Talk:Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Note on the Name
editNews agencies have referred to it as the Indian Network on Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment, but the actual government website (linked) omits the "comprehensive." I've redirected the other names here, but when/if the name is officially changed then we can move the article to one of the redirects. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice start
editThanks for starting this, amusing how the Daily Telegraph suddenly changed the title of its article and the meaning. Probably got a kicking from the Indian Environment Ministry. This doesn't look like a reliable source, but gives a reasonable overview. . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, mind if I remove "Indian" from in front on the Glacier institute tidbit? It reads funny and "National" implies that it is Indian. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also, the date's you added read kind of funny - mind if I correct them? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- And do we really need "alleged" mistakes? It already said that this was just his claim, and the mistakes are self-admitted and/or quite obvious. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Start date
editAll this seems to be in the news, and we say The Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment (INCCA) is a proposed network of scientists in India to be set up to publish peer-reviewed findings on climate change in India [1]. It was announced on 25 January 2010 , but [1] says This publication comes at a particularly opportune time. We are now ready to take the next big step in our scientific programme on climate change assessment. I am pleased to announce the launch of the Indian Network of Climate Change Assessment (INCCA), a network-based programme to be coordinated by our Ministry, which will undertake an even more ambitious programme of climate change assessment. and is dated, in pen, 7/10/09. That looks odd William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Dated October on page 3 of the document. They seem to have launched this three times! Revision to the article welcome. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've added the earlier date. We probably don't need the third one as well William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Goof ups
editI notice MN made an unmarked revert [2] with the curious edit comment "All reliable sources say mistakes, not goofups ". This is odd, because the sources used to support the assertion in the article says so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks. and Minister for environment & forests Jairam Ramesh said he felt "vindicated" by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) goof-up on the life of Himalayan glaciers.
So *both* sources used say goof-up, but apparently "reliable sources" which we don't trouble ourself to quote say something else.
William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, "goof-up" means mistake. It doesn't really matter either way, but goof-up doesn't sound very encyclopedic. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you tell the chap that we're quoting, who said it. Is there some reason why we want to hide what he said? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I plainly said I don't really care - why would you suggest I'm trying to hide what he said? I just said it didn't sound very encyclopedic. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't care, stop talking about it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- You are coming off as quite confrontational. Please calm down. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- All reliable sources say mistake, why the argument? mark nutley (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be having reading trouble. *Both* the sources that we quote for this text say goof-ups. Perhaps there are other sources that say he said mistakes, but if so you'll need to present them William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Orphan
editI linked to the main IPCC article in there see also and to the Himalayas article as these guys are dealing with the glaciers there, is that ok?
- I wonder if a merge to Climate change in India might be merited. --TS 20:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Merger proposal
editProposing to merge this article into Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, particularly the section on initiatives. The Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment initiative was launched by the Ministry. JetGreen40 (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)