.44
76.89
4.56
59.44
80.78
97.57
86.49
47.73
62.34
66.27
59.00
Togo
144
51.6
18.58
53.28
42.97
61.44
40.16
46.75
15.47
71.51
14.50
39.54
38.94
95.94
98.62
41.88
86.32
52.33
58.90
Burundi
145
51.5
0.00
44.09
47.65
61.02
63.03
54.29
0.00
44.02
3.54
67.07
58.53
96.57
99.35
73.94
48.86
59.82
Malawi
146
51.4
3.23
53.74
43.64
48.44
62.19
56.49
1.30
62.81
8.74
43.61
63.95
97.52
89.35
66.94
55.81
61.21
Sudan
147
51.4
36.01
19.01
52.03
30.32
37.26
32.99
50.57
52.44
15.03
65.63
41.34
93.35
98.74
66.36
60.47
56.27
65.34
Djibouti
148
51.4
55.35
39.60
51.21
19.30
49.68
41.54
28.33
62.18
22.91
53.24
70.55
95.23
90.94
14.92
37.00
67.54
73.66
Angola
149
51.3
45.16
47.78
33.74
37.84
53.57
45.96
48.75
59.88
5.65
57.18
45.96
93.66
90.89
47.84
64.97
41.72
51.91
Lesotho
150
50.9
13.71
54.46
28.72
55.01
71.90
58.12
28.50
52.46
14.14
0.35
67.54
92.14
66.16
62.13
46.18
100.00
Benin
151
50.9
18.31
55.47
47.15
46.95
40.36
46.64
13.36
70.73
8.79
36.21
52.59
94.87
97.35
49.73
84.71
49.01
52.28
Mali
152
50.2
24.26
45.04
32.33
12.62
35.57
56.01
14.28
67.37
11.68
73.96
59.06
94.94
99.24
69.92
50.75
52.12
Afghanistan
153
49.6
42.93
38.71
23.67
21.35
39.40
56.81
43.20
4.12
34.20
98.22
96.96
52.08
46.67
41.87
Niger
154
49.4
5.59
42.93
39.09
8.42
40.23
40.41
13.47
64.19
3.22
81.76
55.90
91.16
95.13
73.75
55.87
74.99
Sierra Leone
155
49.2
23.16
46.90
26.73
52.21
44.91
38.90
6.16
62.66
6.15
69.40
46.68
95.71
98.38
60.49
65.63
50.81
42.22
Haiti
156
48.4
37.98
42.20
42.16
49.54
39.92
49.13
26.51
58.77
7.28
62.28
41.34
91.76
89.36
33.00
43.58
45.60
62.97
Liberia
157
48.2
20.47
48.57
39.20
10.20
41.45
48.01
5.89
64.93
3.54
83.87
28.98
99.29
99.31
75.20
53.98
44.94
51.28
Madagascar
158
46.7
0.00
37.44
41.17
44.04
66.92
38.73
7.59
62.80
5.85
31.66
62.45
94.58
96.87
57.84
50.58
51.05
44.30
Nigeria
159
46.4
17.15
48.01
28.04
32.13
36.50
53.52
37.07
64.71
18.38
9.06
32.64
94.84
96.14
51.43
76.32
42.95
50.00
Congo, Dem. Rep.
160
44.9
0.66
36.46
37.75
56.10
37.17
42.66
35.23
58.44
2.32
58.93
48.22
94.70
99.22
15.32
65.35
31.07
44.46
Chad
161
42.8
23.59
37.12
21.55
14.72
27.01
40.84
0.58
54.17
9.72
53.25
39.44
95.93
76.32
80.67
32.18
65.78
Central African Republic
162
39.1
0.00
40.91
17.59
10.30
30.60
47.99
2.69
37.46
1.87
19.28
27.76
96.14
99.38
89.94
49.51
38.34
Andorra
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas, The
Barbados
Brunei Darussalam
Dominica
Eritrea
Micronesia, Fed. Sts.
Guinea-Bissau
Equatorial Guinea
Grenada
Kiribati
St. Kitts and Nevis
Libya
St. Lucia
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Marshall Islands
Nauru
Palau
Korea, Dem. Rep.
Solomon Islands
San Marino
Somalia
South Sudan
Seychelles
Timor-Leste
Tonga
Tuvalu
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Source: Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G. (2019): Sustainable Development Report 2019. New York: Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). EMsmile (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the further reading list: If anyone thinks these are particularly important then use them for in-line citations. Otherwise such a list could become endlessly long for a broad topic like this one:
Bhargava, A. (2019). "Climate change, demographic pressures and global sustainability", Economics and Human Biology, 33, 149-154.
I have removed the list again. The point is, this is not an academic literature review but an encyclopedic entry. If any of these publications are crucial then rather use them as in-line citations:
Bhargava, A. (2019). "Climate change, demographic pressures and global sustainability", Economics and Human Biology, 33, 149–154.
If someone has time to work on this article (I'll also put it on my to-do list): do take a look at the other language versions and see if there is content that could also be added to here. For example, I looked at the German version of the article and it seems pretty detailed. EMsmile (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:BobKilcoyne you have moved the table of content (TOC) to the right side and re-instated that list of indicators (which actually doubles up with the TOC). Personally, I don't like this change and would like to see what the others think? Having the TOC on the right side is completely unusual, I have hardly ever seen an article that does it like that. I am referring to this change. In my eyes it also looks silly to have the two lists of SDGs now pretty much side by side. Could we just change it back please? EMsmile (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, happy to consider best layout, I was picking up in particular on your comment, EMsmile, at 05:57 this morning that you had converted the list into a sentence because "the list was somehow competing with the table of content that's just below". {{TOCright}} is a valid WP template so it is not entirely unusual, but there are other ways that this apparent duplication might be avoided: one would be to revert back to {{TOC limit|2}} below the list (on the left), and the 17 listed items could all link internally, with #, to the relevant section within this article rather than to the separate article on the relevant goal, e.g.
Hi, BobKilcoyne, good idea about the internal links, let's do that. And I am thinking of restructuring the headings so that the individual goal headings are one level further down and therefore don't appear in a TOC with limit 3. Afterwards, the TOC will be much shorter and could take its "usual" place on the left hand side again... EMsmile (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, BobKilcoyne, I have re-arranged things a bit, what do you think? The TOC is much shorter now. I am undecided if the SDGs in the lead should wiki-link to their own Wikipedia articles or to the sections withing this article. Somehow I suspect that the reader would expect a wiki-link to the other SDG article, rather than a jump further down the page. Or? NB: the other SDG article are all currently being developed as part of the SDG edit-a-thon (will post about that in a moment). EMsmile (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, EMsmile, I think the layout is looking fine now, and better with a shorter TOC. Thanks for working on this. I deleted the wiki-links for goals 9-13 in the lede as they were all circular links with redirects being the reader back to this page. Maybe the marathon might create new pages for the goals which don't have their own at present. If not then I wonder whether a hybrid approach might work, with links to the separate articles where they exist and internal links where they don't. What do you and others think? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I justed want to let everyone who is watching this page know that I am a part of a group of people wishing to improve SDG-related articles on Wikipedia. We are organising this online SDG edit-a-thon during Global Goals Week, 18-26 September 2020. Please take part in it! If you have any questions about this work, please feel free to ask your question on the event's talk page here. The event page itself is here. Even if you can just spare half an hour to improve an SDG-related Wikipedia article, it would be much appreciated! EMsmile (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For each SDG that has its own separate article, we should now shorten and compress the information that is given about that SDG. This article is an overarching article that should point people towards the correct sub-articles but not repeat (too much) what's in the sub-articles. EMsmile (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have started the work on this; I think the right length of information for each individual SDG is about 2 paragraphs. See the sections for SDG 1 and 2 as a good example (I think). EMsmile (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the plan to shorten info under sub-headings, which is made easy by starting with the link to the specific article. To be consistent, I recommend we offer one sentence on outcome targets and one sentence on "means to achieving" targets. This differentiates the two, which is key to helping people new to the SDGs make sense of the targets.PlanetCare (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After working on these a little more, I am also thinking we don't need more than one paragraph that lists the specific targets. The second paragraph we have now is a weak attempt to give a two sentence summary of "progress to date." I think it would be better to just delete those, and let people who want more detail find it in the SDG Goal article. I will wait until I hear from other editors before deleting the second paragraphs about "progress." PlanetCare (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EvSmile, to address the problem of the 17 SDGs taking up so much space in the Contents box, I'm thinking about "demoting" those headlines to come under "Targets and indicators" then it would make sense to have the short summaries list targets and refer briefly to indicators.PlanetCare (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:2030 SDGs for adding the Australia information. Looks really interesting! I have also added Iran now and moved the country examples one level up so that it's easier to access from the table of contents. If the list of countries gets too long later, then we could change it and group it by continent (so that the TOC doesn't get too long). Or? EMsmile (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've had assigned myself to create a Sustainable Development Goals and Australia article and will use your Iran article as a first-go guide. 2030 SDGs (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should the goals appear in the table of contents or not
I've just completed a restructuring whereby I elevated the goals up a level so that they all have their own headings. I did that with the future plan in mind to create a separate article on SDG6 (but first build up the content a bit more here), ping User:PlanetCare. I also moved information which was in a section on "intersectoral linkages" which I have now renamed to "cross-cutting issues" back to where it belonged better, for some of the SDGs, like for SDG6. I think it didn't make sense to discuss how each goal is crucial to all the other goals in "cross-cutting issues", except perhaps for some that are really crucial or don't have their own goals. Otherwise, we could say for EACH goal "the other goals cannot be achieved if this goal isn't achieved", e.g. if people are hungry they cannot participate in education etc., if they are sick they cannot do xyz. EMsmile (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping with your point that maybe we don't need subheadings now that we have complete articles on each SDG, I also find it odd to have Overview start with a discussion of Targets and Indicators before we've even enumerated what the 17 goals are. What about including 17 very small paragraphs in the "lead," so that once the Overview begins the Contents section isn't disrupted by the long list of 17. The goal summary paragraphs would not need to use "subheading 2" and that would keep them out of the Contents section. What do others think? EVSmile once advocated for the SDG goal summaries to be part of the lead, and this would let us do that. They would need to all be very short but I can see a way of doing that. We give some information, but the link to the Main SDG Goal page is right there for them to double click.PlanetCare (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now gone ahead and reformatted the sub-headings so they don't appear in the Contents box. Given that we have the links to the new SDG pages, I think we can make the paragraphs much shorter. Maybe we don't need to name all the targets, since people can link to the actual list where they are nicely presented in an easy-to-read chart. What do others think?PlanetCare (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused and also undecided. I thought it was pretty good to have the goals appear in the table of contents because then it's easy to jump to them (OK, the jumping could now take place from the links in the lead). Hmmm, not sure. The Image on the right of the lead is a separate thing, I don't think that having the image means we don't need to list them in the lead (like they are right now), because the image is not clickable and also one cannot copy text from there. EMsmile (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, there are two places where people can click to go directly to the specific SDG page. People can click right from the lead (your list of all 17 with short titles) or they can click under the subheading "Targets for all 17 goals" where you have italicized links to each individual goal. Promoting the goals so they appear in the contents box is overkill. I like seeing most of the Contents box in one go. People can see the outline of the whole article more readily.PlanetCare (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking on board the feedback on the SDG 9 talk page that this SDG article is "overinflated." I think he has a point but in our defense: when you drafted up this SDG article there were NO other pages relating to each specific SDG. I was advocating for promoting subheadings so they would appear in the Contents, and now I don't think that's a good idea. That was then, this is now. You have an army of people wanting to make the SDG information better, so I think the timing is right now for making this general page shorter and filling it with links to the individual articles.PlanetCare (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, I agree with you. That feedback for SDG 9 was helpful in some aspects. Not to delete SDG 9 but to ensure it is not just a "repeat" of information that is on the UN websites. It now reiterates the question how much information we actually need for each individual SDG on this page. I am really undecided and feel I need to let it rest for a few days and come back with fresh eyes (and also hear from other editors about their opinions). Meanwhile, this sentence for SDG 1 is difficult to understand for a layperson, could you please change it?: "Outcome-related targets 1.1 through 1.5 call for the eradication of extreme poverty". (done) EMsmile (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way it is structured now (as of 4 November 2020) is pretty good. I'm happy with the structure and how things appear in the table of content. EMsmile (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding information about the content and state of the SDGs in articles about years (e.g. 2020)
I have added a section "International goals" to the article 2020 with information about the state of achievement of international goals including the SDGs in form of a table with information about:
a) the entity that decided on and maintains / aims to implement the goal b) the name (and article) of the goal c) the goal's content (a description) d) the state of achievement.
The section could also be changed to feature more detailed information about e.g. indicators of the individual goals or look better on mobile (this is currently an issue with tables on Wikipedia). Such a section could also be added to 2030 (for the 2030 Agenda goals) and possibly the years in between, depending on whether any goals are due by these years and/or the way their progress is getting reported and/or aimed for.
Hi Prototyperspective that's a really interesting idea. I hadn't thought of that before. And I had never looked at the 2020 article before either. I am surprised that it gets such high view rates! Like 9000 views per day. Who looks at this article and why? Puzzling. Was your idea to have a "international goals" section in principle for each year article? For the SDGs, I suppose the goals are either in 2020 or in 2030... An alternative idea that I had, which is perhaps more promising, is to add some information about the SDGs in each of the country articles, e.g. we have already done it for Nigeria. What do you think of that? EMsmile (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see somebody replied and is taking a look at pageviews – the latter is important for efficiency and improving usefulness of work (content is not very useful if it isn't read). I think people interested in major, worldwide events / developments are reading this article and I think the SDGs are such major, worldwide events / developments as well as a relevant framework for such.
Yes, my idea was having an "international goals" section in principle for each year article as far as there are international goals for the respective year. 2020 and 2030 are two such years and the article 2030 already had a similar section for goals and now has been merged into article & section "2030s#Plans and goals". If there are subgoals/milestones (steps) for the goals or maybe annual progress-reports or other internationals goals these could also be added to articles about years in between like 2021.
If you support this idea please also leave comment at the talk-section linked above with your support for such a section/content and any other suggestions you have for it.
I think adding content about nations' efforts in helping reach the SDGs within their domestic spheres as well as (thereby and otherwise) worldwide could be relevant in the respective articles – but imo that's a separate issue and the SDGs are afaik best thought of or defined as international goals and hence (even) more relevant to articles about world developments.
FYI, I added SDG content on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20#Summits page - A paragraph on G20's 2016 commitment to the 2030 Agenda and linked to this page. SO, where does this content best fit on this page? Is it worthy of a new heading or sub-heading of National and Interntaiton Integration/Adoption (eg replace country examples?) 2030 SDGs (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea that you linked from the G20 article to here! As for more content here, perhaps it would fit under the existing section "Implementation and support"? EMsmile (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding how long to make the paragraph(s) on each SDG Streamlining the information that is provided for each SDG
Looking for other opinions before editing this further. As of now, SDG 1-6 all use this formula: exact title of goal/ list of outcome targets /list of means targets/number of indicators. Then a second paragraph that mentions something about some progress toward some indicator. SDG 7-17 are less formulaic, but definitely shorter. They mention one or two targets or indicators and one or two tidbits about progress to date. Some are longer than others but that could easily be made more consistent. Opinions please.PlanetCare (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like the "template" that SDGs 1 to 4 now provided and suggest to do the others in the same way. that means: exact title of goal/ list of outcome targets /list of means targets/number of indicators. Then a second paragraph that mentions something about some progress toward some indicator (with a few key figures, like "1 out of 10 people etc." if possible). EMsmile (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've continued today along the same lines as proposed above. Quite time consuming. I've also added the target lists to the leads of the individual goal sub-articles. In some cases, I have used the new function of "excerpts", taking the second paragraph of the lead of the sub-article (after making sure the second paragraph of the lead of the sub-article contained the list of targets). This has the advantage that changes would have to be made in only one place, i.e. in the individual goal article. But the disadvantage is that the excerpt could become wrong if someone changes the order of paragraphs in the lead of the sub-article. What do you think of the excerpt tool? I think I'll only use it for some of the SDGs but not for all. The remaining ones that still require doing now are SDGs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. For SDG 17 I am undecided because the list of targets is so long that it would be quite unwieldy if written in one long paragraph? (@User:PlanetCare) EMsmile (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have now done the remaining individual SDGs. It's all completed now. For SDG 17 I still am undecided because the list of targets is so long that it would be quite unwieldy if written in one long paragraph. So at this stage, the SDG 17 article's lead does not include the SDG targets. EMsmile (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no section with a discussion of criticism and opposition to the SDGs
I just checked through this part of the "article" and there was practically no critisisms at all and worst of all, it only cited articles from pro-UN, pro-"globalists" / pro-WEF / pro-OSF outlets such as the Economist while ignoring any critisisms from outlets which recieve higher viewing figures and would thus hold more weight such as InfoWars and others... 2A02:C7F:EA5C:2300:F8C9:45AE:50B2:92A0 (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC) [you can fine me on Minds.com/wclifton968][reply]
I think having the goal images split individually causes major crowding. Would this not be better as s single image? The article is rather overloaded and the individual images, while pretty, don't give a ton of information by themselves. They don't eve have descriptive captions so they serve litter purpose. I propose we use a combined image of all the goals. Thoughts? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk20:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they should be removed completely as I do not think those icons are correctly tagged for copyright. They are listed as public domain, but this is specifically contradicted by UN guidelines which specify how and why they can be used, and require permissions for certain uses. CMD (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User: Azcolvin429, I agree those individual goal images could be removed as they are not really adding much value. We could put this image back in which we had in an earlier version of the article (about August last year):
A diagram listing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals
I don't agree with the copyright concern. I spent ages last year in September to try and track down definitive answers about copyright of the UN resolution for the SDGs and everyone assured me it's in public domain and no problem. I sent about a dozen e-mails to all sorts of channels at the UN level... Seems to be a can of worms. If you scroll up on the talk page you see that previous copyright discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_Development_Goals#Should_SDG_5_have_its_own_article_and_is_there_copyright_violation_when_listing_the_targets? Heaps of other websites use the same icons and do so under their own open access licence declaration. Most notably Our World in Data, see here: https://sdg-tracker.org/ So I don't think we need to restart this copyright discussion and can just be quite confident that we are "safe". EMsmile (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would be great if someone at Village Pump could come up with a definite answer. Those logos are plastered all over the place (everyone's websites, such as the wonderful SDG Tracker) but of course that is not enough proof to say that they are under and open access licence. EMsmile (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the individual icon images now. They had come about from the excerpt templates. I am not sure if we want to have that diagram showing all the SDG logos together? Perhaps we'd end up looking too much like another UN website in that case? EMsmile (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's necessary. I much prefer the real-life images some of the SDG sections currently have, they seem more relevant and informative to readers. CMD (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the overview graphic back in but as a thumbnail. I think it's useful to have the overview because in other places of the article, different groupings and representations of the SDG logos are also shown, like the wedding cake model. By the way, there was no answer on village pump. Based on my other research (link above), these logos are available under the right licence but the whole UN system is so confusing that nobody has been able to get the definite, super clear answer in writing. Myself, I am satisfied that it's OK and am not going to try and dig deeper again (if someone else wants to, please go ahead). EMsmile (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little more complicated than a simple proposed move.
I see that this article is a redirect target from Agenda 2030. I propose that this article be renamed to that name from its current name of Sustainable Development Goals, in line with the namings of the Agenda 21, Agenda 2010 and Agenda 2063 articles. There probably ought to be an article with the current name also, which mentions all of those and mentions this article as renamed, summarizes them and lists them as {{main article}}s, following WP:SS. This is a proposal made in passing, and I won't be sticking around here to discuss it. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current article title is fine. I don't see what would be included in a separate article named "Agenda 2030"? We do also have this article Post-2015 Development Agenda which has some information on the whole "agenda development" process. EMsmile (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The overall progress and monitoring of SDG 7 have been recently updated. There has more progress made mostly in 2018 and 2019. In addition, the COVID 19 pandemic will impede progress on future electrification as it is needed now as ever that has already been stated in article. It also states here that " The share of renewable energy in total final energy consumption increased gradually from 16.4 per cent in 2010 to 17.1 per cent in 2018."--Peech87 (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that adding the image that shows the overview of each SDG will be helpful as a visual preview of what the article will talk about because there is a lot of information about each SDG and its targets and indicators. We can find the overviews images on the UN website on each SDG page. For example, for SDG 10, the overview image can found here.--Peech87 (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having a list of 17 items in running text is very difficult to parse, so a real list is much clearer and easier to read. If a list is a bad idea, then it is probably better to simply remove the list completely from the lead. The body of this article goes on to provide the full list of goals, so a list in the lead is excessive duplication. The Sustainable development article need not include the list either, just provide the summary and the link to the full list here — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me13:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well the lead is meant to be a summary of the article so I don't think this is true: so a list in the lead is excessive duplication. I agree with you about Sustainable development - that one actually just takes an excerpt and the excerpt tool doesn't work well for bullet point lists (it includes them even if they are not meant to). To overcome that one could use <noinclude> tags. I'll try now what it looks like to have a plain list, without numbers and without wikilinks. EMsmile (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the following text block because after reading it carefully and checking with the sources provided I formed the opinion that this is only marginally related to an article about the SDGs. It might fit better with digitzation perhaps:
++++ === Importance of technology and connectivity ===
Several years after the launch of the SDGs, growing voices called for more emphasis on the need for technology and internet connectivity within the goals. In September 2020, the UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development called for digital connectivity to be established as a "foundational pillar" for achieving all the SDGs. In a document titled "Global Goal of Universal Connectivity Manifesto", the Broadband Commission said: "As we define the 'new normal' for our post-COVID world, leaving no one behind means leaving no one offline."[1]
Furthermore, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can guide the discussion on the priority investments in digitalization. All digital tools and services could be evaluated based on their:[2]
accessibility and potential for leaving no one behind;
ability to lead to jobs and provide equal opportunities for girls and boys to find jobs and have a career in ICT, and for more girls to enter science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM); and
ability to close the digital gender gap between men and women, rural and urban users.
Making the services affordable and building the needed capacity, including financial literacy, will be an important stepping stone for closing the gender gap.[2] +++ EMsmile (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added content from the open access report "The Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals - Transforming Governance Through Global Goals?" I've now cited it 14 times. I think it's a very good report as it's a meta-analysis of the literature, well written and relatively easy to understand. It has lots of very interesting content that serves now to enrich this article, for example it explains some of the problems and failures of the SDG process. EMsmile (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I originally thought this publication was compatibly licenced but it's not. So I had to change how I had included content from that publication. I've still left several quotes which we should ideally still rework into "our own words". EMsmile (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article needs a fair bit of culling as it has ballooned out a bit. Today I have moved sentences with figures about the individual goal indicators to the sub-articles for the respective SDGs and only left a kind of summary behind. I've done it so far for SDGs 10 to 17; still have to do the same for SDGs 1 to 9. Unless there are any objections to this? There is also quite a lot of jargon and "UN speech" in the article which should be reworded if someone has time (I'll try to get around to it). EMsmile (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:sadads, I don't understand this sentence which you have recently added: "The 2030 Agenda put specific authority for communicating, however, both international and local advocacy organizations have pursued significant non-state resources to communicate the SDGS." Could you reword it in more plain language, maybe breaking it into two sentences? Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article, and the articles about the individual goals, need to clearly separate obstacles to achievement from criticisms of the goals themselves or their formulation. Right now, the "Challenges" section on this article is overwhelmingly about the latter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Durign this segregation, I also discovered that the description of the challenges, especially in individual goals' articles, are woefully out of date; most of the sources are from 2020, and much has happened regarding the SDGs' objectives, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I moved two more section to the "challenges" section. Yes, all the individual SDG articles would benefit from some tender, love, and care, and updating! I've done a lot of work on those articles in the past but recently had to turn my attention to other topics. Hope someone else has time to work on them. EMsmile (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the infobox was <noincluded>. Is that needed? I didn't remove it in case there's a reason, but I think it's just clutter because most pages don't do it that way. Does anyone know if there's a reason? Dukese805 (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Dukese805: the reason is so that the infobox does not included in excerpts, i.e. when this article is transcribed elsewhere. It's not visible to the reader so I don't think it's a problem? EMsmile (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,Why we're not yet done with all we all want and need to achieve??.Sometimes things and somethings they've delayed by us to take actions as to stop unwanted conflicts,unnecessary spendings,unwanted pregnancies,stop corruptions and fraud,stop spreading illnesses,stop inequalities,solve global social problems and more.Amooketsi SDG suitable Economy that creates work and expand and to bring changes on every worker income as we all know that cost of living is everytime the highest crisis that lead to poverty,hunger and lack of unemployment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.197.197 (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,Why we're not yet done with all we all want and need to achieve??.Sometimes things and somethings they've delayed by us to take actions as to stop unwanted conflicts,unnecessary spendings,unwanted pregnancies,stop corruptions and fraud,stop spreading illnesses,stop inequalities,solve global social problems and more.Amooketsi SDG suitable Economy that creates work and expand and to bring changes on every worker income as we all know that cost of living is everytime the highest crisis that lead to poverty,hunger and lack of unemployment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.197.197 (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was researching for sources linking the SDG criticism with denialist and far-right conspiracy theories for another article, but I find that there's no section about criticism or reception in the article, but it seems that it existed in the past, as seen in the discussion. I think that having such a section with a good summary of who is against and why, should be good for understanding better the topic. Is there any reason for not having it? Theklan (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
Done Lead reworded and cited. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
and compare with the same list used in the index 
below. There are tricky border-line cases such--
.png)
This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 (license statement/permission). Text taken from The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction, In brief, 24, FAO, FAO.
.jpg){kind=link}
