Jump to content

Talk:Community-led total sanitation

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

Clean up of this article in FEb 2015

[edit]

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)[reply]

I also just noticed that the first section is word-for-word from here: http://www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/page/clts-approach - if this is just cut-and-pasted from the IDS website (which seems more likely than the reverse), I guess that is not ideal for a wikipedia page.. JMWt (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After further investigation, I have established that the copied information was added during this edit in 2011 http://en.wiki.x.io/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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

Remove Further Reading sectionn?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Yes, agree JMWt (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading - moved to talk

[edit]

The only problem with removing this is that there are links to resources in other languages which might be relevant to readers. I wonder if maybe we are wrong on removing this for that reason? JMWt (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is not yet a summary

[edit]

The lead needs to be modified so that it becomes a summary of the article (with up to 4 paragraphs in length). At the moment it is more or less just about the history of CLTS. EvM-Susana (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I started writing it and then thought maybe I should work on the structure of the rest first.. JMWt (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way the article could be written in the active voice, as required by wikipedia standards? For example, currently the opening sentence is the following:
"Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) is an approach to bring about sustained behavior change in mainly rural people by a process of "triggering" leading to spontaneous and long-term abandonement of open defecation practices." could be something like

"Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) is a method of changing the sanitation-related behaviour of rural people, using shame to induce communities (?) to abandon the practice of open defecation. It was developed by ??? and found ??% effect in (names of countries/places etc.)".
This is just a suggestion. EChastain (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed recent addition about Frontiers publications

[edit]

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)[reply]

Wider criteria for ODF status in Plan report

[edit]

EvM-Susana, I am not sure what the 'wider criteria' are either! JMWt (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

questions about this article

[edit]

I'm wondering who developed the "Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS)" approach? I was asked to look at this article, but this method of shame is something I can't endorse. I'm sorry EvM-Susana but I could never support a method based on shame. Are there other formal approaches to changing behaviour regarding sanitation? EChastain (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean here, the article is clear that Kar developed the approach. Nobody is asking you to 'endorse' it. Other methods are not relevant to this article.JMWt (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does this method have any scientific support? The source for this article seems to be a primary source, and so not a reliable source for wikipedia. Also, the developer of this method: "Dr. Kamal Kar is a specialist in livestock production, agriculture and natural resources by training". I think the article needs a much wider focus, wider than just the ideas of one man. How about a compare and contract article about several methods, backed by scientific evidence on their effectiveness? EChastain (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The approach is about human behavior and is used by a large number of NGOs in the field, so it is proper to quote from them about what it involves. These are necessarily primary sources. There are very few peer reviewed studies as to the effectiveness of it, but as we find them we will include. This is not primarily a medical or a science article, the sources are necessarily descriptive.
I reject the idea of a wider article, the page is about a process called "Community-led Total Sanitation" which readers might want to know more detail about. The point of this article is to introduce it as a concept not to attempt to compare effectiveness, which would not be a neutral POV as there are many different professional opinions about it. JMWt (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I copy here what I just put on my talk page where we also spoke about this: JMWt recently worked on that page (I also gave some inputs) and there is no danger of an "editing war". However, I think you might enjoy first reading our previous discussions on CLTS here: http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/5-clts-community-led-total-sanitation-and-other-community-led-approaches . One might think that it's only about providing nice toilets and then people will use them. But the reality is different. Villagers should not wait for outsiders to build toilets for theme, they should jump into action (after "triggering") and build their own toilets. This is what CLTS is all about and it's got a lot to do with psychology... See also here previous discussions: http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/71-behaviour-change-and-user-psychology-issues EvM-Susana (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say your idea of a "wider article" is valid (as a separate article) and that's what the existing article on behaviour change (public health) can and should do, isn't it? Apart from that I do think it is important to look at CLTS from all angles - that's why we have a criticism section there. CLTS has been touted as the silver bullet but there are also many people criticising it. The article should be balanced, providing information on both standpoints. And the more publications come to light, the more we can include. There are large grants funded by the BMGF to look at the effectiveness of CLTS, see here here: http://www.susana.org/en/resources/projects?search=clts EvM-Susana (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the recent clean-up of this article

[edit]

Regarding the general point that this article being a mess, a few points:

1. It is a work in progress. For many years it was copied-and-pasted from a copyrighted page with few inline sources. I wrote much of the content in a hurry having realised this last week, and I would argue it is considerably improved. The structure is largely mine, I am interested to hear from anyone who thinks there is a better way to present the information.

2. It is about a system which is in widespread use in sanitation, readers are likely to come across it having heard about "Community-led Total Sanitation" or "CLTS", as there are many NGOs and governments who are using these terms.

3. I have fairly strong feelings about CLTS, but I see it as my responsiblity to record things here dispassionately, providing as many relevant references as possible for readers to understand the terms used and the way they are used in practice. WP:NPOV states that "articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." The use of shame is controversial and criticism should be included in the relevant section. Pointing this out has no bearing on the rest of the article, this article should not read as if it is promoting or detracting from CLTS.

4. Kamal Kar was the originator of the concept, he is seen as being an expert in community engagement, which is why Wateraid asked him to intervene in the Bangladesh situation. Kar developed and engaged many with his ideas, but they have grown far beyond him. It is therefore important to acknowledge his contribution as well as the way the thing has expanded beyond his influence. I agree that the latter can be improved and clarified - again this is a work in progress.

5. Self-published sources are used to reference this article because few peer-reviewed articles exist. WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The majority of cites here are from NGO practice documents. Whilst it might be better to use sources in peer-reviewed books, these generally do not exist about CLTS IMO. I would be very interested to see them included if anyone can find them.

6. Finally I think we should all keep in mind the dangers of trying to argue from authority. Many of the previous editors of this page are very conversant with the ideas behind CTLS, psychology, sanitation etc. The point is not to try to get to 'the truth' but to focus on the way that the terms are being used and applied so that a person coming here finds the content useful. If there is a relevant reference which supports your view, use it. If you have no references, then I'm afraid it can't be used here.

JMWt (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JMWt for these comments. They seem to hit on most of the problems with this article, especially the issues of the need for reliable sourcing and the importance of a neutral point of view and the avoidance of advocacy. You're probably familiar with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Sanitation). It seems this article falls under Recommended section headings → Articles on technologies, would you agree? EChastain (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it falls under the Articles about concepts section - which incidentally I wrote! I wouldn't say it is a technology in any sense, but a conceptual system used widely in sanitation JMWt (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt, I thought that at first, but then I noticed in the lede: An important difference between CLTS and other forms of "top down", "technology focussed" sanitation intervention. "Concept" seems to be more abstract and not an application. See a dictionary definition.[1] This article seems to describe applications, doesn't it? Or is it about the concept only?

Regarding outcome studies, this source appears to pinpoint the problems regarding evaluating CLTS.

Is there a way to reduce the use of jargon and acronyms? It's difficult to read now. And in the sources, what is WEPA, PLANUSA and UNC? (The latter two are funded by the Gates foundation, but other than that?) The "about" section on the websites don't seem to give much info.

Please excuse these questions/comments. I'm trying to get a grip on this subject matter. Thanks! EChastain (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as technology. This is not talking about latrines, or toilets but the system used widely to encourage communities to desire better sanitation. It is not 'technology' in the sense that most people discussing sanitation would use the word technology. It is an application in that it is used in villages rather than just a concept which exists on a page. I agree that there are many sources with results which can and should be introduced into the text.
The acronyms are unavoidable because those are the names of NGOs working in the sanitation field. If they have a wikipedia page, I will link to them, but I cannot really see how we are going to discuss the players without referring to them. JMWt (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you'll take the wording "technology focussed" out of the lede? EChastain (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the point you are making. Some interventions come with technology (ie the villagers are offered latrines or grants for latrines). This doesn't. JMWt (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest getting some outside opinions then, since you wrote Articles about concepts section. EChastain (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I suggest you explain why you think it should be considered technology and what difference that would make to the way we write the article. JMWt (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, the phrase "technology focussed" is used regarding this method in the lede, and a "concept" is an idea and not an implementation. EChastain (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is the wording you have a problem with. "Technology focussed" is used to contrast it with other methods, not to claim that this is technology based. I disagree that a concept is not something which can be implemented, but if you like we can change the Articles about concepts, what do you think it should be called? JMWt (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

primary sources

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

From WP:SPS

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  • the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Further, the opinion piece is used to support the claim: "There have been cases of fines (monetary and non-monetary), withholding of entitlements, public taunting, posting of humiliating pictures and even violence."

I was asked to look at this article. So I did and I'm giving feedback. I believe the tag is warranted. But, whatever. I'll butt out. EChastain (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

this looks like a good source

[edit]

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)[reply]

use talk pages rather than wholesale reverts

[edit]

JMW, sorry. I had an (edit conflict) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Community-led_total_sanitation&diff=651102544&oldid=651102282 JMWt (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Need for photos for this article

[edit]

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)[reply]

EvM-Susana, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
EvM-Susana, 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 Doc James, but he didn't think it was a problem. EChastain (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

more info on commons category

[edit]

I received an answer on the Commons regarding the category:

the creation of the category and the creation of the template were both inspired by practical considerations from the fact that there are many files from the same source. For more information about the upload of those files, you can probably ask the users EvM-Susana and Fæ. Because the files from that organization are copied to Commons from the flickr account of the organization, I understand EvM-Susana's comment on en.wp as meaning that the files copied to Commons from that account are those that are available there, and that's why EvM-Susana would try to find files from other sources, including flickr accounts of other people, to copy to Commons.

I looked at the category creation. Elitre (A) created the category on the commons and EvM-Susana 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

About the hidden category on commons which were files from the SuSanA flickr transfer: could you give me the link where I can access them because perhaps it's easy for me to suggest which categories they could go into. I have to admit Commons is for me still a big question mark. I only use it to insert photos into articles, usually those that came originally from the SuSanA photostream. I am going to insert in the next few days some photos on helminths so stay tuned... But I have never used it to browse EvM-Susana (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvM-Susana, 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 File:Facultative pond (6898412198).jpg 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, the flickr photostream of CLTS is NOT part of the flickr photostream of SuSanA - they are two different organisations. Just like the photostream might be of Joe Blogg.EvM-Susana (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
EvM-Susana, 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)[reply]

Do these publications count as secondary sources ?

[edit]

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)[reply]

EvM-Susana, 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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Readability and Clarity of explanations in the Lead

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Good reference from April 2018 from USAID

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Community-led_total_sanitation&oldid=1226288651"