Talk:Great Transition

Untitled

Perhaps when this article was originally written, it was viewed as an advertisement. Heck, the government was not even acknowledging the fact of global warming when this article was first posted.

We are more aware of what is happening in the world and how we can help the situation. This in itself has changed the whole perspective of living as a global community. This article does not seem to implore us to join the organization, although I am tempted to; but rather, it gives facts about what the organization believes, its goals, etc.

I think that the article is quite informative.

216.155.211.135 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Jan Rose

There are many names for the global transformation currently under way (tipping point, great turning, etc etc) - it is important that this page also refers to them, and probably also needs a bit of cleaning up to make the guidelines, but is basically sound, valid and interesting.

A quick look at Google for either of the originating organizations shows them to be highly regarded- they have produced some of the most thoughtful, well-researched and well-written (digestible!) material on aspects of this transformation process.

I agree that it would be a shame to simply delete the page. Better to clean it up and weave it in more thoroughly, for example by cross-linking it with the Tellus Institute's own page on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tellus_Institute

Holeconecol (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As reviewing administrator, I think the article is at any event not a speedy as promotional & I declined the speedy. I am somewhat concerned about whether any of the sources discussing the postulated theory are in fact independent of the group. Perhaps a merge into the article for the group is the best course. DGG (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of links from 'See also'

This comment is regarding the recent removal of two links from the 'See also' section.

Please refer to the WP style guideline on 'See also':

Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. {{Portal}} and {{Wikipedia-Books}} links are usually placed in this section. Consider using {{Columns-list}} if the list is lengthy.

Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example:

• Related person—made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005
• Ischemia—restriction in blood supply

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section.

The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages.

OpenFuture's recent removal of Arthurfragoso's two links are in clear violation of this WP style guideline.

If editors disagree on what links to keep, we discuss it. Please note that there was no discussion on this talk page before the links were removed. It is my understanding that WP policies, rules, guidelines and regulations make it very clear that, in the vast majority of cases, it is much preferred to discuss first before deleting, not the other way around.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Instead of claiming that it is a "clear" violation, it would be good if you explain in what way it is a violation. Your understanding of policies and guidelines are as usual incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The style guideline clearly states: "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant."

Careful study of Great Transition, Post-scarcity economy, The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project reveals that the last three articles at the very least satisfy (or exceed) the (apparently weak) criteria/ standard/ test of being indirectly related or only peripherally relevant to the first.

The style guideline states: "... because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant. "

Removing these three links is contradictory to the purpose of enabling readers to explore topics that are at the very least peripherally (or more than just peripherally) relevant.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No, because post-scarcity is not even peripherally relevant to this topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only did your edit violate the style guideline, you are also violating WP:Etiquette. You have conveniently neglected to discuss, or even mention, the other two links you have deleted. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough, neither did you, and since you started this discussion, it's reasonably *you* who should have mentioned them, and therefore, according to your own otherworldly logic, you are in violation of WP:Etiquette. Maybe you can go and ask an admin on AN/I to block yourself for 24 h to prevent further breeches? That would be crazy enough to fit in this increasingly bizarre discussion. I feel like I should start calling myself "Alice" soon. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor continues to ignore the substance of the discussion. My comment on 00:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC) discussed three links. In the editor's response on 04:59, 28 May 2012, only one link was mentioned. Thus, my comment on 08:33, 28 May 2012 discussed the two other links. The editor's response on 10:32, 28 May 2012 again neglected to discuss the other two links that were deleted. I'm asking the editor to discuss the other two links that were deleted.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the same reason, because it's the same topic. For the fifth or sixth time (counting the other topics where I deleted the same set of links): I removed the links because the topics bare no relation whatsoever to each other. And please stop pretending you didn't understand it the first four or five times I said do. Your behavior is disruptive time wasting, and I'm rapidly losing my patience with your nonsense. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Tellus Institute reports

So far as I can tell, this page is by somebody who works at the Tellus Institute (see the article's history, first entry), writing about a Tellus Institute idea, that's been mentioned in passing in a few speeches since. Almost all of it just seems to summarize that report, without any responses, criticism, explanations of its influence, or anything to show much life for this outside the walls of the Tellus Institute and a few other think tanks. Is it possible to give a clearer idea of its scholarly impact (if there is one)? NumberJuanwithaBullet (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I tried to edit some of the more egregious stuff that remained, too, like "considered a hallmark", self-praise that didn't seem to have a source. I'd suggest that if somebody wants to add some of this back, the best thing to do would be to look at how secondary sources are summarizing the Great Transition, instead of just what the Tellus Institute thinks about it themselves. That would give an idea of how it's perceived and thought about beyond the authors of the reports themselves. NumberJuanwithaBullet (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)