This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
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
The only problem with this information it’s all real and yes they poisoned air daily with those aircraft — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2603:7000:2101:1218:4DD0:79CF:E8A:AC75 (
talk) 15:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
First sentence needs improving
For one thing other stuff burning fossil fuel does not usually produce contrails. How about something like -
Aviation is one of the causes of climate change and sometimes local air pollution.
Chidgk1 (
talk) 15:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The current 1st sentence is Like other emissions resulting from fossil fuel combustion, aircraft engines produce gases, noise, and particulates, raising environmental concerns over their global effects and their effects on local air quality. There is no "contrails" in it. It has the advantage of being more complete, and has an ICAO ref.--
Marc Lacoste (
talk)
Ah OK you no doubt know better than me whether or not contrails should be in the first sentence. But I hope you agree that it could be improved - perhaps you or someone else can suggest an improved version bearing in mind
MOS:FIRST? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chidgk1 (
talk •
contribs)
I have reworked that fist sentence to improve the wording and flow. See what you think now. -
Ahunt (
talk) 15:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Definitely better than before thanks but I think it can be further improved - I hope to suggest something later today or tomorrow but everyones ideas welcome of course
Chidgk1 (
talk) 15:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Sure, by all means feel free to come up with some improved wording. -
Ahunt (
talk) 15:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I did not notice any quantitative comparison (for example number of people made ill) of the different effects in the body of the article but would you agree that climate change is the worst? If so I suggest the words "climate change" are included in the first sentence. For example Aviation is one of the causes of climate change and is sometimes noisy and dirty.Chidgk1 (
talk) 17:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
As per
WP:FORMAL can I suggest Aircraft engines produce gases, noise, and particulates from fossil fuel combustion, raising environmental concerns over their climate change contributions and their effects on local air quality.. -
Ahunt (
talk) 17:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
OK I looked more closely at
WP:TONE as well as WP:FORMAL. Well at least your suggestion includes “climate change”. And I don’t insist on “aviation” rather than “aircraft engines”. But I think it should be a bit more concise such as: Aircraft engine exhaust is one of the causes of climate change, and sometimes noise and local air pollution. Also the current first sentence is a bit misleading in that engines fuelled only by biojet, although better, could still have some impact for example they might not be carbon neautral due to non-CO2 impact.
Chidgk1 (
talk) 08:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
It's not the simple English Wikipedia either. Biofuel is presented in the following paragraphs.--
Marc Lacoste (
talk) 08:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I am not suggesting that “biofuel” or “biojet” be mentioned in the first sentence. I am not a professional writer but even I can see that the existing first sentence is not as good as you would find in a professional encyclopedia or a Wikipedia “good” article. Perhaps you can suggest a better one?
Chidgk1 (
talk) 09:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm happy with the current first sentence. The subject is arduous, it needs a complete description and the first sentence does not have to be dumbed down. What's lacking? "Climate change" was (rightfully) included by Ahunt. The
WP:LEAD section should be a summary of the article body. It is reasonably achieved right now.--
Marc Lacoste (
talk) 10:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
What is wrong with the current sentence is a good question. 1) “raising environmental concerns” is too weak 2) Repetition of “effects” does not read smoothly 3) The words “combustion” and “particulates” are too technical for a first sentence 4) Does not name the main impact - climate change @
Ahunt: as we are agreed on 4 you could fix that point now if you like
Chidgk1 (
talk) 10:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
and removed unwarranted "importance-inline" tags that were set because the editor felt like the content was obvious (calling it "truism") but even if it was obvious that makes it no less important/notable and relevant (and the
WP:RS even indicate it's among the most important things to include) (I left multiple other inline tags as they were)
Also added this content from the study as it was apparently excluded in particular despite the relevance and importance: "
Food security and land use are "enormous hurdles" for a large scale-up of "sustainable aviation fuels" and decreasing the demand for flights and improvements in energy intensity can reduce their future demand"
To summarize: the removals (/revert) were unwarranted, unexplained, and are inconsistent with policies like
WP:RS and
WP:DUE
Ahunt wrote "Not really much value in this section at all, it can just go" because I already
tagged this paragraph sentences with importance? (and as you noted, with truism as a reason). When we are two editors thinking the same way, we are more certain of our decisions. It had RS but was not so important.--
Marc Lacoste (
talk) 06:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
But while it may arguably not be very important (note that I'd disagree on that too), it's definitely notable and due there regardless.
Also, as said, the sources even go so far as to name these things as the most important and first way to mitigate emissions so that violates
WP:NPOV to exclude that.
Another indication that this is important to include and due is that many sources name these things, sometimes extensively and/or at the top of the source.
But okay as to the explanation: maybe the removal was not unexplained so that point of mine may be false (nevertheless truism should then probably be in the edit summary too).
I reviewed
User:Marc Lacoste's tagging of that section and agreed that the text added nothing of value to the article, regardless of any refs cited. The text was far too general to be included in a section of much more specific information. Furthermore statements like Taking local
vacations or travelling close to home can avoid taking planes. was what could be charitably called "brilliant grasp of the obvious", just not encyclopedic content. The same concepts are covered earlier in the article but in more depth. With one editor tagging it for importance and another assessing and removing it, that is an editing consensus. This discussion just comes to the same conclusion. -
Ahunt (
talk) 12:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
2. It does NOT matter if you get a "brilliant grasp of the obvious" if it's highly significant to the topic or if it's laughable to you. The reader may be aware of that or in some cases not, but if it's highly relevant and significant and has
WP:RS it should be there per
WP:DUE
3. To address your concerns, the reverted content was Supporting local
vacations or travels close to home rather than at distant destinations can reduce flight demand. and that is very important to at least mention briefly in a section called Reducing air travel. I can look if more
WP:RS state this but afaik the ones given are more than sufficient.
Prototyperspective (
talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I did remove that content only. Regardless, you have now argued your case and two other editors disagree with you. Let's see if any other editors support your proposed additions or not. -
Ahunt (
talk) 13:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I propose a compromise in that whilst there is a section on "Reducing air travel" I feel it should be moved higher up. And it could certainly do with some improvements by
Prototyperspective and others. For example it could say more on discouraging frequent flying and the info on virtual working could perhaps be updated - presumably there are now academic studies of pandemic years guiding how much people should meet face to face for work and how much can be done remotely. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chidgk1 (
talk •
contribs)
Wikipedia is not a guidebook to reduce air travel. The subject is the mitigation of the environmental effects of aviation not a
soapbox for political advocacy to ban air travel. We are not here to discourage flying. Mitigation solutions with reliable sources are welcome, like updating the remote work part, indeed.--
Marc Lacoste (
talk) 18:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Perhaps my phrasing was bad as you misunderstand - I am not saying that Wikipedia should take a political stand or discourage frequent flying. However in the taxation section, for example, we can write a sentence about groups calling for a Frequent Flyer Levy.
Chidgk1 (
talk) 18:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It's not a guidebook for that if it includes
WP:DUE on-topic brief significant content on that. Also it's neither advocacy not about "banning" air travel at all. The content consisted of signficant notable Mitigation solutions with reliable sources.
@
Chidgk1academic studies of pandemic years was/were part of the sources used. The removed content was well-referenced and there are probably way more good-quality refs for that, the removal was unwarranted and is not
WP:NPOV.
One thing that could be valid criticism of the content as is would be (and why do I have to articulate such instead of the content-removers?) is that the sources provided mostly describe personally-motivated more-local travel, rather than (any kind of) Support for such. This was changed to address prior criticism of "truism" albeit the change wasn't needed. I'll check if there are even more refs for the Supporting .. travels close to home (e.g. in neighboring countries) in specific.
Prototyperspective (
talk) 18:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The problem was not with the refs, which were fine, it was with the text. It was out of place in the article, poorly written and, as noted, plainly obvious anyway, plus fails
WP:NPOV as taking a political stance and giving instructions per
WP:NOTMANUAL. To include this sort of section it needs to be totally rewritten and moved up in the article so it is not down in the portion of the article dealing with technical details. If you would like to prose new section text here on the talk page then I am sure we would be all be happy to have a look at it. -
Ahunt (
talk) 22:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay thank you for clarifying – now I understand your concerns better.
I find it always important to communicate the reasons for removals/reverts/deletions because otherwise the issues usually can neither be addressed at talk nor solved via edits (and additionally it makes me somewhat unsure if the respective editors are serious about improving the state of the article rather than just trying to keep certain content out for unknown reasons and hence whether or not further debate and effort is pointless).
It was indeed relatively badly written and wasn't as on-point as it should have been – sorry for that, I think that was mainly because I didn't want to spend that much time on it and just to quickly patchfix the most severely missing parts. However, now I have put a real effort into it and worked on it much longer,
using lots of high-quality sources (mostly studies explicitly about mitigation solutions, including an IPCC report, and better ones than a few of the earlier used news sources),
made sure it's more on-point as in about "Measures", not void info about more or less personal-level changes and truist/obvious info,
and improved the writing too.
I may still slightly copyedit the draft, but I now consider it largely finished. Please have a look and tell me if it's okay to include (maybe via excerpt of the Measures section). If not, please edit it directly or provide explanations what should be improved.
Okay, well it looks like you have moved all the text under discussion here into that new draft article, so unless there is anything else for this article, perhaps we can close out this discussion. -
Ahunt (
talk) 22:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)reply
What do you mean? I copied the content from this article there and then started editing (see the edit summaries). I did not insert the removed content "Close vacations and remote presence" there.
Prototyperspective (
talk) 22:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Draft articles are for writing and editing new and proposed articles, not for proposing changes to existing articles. That should be done either here on the talk page or perhaps a personal sandbox. So I am not sure what your aim is with that new draft article. -
Ahunt (
talk) 22:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The content is far too long to put on and edit on a talk page. If that's usually done in sandbox I didn't know that but I don't think that's the case. I also wasn't sure what the aim was: now I also submitted it to afc but that wasn't the original aim. If it's a separate article, the Measures section from there could be transcluded to/as the "Reducing air travel" section here.
Prototyperspective (
talk) 22:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Well you have now submitted it to AfC. You will have to clip any overlap with this article and attribute any text copied from this article as well, as per
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. -
Ahunt (
talk) 23:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)reply
To avoid duplicates and maintenance problems, only one copy should be kept there, with a summary and a link.--
Marc Lacoste (
talk) 06:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Possible source re alternative fuels
About UK but there may be globally relevent info which could be copied and pasted if I understand creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 right
Chidgk1 (
talk) 19:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
not sure what are you talking about, maybe the recent royal society report? I summarized it earlier today.--
Marc Lacoste (
talk) 19:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
yes that sorry forgot to post the link
Chidgk1 (
talk) 14:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)reply