Talk:Polycrisis

Possible source addition

An IP editor tried to add this source to the article in a recent edit. I have reverted that edit because it only mentioned the source and not its contents; but it might be useful as a future addition to the article:

Liu, H., Renn, O. Polycrisis and Systemic Risk: Assessment, Governance, and Communication. Int J Disaster Risk Sci (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-025-00636-3 TucanHolmes (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this. I am actually reading it right now, as it happens. It looks like a particularly good fit: Liu and Renn explicitly compare polycrisis and systemic risk, list the main definitions in chronological order (Morin–Kern, Swilling, Juncker, Tooze, the Cascade Institute group, the WEF), and propose a five-feature operational definition of polycrisis. Renn in particular has been working in this area for some time — he is co-author of Lawrence et al. 2024, already cited as ref [3]. The Swilling 2013 reference is also useful: it fills a gap between Morin and Tooze that the article currently does not cover. I will come back here with a concrete proposal once I have finished reading. MikaelMD (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Geopolitical crisis section — relevance

I have been re-reading the "Geopolitical crisis" paragraph (the part before the Kotarski quote) and I am not convinced most of it belongs here.

The facts are real, no argument there. But the paragraph just lists conflicts and asserts they are a polycrisis — which is the editor's link, not a source's. WP:SYNTH territory.

Yes, the Iran escalation could fit a Cascade Institute reading (if Hormuz closes, the cascade is textbook). But "could fit" is not enough: we would need a secondary source actually making that case under a defined framework. Otherwise we end up adding every major conflict by the same logic.

Either we source each event properly, or we trim the paragraph back and let the Kotarski quote carry the section. The "first death of a world leader during this era" line should go either way — superlative and unsourced.

Anyone aware of secondary lit doing this work? Would rather not touch it without input.

What do you all make of it? MikaelMD (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible AI-generated content

Concerns have been raised about AI-generated content in this article. This is a procedural talk page section to discuss it. There is no need to ping me in response. Read WP:AISIGNS for more information. Rationale: Sweetstache edits, see WP:AISIGNS Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Gnomingstuff's description of the issue is quite inadequate. The vague banner tag has been removed per WP:DRIVEBY. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)