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 Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
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 Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
I have just converted the reference to the FoE and Greenpeace documents, in the Broadening use, to citations as I wanted to capture and expose their publication dates.
DaveLevy (
talk)
12:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sabina Mahavni. Peer reviewers:
Salliejohnson99,
Dalanlaughlin.
The ILO is a UN Agency -- by definition it creates standards for labor-- you wouldn't call another international agency responsible for standards, such as the IPCC an advocacy group? You are taking the sourcing policy to an extreme -- just transition is defined by the labor movement, it would be natural to use their definitions in the article, even if they are from self-published sources -- because by definition, they are the authority for the topic.
Sadads (
talk)
12:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Sadads: It isn't reasonable and neutral content, it is promotional for their agenda. And yes, they are a ADVOCACY group, just like the
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime advocates for drug illegality (against the science and medical professions) because they get their money/policy objectives NOT from science but from what is popular in their supporting countries, just like the ILO gets its policy objectives NOT from economists, but from the labor movement.---Avatar317(talk)20:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Yeah, what you are saying is a convoluted and balatant misinterpretation of the source and policy: Just Transition is a concept defined by the labor movement, and championed by ILO in the Climate Negotiations -- we have to include the expert organizations who are defining the concepts in the article. ILO is an international authority on this concept -- we might not use them to describe economic policy, but we would certainly use them to describe proposed standards by the labor movement.
Sadads (
talk)
22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
We are really clearly attributing opinions to the organization, not treating them as fact -- so we are using
WP:DUE and
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to include their opinions -- this is regularly done on every polemic topic on the encyclopedia.
Sadads (
talk)
22:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Sadads:The problems with self-sourcing are both that it is easy to give
WP:UNDUE weight to their viewpoint, whereas Independent Sources might balance their views with opposing views, (like the extra costs associated with a "just transition" which the unions don't mention) and that self-sourcing leads to biased phrasing: Religious entities phrase their anti-gay marriage stance as "promoting traditional marriage", and likewise unions like to phrase low-paying jobs in poorer countries as "worker exploitation" whereas for people in extreme poverty, low paying jobs are a route out of poverty.
This is still promotional. "In 2015, the ILO published its “Guidelines for a just transition ..." How many publications are we going to list by the ILO? Every time they publish something? What makes this publication notable enough to include? That's why we need Independent Sources to verify that this publication of theirs is important enough to mention.---Avatar317(talk)01:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I agree with
Sadads. The ILO is not an advocacy group. It is a governmental agency, it has an extremely bureaucratic process for approving documents, it has numerous economists who publish double blind peer reviewed research. You seem obviously motivated to challenge just transition, but you should do that by adding opposing viewpoints rather than deleting sourced material. If you cannot find adequately sourced opposing viewpoints then that is your problem, not ours.
Lirani
The ILO is probably the most authoritative source on worldwide labour issues that exists. Their publications follow standards that make them definitely not fall under
WP:SPS or
WP:PROMOTION. If the ILO is not an authoritative source, then neither is the
IPCC or the
UNHCR or any other intergovernmental authority. For a non-contentious issue such as the definition of a widely-used term, I don't see any problem with using their publications as sources. Especially in an article like this one, where they are supported by many other sources.
Zarasophos (
talk)
17:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't have any problem with using the ILO (along with other IS's) for a BRIEF DEFINITION of the term. But a detailed explanation of the ILO's suggestions/recommendations on how to implement this policy, sourced ONLY to the ILO, then gets into
WP:PROMOTION. ---Avatar317(talk)22:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Avatar317 I believe my sourcing is valid based on
WP:SELFSOURCE. You reverted my edits because it is from an advocacy organization. The advocacy organization in question is actually the originator of the term just transitions itself. That's like saying you can't quote Abraham Lincoln's writings on the Abraham Lincoln page because an independent journalist did not see him say the words or write it on paper and independently publish about it. It does not make sense.
Lirani (
talk)
05:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Where is your proof that this advocacy org originated the term? - You'll need sources to prove that. Additionally, we use Independent Sources
WP:IS to characterize an organization. As an easy extreme example, if a white supremacist organization's mission was to "Maintain the clearly proven scientific superiority of the white race above all other inferior races." do you think that should be included in Wikipedia? The way they characterize themselves is their own
WP:PROMOTION and
WP:SPS propaganda. That's why we use Independent Sources: Please read
WP:IS. ---Avatar317(talk)22:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Justice
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 21 March 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Treehugger30.