Talk:Community-led total sanitation

message: Possibly stating the obvious, but the first stage of clean-up for this article will be to add more inline refs. JMWt (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After further investigation, I have established that the copied information was added during this edit in 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community-led_total_sanitation&oldid=411992633 - given so much information was added during one edit, it seems likely that it was cut-and-pasted from the original here: http://www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/page/clts-approach (which does not appear to be licenced for reuse under CC).  I am therefore going to tag for investigation/removal. JMWt (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I decided to remove the duplicate material and add additional sections.  I think it is better than it was before. JMWt (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up of this article in FEb 2015 

message: I suggest to remove the external link to the Appropedia page as it seems to contain pretty much the same content as we have here? And if not how about copying across what is missing, as it's open access on Appropedia as far as I know. Same would apply if we find anything useful on Akvopedia.org about CLTS ~~
: Yes, Appropedia is all CC-BY.  I doubt there is much different there, but I will look and remove the link if not. JMWt (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove external link to Appropredia? 

message: I would delete the entire Further Reading section. This is not in-line with normal Wikipedia practice where the further reading leads to textbooks. If the further reading references are important, they should be cited in-line. If not, then they can anyway be found from the External Links section. EvM-Susana (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agree JMWt (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Further Reading sectionn? 

message: * Kamal Kar with Robert Chambers (2008) Handbook on Community-led Total Sanitation. IDS and Plan International also available in French, Spanish, Portuguese, Hindi, Bengali, Khmer and Arabic PetraBongartz (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading - moved to talk

message: Hi J.myers2,  I have removed this because this is not of encyclopedic nature. Rather cite statements from there and then include it in the reference list:
+++++++
Frontiers of CLTS
'Frontiers of CLTS: Innovations and Insights' is a series of short notes offering guidance on new methods and approaches, and thinking on broader issues surrounding the CLTS approach. The most recent 'Sustainability and CLTS: Taking Stock' identifies some of the problems with sustaining ODF communities and identifies some priority areas for learning. 
Other additions:
1. Participatory Design Development for Sanitation
2. How to Trigger for Handwashing with Soap 
3. Disability: Making CLTS Fully Inclusive
4. Sustainability and CLTS: Taking Stock 
The series is also available in French and Portuguese.
++++++++++
EvM-Susana (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed recent addition about Frontiers publications 

message: EvM-Susana, I am not sure what the 'wider criteria' are either! JMWt (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wider criteria for ODF status in Plan report

message: This article appears to rely on reports of non-profits and other primary sources and not on secondary sources per reliable sources guidelines. Also, this is an opinion piece. So I tagged the article, but feel free to remove it when the sources are improved. EChastain (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a criticism relating to the lack of secondary sources. The reference you highlight above is clearly cited as an opinion, and this is allowed too as per WP:RSOPINION.  In my view the tag is unnecessary. JMWt (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I have made it clearer Chatterjee is stating an opinion - but you are saying that this should not be used anywhere in this article?  JMWt (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  primary sources 

message: This UNICEF articles has info on outcomes for CLTS in Sierra Leone, Zambia, India, Nepal with what worked and what didn't in each country. It also has references. Community Approaches to Total Sanitation  EChastain (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  this looks like a good source 

message: , sorry. I had an  and didn't know you were doing a wholesale revert because of one word you felt was wrong. The thing to do is to use the talk pages to discuss things, rather than reverting huge chunks. I recommend this avenue for resolving differences on all wikipedia articles. EChastain (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two word edits, both wrong. I'd appreciate it if you would take more care to read the sources before editing. JMWt (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Ok they were longer than two words. But they were still very wrong - you ascribed to Kar a source which was not written by him. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community-led_total_sanitation&diff=651102544&oldid=651102282 JMWt (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: well, why not just fix it instead of revert?  I had made many little corrections and added the cite I gave above to the article. EChastain (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  use talk pages rather than wholesale reverts 

message: I reckon this article is really improving nicely, thanks to the work of talk and EChastain! Thank you! Hopefully more people will take an interest in this article as well, because CLTS is really pretty "big". It think it's time to look for photos. I couldn't find any on Wikimedia Commons so far, which is partly due to the fact that we don't have any on the SuSanA flickr database either. I have asked CLTS Knowledge Hub if we can use any form their photo contest:
http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/5-clts-community-led-total-sanitation-and-other-community-led-approaches/10752-photo-competition-picturing-clts . There is also a Flickr account of CLTS Foundation with good photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/communityledtotalsanitation/
I looked at a couple and they say all rights reserved, so I will e-mail them to find out if we can use any. EvM-Susana (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you for that! Regarding photos, there's a "hidden category" on the Commons Category:Files created by Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA), but you have to have your preferences on the Commons set to "Show hidden categories" to see it. Also, if you describe what sort of images you want, maybe I can find one there. (There are 2 categories with a total 9990 files in the SuSanA category described above.) EChastain (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am after images like these ones: https://www.flickr.com/photos/communityledtotalsanitation/ The person behind this flickr account has replied that she will make some available in the next few days. - Why is there a hidden category? EvM-Susana (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , hidden categories are considered maintenance categories. Images are put there automatically as a means of dealing with the huge number of images that come with the SuSanA template that don't seem to have a clear category to put them in, according to their Flicker tags. Once a human editor places them in a category, then they are more useful. Probably those images on Flickr that you point to above are already on the Commons somewhere, but unless someone has found them and sorted through them, they're in some category designated by Flickr which generally aren't very useful. I mentioned this problem to , but he didn't think it was a problem.   EChastain (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. I say they're probably already there because there's a massive number with your template from Flickr. If you try to upload images that are already there, you might run into problems. Doc James seemed to think you could just search for them on the Commons and find them that way, so you could try that. I recognise some of the images you pointed to on Flickr, so I think they're on the Commons now.  EChastain (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for photos for this article 

message: I received an answer on the Commons regarding the category:  I looked at the category creation. Elitre (A) created the category on the commons and  made several revisions last October. Since then another editor has removed a few categories and added one. So that's as it stands now. EChastain (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's exactly right: we had no CLTS photos in the SuSanA flickr account which is why non of the SuSanA photos on Commons include CLTS. I looked by using the search terms CLTS and community-led total sanitation but found none. Perhaps I din't look in the right way? The other flickr account belongs to CLTS Foundation and they do have great photos:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/communityledtotalsanitation/
But they are not under an open licence. I will try to convince them to change the licence type for their whole photostream. Or if not then at least for some photos that we can use (they already agreed to the latter and I am waiting for them to select some photos). EvM-Susana (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , well I'm fairly familiar with the Commons and  I've spent a lot of time browsing sanitation categories there and they're hugely confusing. (I've tried to clean them up, but it's hard to know what others will want. I thought I had all the toilet images, but then I found big batches of them in vague cats that didn't mention "toilets".)  I've found many of the SuSanA images that were "uncategorised" completely i.e. in no cat at all and only found by luck. If you go to the commons, go to Category:Files created by Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA), but you have to have your preferences on the Commons set to "Show hidden categories" to see it. Under "Sustainable Sanitation Alliance, someone as made an attempt to categorise some workshops and meetings. For you, click on  and you will see in tiny print at the bottom: "Files created by Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA)". (But first, make sure to set your preferences on the Commons to "show hidden categories".) Strange that you have to ask for permission. It says on the Commons: "SuSanA is kindly donating pictures from its Flickr photo database for Wikimedia Commons. Pictures in SuSanA's Flickr photo database were taken by various SuSanA members who all have an interest to share their sanitation photos as widely as possible." And that Flickr photostream you want images from is included as part of the SusanA database.If you upload any images, please put them in categories when you do, or you might not find them later. The "Flickr tags" are very misleading, so don't count on them. Editors on the Commons get overwhelmed with huge uploads that are badly categorised.  I think that's why so many of your images weren't categorised at all. A typical scenario is that  editors looked at some images of kids, or a school, or water categorised under "urine" or something that looked wrong to them, removed the cats and couldn't figure out where to put it. If there's at least a location, an editor confused about "what the heck is this" will categorise by place. Otherwise, they'll leave with no cat. (There are many thousands that will never have cats there.)  EChastain (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

text: We should perhaps move this whole section to my talk page as it's not really related to the talk page of CLTS?EvM-Susana (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

text: About not finding my own photos on Commons: well when I work on an article, e.g. ascariasis - If I want to insert a photo that already exists in commons I just go to insert media, type in those search terms (or it uses the article title by default) and there they all are. I think the categories are only important for that note at the bottom of an article taking people to more photos. I just uploaded a few more photos just now - normally I write for category just "sanitation" but now I also used "helminth infection". But I couldn't see an overivew of available categories, had to use trial and error to see which category already existed. EvM-Susana (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , okay. Well, I'm done with the sanitation images, then.  I only did it because I wanted to be helpful. But sounds like there's no point so I'd rather do something else anyway than worry about cats for urine and defecation etc. So, onward, for me, to something else! EChastain (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  more info on commons category  

message: There are some publications on testing the effectiveness of CLTS by Plan USA - are any of these useful to incorporate into this article, do they count as secondary sources?
http://scalingclts.web.unc.edu/resource-library/
EvM-Susana (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  the University of North Carolina is a reputable university in the US, so it's research articles are valid, in my opinion, and they know the basics of research design. This one: Community-led Total Sanitation in Ghana Findings from a Situational Assessment discusses their methods for data assessment and the limitations of the study. But they conclude that CLTS data is not regularly reported, and "CLTS data are inconsistent and unreliable. For example: "Reports of ODF status also vary substantially. In 2009, one international organization indicated 22% ODF achievement, while in 2010, another report cited a 6% ODF rate among a subset of regions." It also concludes that it's not possible to analyse the funding allocated to CLTS as the funding is mixed in with "other water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) programs, which makes it difficult to distinguish CLTS funding from other areas."It's a great source for why there's no reliable date on the effectiveness of CLTS. EChastain (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do these publications count as secondary sources ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Community-led total sanitation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150410203640/http://www.cltsfoundation.org/upload/publication/pdf/1419852683085170c948.pdf to http://www.cltsfoundation.org/upload/publication/pdf/1419852683085170c948.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227141221/http://www.wsscc.org/sites/default/files/publications/ahmed_clts_in_bangaldesh_chronicles_of_a_peoples_movement.pdf to http://www.wsscc.org/sites/default/files/publications/ahmed_clts_in_bangaldesh_chronicles_of_a_peoples_movement.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I would like to see the first sentence define the term CLTS better, while using language that regular readers would find more familiar.  "Triggering" is introduced without being explained well.  Readability is a problem I'd like to work on.  The first sentence gets a 1 (sic) out of 100 on the Flesch readability scale.  The Wikipedia goal is 60-70.  In the below attempt at improving readability I only got the score up to 41, but you can see what I have in mind.
Community-led total sanitation (CLTS) is an approach used to improve sanitation n a community.  Ending the practice of open defecation is the goal. The term "triggering" describes processes that bring about spontaneous and long-term changes to sanitation practices.
My question for those watching this page is how open are you to readability edits?  Often experts don't want to give up on fine details, in order to make the topic more accessible to the general reader.  My goal is to preserve accuracy, while introducing some clarity. PlanetCare (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some more work on the lead. It was actually too long, too detailed and not a good summary of the article. Have moved some of the excessive detail (e.g. about subsidies) to the main body now. I think people were trying to cram too much information into the lead rather than ensuring it's a good summary of the article. EMsmile (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have now added some more content to the lead, by taking what I think are key pieces of information from the main text. I have included the references each time just to make it easier for people to check (adding references in the lead is optional but I am finding it useful in many cases).EMsmile (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability and Clarity of explanations in the Lead 

message: This reference from USAID could be used to add further updates to the article (I don't have time right now to do it myself but perhaps someone else has; if not, I will come back to it later): see here  EMsmile (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good reference from April 2018 from USAID