Battle of Locust Grove

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International development High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, 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.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Urban studies and planning This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Environment This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicole Lizbeth. Peer reviewers: Reethespiethes, Ericklemusss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cgabriele.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to create a new article that lists links to all the Government Public Participation web pages in Canada, i.e. at all levels of government, including every major city. I'm guessing this is not quite appropriate for wikipedia, or maybe it is? Any suggestions where would be the best place to host such a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondiceman (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs extension: to do - inclusion of Participatory planning, the Aarhus Convention, Environmental impact assessment, Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, Strategic lawsuit against public participation and Neighborhood planning.--SasiSasi (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the articles on participation, and I noticed that they are not very coordinated and they overlap quite a bit. I'm starting a discussion about this at Talk:Participation#Overlap_between_participation_articles. Any help is appreciated! MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To sort topics of public participation by the public impact / influence an infobox might be useful originating from de.wikipedia Spektrum der Bürgerbeteiligung (English spectrum of public participation). Thanks, Edward Steintain (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public participation in science has been coined as "citizen science". I recommend thinning out the Environmental section and adding a sub-section talking about citizen science. Below are my proposed sources for that section:

Richardson, Liz. “Engaging the Public in Policy Research: Are Community Researchers the Answer?” Politics and Governance, vol. 2, no. 1, 2014, pp. 32–44.    

M. James C. Crabbe. “From Citizen Science to Policy Development on the Coral Reefs of Jamaica.” International Journal of Zoology, vol. 2012, 2012, pp. International Journal of Zoology, 01 January 2012, Vol.2012.   

Hollow, Roetman, Walter, and Daniels. "Citizen Science for Policy Development: The Case of Koala Management in South Australia." Environmental Science and Policy 47 (2015): 126-36.

Chapman, Colin and Crona Hodges. "Can Citizen Science Seriously Contribute to Policy Development?: A Decision Maker's View." Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research. IGI Global, 2017. 246-261.

Pidgeon, Nick, et al. “Creating a National Citizen Engagement Process for Energy Policy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111 Suppl 4, 2014, pp. 13606–13.

Wooden, Ruth. “The Principles of Public Engagement: At the Nexus of Science, Public Policy Influence, and Citizen Education.” Social Research, vol. 73, no. 3, 2006, pp. 1057–1063. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgabriele (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cgabriele (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the suggested addition...

Citizen Science

Liz Richardson, a Visiting Fellow in the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) at the London School of Economics and an editor for the journal Local Government Studies, has long advocated for the greater inclusion of non-professional scientists in policy research. She emphasizes that it is academia’s responsibly to facilitate the “democratization of policy research” noting several benefits of having citizens involved in not just the contribution of data, but also the framing and development of research itself (2014). She notes that the biggest disadvantage of citizen science is the reliance on using citizens as only contributing members of the scientific endeavors and pushes for a more community-based participatory research method which would include laypeople in the entirety of the research process while emphasizing the scientific method popularized by citizen science.^[2]

In their 2017 article, Colin Chapman and Crona Hodges outline what they believe to be the key to success in applying citizen science to policy development: data which is “suitable, robust, and of a known quality for evidence-based policy making” (2017). They identified several barriers to applying citizen science to policy development including a lack of suitability between the data collected and the policy in question and skepticism regarding the data collected by non-experts. ^[3]

Cgabriele (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Public participation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080711143102/http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/transition_initiatives/pubs/ptdv1000.pdf to http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/transition_initiatives/pubs/ptdv1000.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080502170947/http://www.africaaction.org:80/african-initiatives/chartall.htm to http://www.africaaction.org/african-initiatives/chartall.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080927001316/http://www.involve.org.uk:80/evaluation/ to http://www.involve.org.uk/evaluation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge The right to public participation into Public participation. This article already has a "Right to..." section that can be expanded with material found by the author of that other article. Also, "The right to public participation" is not a viable term in the literature. Yes, some authors have stated that people have this right, but there are not parallel Wikipedia articles for "Freedom of speech" and "The right to freedom of speech". ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 14:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After two weeks these appears uncontroversial, or even unknown, so I will do the merge. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 21:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appeared to have been demerged by an IP. I have reverted the text removal subject to consensus here. The new article [:Right to public participation]] remains extant but should probably become a redirect if there is no support for this unilateral fork.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping: so it seems that The right to public participation was preserved by User:sadads and an excerpt was added here. Is this discussion now complete? EMsmile (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a human right, it needs to be separated from the generic concept, sorry if I didn't write an explanation about that here, Sadads (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few suggestions for improvements. I won't have time to do them myself in the near future but am just putting them here in case someone else wants to improve this article further:

• Needs restructuring to use standard headings;
• seems to be mainly an overview article which doesn't go into depth. Connections with other articles are not well developed, e.g. with citizen science (which also needs a lot of work).
• Connections with SDGs not yet included (participation and participatory is mentioned in several of the SDGs, e.g. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels and Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries).
• The section "Critical interpretations of public participation" is more written like an academic literature review; was probably a student piece.
• There are so many related articles, starting with "participatory" in the title; could be quite hard to figure out what should go where. EMsmile (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]