Talk:United Nations Ocean Conference

The hatnotes

Hello User:Stormy clouds: you added some hatnotes to the article and I would like to ask you to either improve the article yourself appropriately or make it clear what exactly you mean so that it can be improved.

I don't think they're warranted: Why do you think it is "promotional"? It just works in important and relevant statements and facts which shouldn't make it "promotional" or anything alike. And it's all referenced and relevant. Where does it not have the encyclopedic tone?

--Fixuture (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fixuture:Some of the article is floundering and unnecessary in my opinion, and it does not adequately focus on the topic it is about. For instance, when I found it, there were see also links to Social responsibility and History - neither of these, particularly the latter, are warranted or necessary, and amount to fluff. The article clashes with tone as it seems to consist more of snippets of speeches than any concrete information about the conference or the 800+ commitments that it generated (the relevant data), and some of the language is overtly extreme and frivolous.

The promotional aspect is introduced by the fact that it firmly supports a particular perspective. The addition of the Pale Blue Dot is not relevant to the conference in anyway - it is relevant to climate change. The same is true for much of the information included in the article about ocean pollution. It should not be there, as this is an article about a specific conference, not an indepth analysis of the topic it is about. The inclusion of this frankly irrelevant information leaves a reader like myself with the sentiment that this issue is vital and one-sided (I agree that it is an issue which must be amended, but this is an encyclopedia), and that it explicitly promotes change.

I would improve the article (I attempted to do so, with some of my amendments being reversed) myself, but lack the prerequisite knowledge to accurately do so, as I have not been following the conference. However, if it was altered to be more about the conference, and some of the more verbose language was amended, by all means remove the tags. This was my rationale for adding them. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

However, I will defer to your expertise if you wish to remove them. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds:

Alright, thanks for clarifying!

For instance, when I found it, there were see also links to Social responsibility and History - neither of these, particularly the latter, are warranted or necessary, and amount to fluff.

Okay. If you think the former also needs to be removed please go ahead. I think it is definitely relevant and sufficiently due there but I wouldn't consider it essential there or anything.

The article clashes with tone as it seems to consist more of snippets of speeches than any concrete information about the conference or the 800+ commitments that it generated (the relevant data), and some of the language is overtly extreme and frivolous.

But that's also info about the conference as what participants stated there is a main component so to say of it. I would consider that concrete information about the conference as well. I try to select those quote which are most on-point, relevant and of interest to the reader. One main reason for why I haven't included more meta information about the conference as well as about the commitments is simply due to no RS reporting on it.

But I do think that more info on the voluntary commitments is needed. Mainly some external link or a pie chart could be enough.

If you consider some of the language overtly extreme and frivolous I ask you to correct it (per WP:BOLD) if it's truly inappropriate. I tried to correct anything of that sort that I found and think that it's fine as it is now.

The promotional aspect is introduced by the fact that it firmly supports a particular perspective.

I don't think it does. It simply informs about important and relevant findings, conditions and statements. Scientific data / findings may support some specific stances and relevant statements informed about may have been made by people with varying or somewhat uniform perspectives.

The addition of the Pale Blue Dot is not relevant to the conference in anyway - it is relevant to climate change.

Well first of all it's The Blue Marble and it is very much relevant to the conference with this relevantness being made clear in the text beneath the image. It is not just relevant to climate change.

The same is true for much of the information included in the article about ocean pollution. It should not be there, as this is an article about a specific conference, not an indepth analysis of the topic it is about.

It is a very short summary and really needs to be there. It's essential and not in-depth. It's the subject and cause of the conference. Also earlier you criticized the many quoted statements - that short summary summarizes what is being said in various statements at the conference.

The inclusion of this frankly irrelevant information leaves a reader like myself with the sentiment that this issue is vital and one-sided

It is relevant. It may cause that sentiment - however that sentiment is unfounded. It is vital though. If you consider it "one-sided" you are free to suggest or add statements or other info that make it more polysided (note: many articles have "Criticism" sections for such).

it explicitly promotes change

It does not. But it may do so implicitly, which is not a problem and probably would be a good thing. The conference exists to initiate change and hence any info about it may inherently also promote change which, again, is not a problem in this encyclopedia.

but lack the prerequisite knowledge to accurately do so

Everybody should be able to gain that knowledge by open tools and participation. It may take some time, indeed.

However, if it was altered to be more about the conference, and some of the more verbose language was amended, by all means remove the tags.

I added some more info on the conference now that more reports are available and also tried to find and correct inappropriate language and removed the tags in my recent edit. I think that while the article is far from being perfect the tags are no longer warranted. I will try to continue to improve.

Thanks again for your input!

--Fixuture (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

- @Fixuture: - Thanks for the dialogue. On review, your decision to remove the tags was justified, and I endorse it. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible expansions

The article could potentially be expanded by the following information / topics / refs:

• The conference was originally scheduled to take place in Fiji but Cyclone Winston caused heavy damage to the island in 2016 and the conference was moved to New York
• How is Russia involved here? Are they a major polluter, how did they participate and what commitments did they make? The only thing I could find was: http://www.unrussia.ru/en/taxonomy/term/4/2017-06-06
• Info on "Blue BioTrade". The only thing I could find so far is: http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=1502
• That (which?) celebrities and famous people took part too
• http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/traditional-fishers-get-voice-at-un-meet/article18962999.ece

--Fixuture (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 United Nations Ocean Conference

There has been a 2nd UNOC in 2022 - https://www.un.org/en/conferences/ocean2022 , and UNOC 3 is forecast for 2025 in Nice. The page should be renamed accordingly. Wisdood (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)