Talk:Deep Adaptation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Potential sources[edit]

Jlevi (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jlevi (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jlevi (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--JulienLecaille (talk) July 2021 (UTC)

--JulienLecaille (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • that the climate science paper Deep Adaptation inspired thousands of people to join a movement? Source: "It has now been downloaded over half a million times, translated into a dozen languages, and sparked a global movement with thousands of followers - called Deep Adaptation, because Bendell calls on people to adapt their lifestyle to cope with the harsh conditions in his vision of the future." [1]
    • ALT1:that the climate communications paper Deep Adaptation has been downloaded over 600,000 times? "More than 600,000 people have downloaded Bendell’s paper, called Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating our Climate Tragedy." [2]
    • ALT2:that climate activists warn that the "doomist framing" of the paper Deep Adaptation, which argues that civilizational collapse is already inevitable, threatens to "[lead] us down the same very path of inaction" as the worst climate deniers? "What's more, Mann claims, Bendell's 'doomist framing' is 'disabling' and will 'lead us down the very same path of inaction as outright climate change denial. Fossil fuel interests love this framing.'"[3]
    • ALT3: ... that Jem Bendell's paper Deep Adaptation argues that because climate change-induced collapse is inevitable, society needs to plan for a post-collapse future? "By the near term, he means less than 10 years from now. By social collapse, he is speaking of unpredictable and interrelated breakdowns, in affluent as well as poor countries....How do we “adapt” to that? By accepting that the world as we’ve known it is ending, he says, then beginning to envision whatever new one can be built on the ruins."[4]
    • ALT4: ... that Jem Bendell's popular paper Deep Adaptation argues that nothing—from a complete halt in emissions to geoengineering—can prevent what he sees as an impending climate apocalypse? "Even if we ceased emissions tomorrow, Bendell argues, the latest climate science shows that “we are now in a climate emergency, which will increasingly disrupt our way of life ... a societal collapse is now inevitable within the lifetimes of readers of this paper.”[5] "Bendell acknowledges that some researchers have suggested developing geoengineering as an emergency backup plan for cooling down the planet in case global warming runs faster than current projections suggest. But he dismisses it as a potential way to ameliorate climate change because he thinks that its unpredictability will prevent its deployment."[6]
  • Reviewed: My third nomination for DYK.
  • Comment: Moved to mainspace on April 20 after a short user draft.

Created by Jlevi (talk). Self-nominated at 21:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Both hooks sound rather vague: the first doesn't really say more about the movement or how it "inspired thousands", and the second doesn't really say much more. Could something more be said about the paper? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As most readers will not be familiar with the subject I think it would be enough of a hook just to say something basic about it: for example "Deep Adaptation is A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy" or "Deep Adaptation will soon be needed after human civilisation breaks down" Chidgk1 (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full review needed now that new hooks have been proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is new, long enough, with no major issues (though it does lean a bit heavily on direct quotations). QPQ is exempt. As mentioned above, hook Alt1 is uninteresting. Alt2 is too long, and struck. Alt3 needs an end-of-sentence citation in the article. The article would need to mention carbon taxes and describe the "climate apocalypse" as part of Bendell's views in order for Alt4 to pass. Alt0 isn't that bad, but I'd also prefer Alt3 or Alt4, so marking this as requiring further action. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does this diff satisfy the changes for Alt3? Does this diff satisfy the suggested changes for Alt4? Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and yes, though the as a result of the latter edit the citation no longer appears at the end of the "The paper describes..." sentence; I've re-added it. (I realise it's rather redundant, but it's a requirement for DYK). One final thing: what is the intent of placing 'post-collapse' in single quotation marks? The phrase doesn't appear in the citations, and I notice you've used double quotation marks elsewhere, so a distinction appears to be being made, but it's unclear what. (The MOS only specifies single quotation marks for plant cultivars, simple glosses, and quotes within quotes (WP:MOSSINGLE).) --Paul_012 (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I think I'm just using scare quotes because I am uncomfortable discussing civilizational collapse in wikivoice (since it's a pretty darn fringe viewpoint). I think I'm being too restrictive, though. Given that the context of the content section as Bendell's viewpoint is quite clear, I don't think it's necessary. I removed the single quotes from the hook and the article for now, and am open to your thoughts. Jlevi (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an improvement. Approved Alt3 and Alt4. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute [-Introduction][edit]

"Deep Adaptation is a scientific, philosophical, and spiritual framework for responding to the impact of climate change and anthropogenic influence on the natural environment. The concept of "Deep Adaptation" purports that humanity needs to prepare for the possibility of fundamental societal collapse, as global warming and extreme weather events increasingly disrupt social, economic, and political systems. Unlike climate change adaptation, which aims to adapt societies gradually to the effects of climate change, Deep Adaptation is premised on accepting abrupt transformation of the environment as critical starting point for making decisions today."

The current introduction reads like a marketing blurb from the movement's followers that doesn't say anything about the paper it originated from, who wrote the paper, or the response from the scientific community. Shouldn't the Introduction focus on giving these facts? In addition, I also take issue with including this statement in the Reception section: "First and foremost, Deep Adaptation is robust and motivating science because it is not a single research paper but a new movement of both scholars and activists from around the world." This is not a logically sound statement, and damages the credibility of the article. The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update the page[edit]

Proposal: To begin with, a new outline structure for the Deep Adaptation page, see below.

Rationale: The old structure was appropriate when Deep Adaptation and the paper were new. Now that the concept is a few years old and a revised paper has been issued, an additional section is needed to allow differentiation between the original paper and its reception, and the evolution of the concept and related publications (including a compendium entitled “Deep Adaptation” published in May 2021). The focus also needs to shift from personal information about Bendell. Existing sections can be abridged so the final version can be not much longer than the original.

1 Origins
1.1 Content of original paper
3 1.2 Reception of original paper and response
2 1.3 Emergence of a broader movement
2 Deep Adaptation
2.1 The Deep Adaptation concept
2.2 The Deep Adaptation movement
2.3 Deep Adaptation and evolving conversations about ecological and societal threats
3 Reception (move to 1.2)
3.1 From the scientific community
3.2 From general audiences
3.3 Notable responses by Bendell


Artemisia-californica (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, I will slowly start releasing edited sections to this space as they are ready.

Artemisia-californica (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit of Deep Adaptation WP page[edit]

Please see the major edit draft here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Artemisia-californica/sandbox

Why? The current article:

  • Is out of date-- much new material is not addressed.
  • Overquotes-- I understand that is a way to avoid interpretation but its effect is to make the article read like a sensational tabloid. Instead I have done a lot of close paraphrasing.
  • Does not differentiate scientific concerns about the article from ethical concerns-- an important distinction.
  • Spends too much time on the paper and Jem Bendell (and why he didn't publish the paper) and not enough on the DA concept and its impact.

Please comment and correct as you see fit in this space. Thank you!.

Artemisia-californica (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The major edit is now on the live page. Corrections appreciated, questions of tone and inclusion I respectfully request we talk.

Artemisia-californica (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving weasel[edit]

@The Legend of Miyamoto:: with respect to you, I believe that the use of "several scientists" is not weasel because of context. Five scientists are named in the same paragraph, including this next sentence: "Climatologist Michael Mann was scathing in his assessments of Bendell’s scientific conclusions, and Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, asserted that previous climate trends of gradual change would continue." Do you still think it is weasel? If so, please consider that you may not have WP:NPOV. I would like to undo your flag as the cleanest remedy. Otherwise I will delete that tagged sentence. 

Artemisia-californica (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, or undone to be precise. 

Artemisia-californica (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REMOVE ITALICS FROM THE NAME OF THIS WIKI PAGE[edit]

I am in the midst of updating and improving the wikipedia page Jem Bendell and discovered that when one does a search on wikipedia for Deep Adaptation nothing comes up. And yet it does exist as an intact wikipedia page. I think the problem is that the name of the page is italicized: Deep adaptation. So if somebody could remove the italics, that would be great. I imagine it was italicized to begin with, as it originated as the title of a 2018 paper by Jem Bendell. But this is 2023 and it is now a movement and a concept widely used in sustainability literature and in the field of societal collapse and collapsology. Cbarlow (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not the problem; in the lead of your article I removed the wikilink because you are trying to link the concept--which is not the book. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, things are clearer to me now. The italics were incorrect; I don't know what caused the error you saw, but it works now, at least in the lead of that article. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deep_Adaptation&oldid=1212836237"