Talk:Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative

About Improving the Tone
Greetings User:RoanokeVirginia

Thank you for your interest in this important topic. Two heads are always better than one.

I noticed that you made this edit to try to improve the tone of the article.

As soon as I noticed the "tone" template I attempted to improve the tone with this edit and this edit. Did those two edits misread the nature of your main complaint? Please let me know what you think about those two edits. Thanks.

Actually, what is the nature of your main complaint? Please let me know so I can address it more fully. Thanks.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @Boyd Reimer,
 * I wouldn't like to describe it as a complaint as such because you're making a positive contribution to the Wiki, just guidance for the direction to move the article in. The tone template was mainly about the extended quote in the lead and language like "some of the world's most distinguished scientists".
 * I don't know how experienced you are on Wikipedia, so forgive me if this is overly basic, but the lead is supposed to summarise the article, it feels like the extended quote would be more suitable in an purpose, aims, or goals section at the top of the article, which could then be summarised in the lead. Im thinking of WP:LEAD and WP:WIKIVOICE here.
 * On the language issue, I don't disagree for example that the selection of world figures are distinguished, but this is not a neutral statement, it commends their work, as such we need a secondary source to support it, and the references at the end of the sentence don't say "distinguished". If there is only one source we might say described by Newspaper/Magazine as some of the most distinguished scientists and if it is clear in a majority of reputable sources we could simply say some of the most distinguished. I'm thinking of WP:WIKIVOICE here.
 * Whilst I think these concerns are based on Wikipedia policy, it is always possible that I can interpret the policies wrongly. If you disagree with this assessment I would strongly encourage you to voice that disagreement so that a consensus can be reached. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Greetings User:RoanokeVirginia


 * Thank you for your advice. I stand corrected.


 * In response to your concerns I made several improvements to the tone:


 * First, I completely got rid of the words "some of the world's most distinguished scientists," etc with this edit.


 * Second, I improved the lead in several ways: With this edit I added the words "aims to" because without those words, the sentence would have presumed that this initiative would have automatically prevented climate change. That was too presumptuous.


 * Third, in response to your concerns about an "extended" sentence in the lead, I broke it up into two sentences. So now, with these edits the sentence that contains the quote is only 45 words instead of 66 words.


 * By the way, I looked up the Wikipedia policy on including citations in the lead and they actually do recommend them at this link. That link not only states that "the lead must conform to verifiability," but also states that "controversial subjects may require many citations." The evidence that this subject is controversial is enormous: See Climate movement, List of environmental protests, Court challenges listed here: Ecojustice Canada, etc.


 * My interpretation of Wikipedia policy on avoiding redundancy means that I should try not to repeat the citation that is in the lead. I interpret this to mean that I should not repeat it in another section on "purpose" as you suggested.


 * Concerning the length of the lead: Wikipedia policy at this link states that this comparison between article length and lead length means that the lead section length is currently not too long.


 * As you can see I have carefully considered your concerns and have also carefully considered Wikipedia policy -- to the point where I feel comfortable in removing the "tone" template.


 * Thank you again for your help in this. Two heads are always better than one. If you have any further concerns, feel free to state them.


 * Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Using the Wikipedia link to just transition
With this edit I provided a new reference (from the Toronto Star) which links the treaty directly to the words, "equitable transition."

"Equitable" is designated as a synonym of "just" at this Wiktionary link.

Equitable is an adjective defined as “just” at this Wiktionary link.

The Wikipedia page on just transition refers to it as "framework." That page also refers to it as a "term" and a "concept." See this link: Just_Transition

The use of lower case letters in "just transition" indicate that it is a generic term, as opposed to a title of anything.

This reference uses lower case letters in the term at these pages: On page 6 and p 15, and page 17 twice, and page 19 (4 times), and once on page 20

Lower case letters are used in the titles of these references

In the official website of the treaty, the term "just transition" is used in the main definition on the landing page (without any scrolling), and again as a title of one of the three pillars if you scroll down from the landing page at this link

I believe that all of the above evidence allows me to link "equitable transition" to the Wikipedia page on just transition.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

List of cities
Is the list of cities a good idea? Over 110 cities have signed on to the treaty so far, and including a list of >100 seems highly redundant, especially when a) some of them are relatively minor cities, b) what actual information does it add? and c) finding sources for the date joined for each of the >100 is going to be very difficult (and as it stands, the current list is ~2 years out of date) DevonianShark (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)