Talk:Sustainability/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Sign up for FA editing team

It is proposed that we launch a project to bring this article to FA status. Here is a draft charter.

Goal

• To improve the Sustainability article to meet the featured article standard as assessed by Wikiproject Environment.

Process

• This will be a collaborative editing project. Decisions on article content will be made by consensus. Consensus decision-making is defined as: "a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections." When a vote is required, a two-thirds supermajority will be considered consensus.
• Participants working on the project will strive to be civil, assume good faith, focus on content, not contributors, and observe Wikiquette.

Sign-up

If you support this project and subscribe to the goals and process described above, please sign below indicating your skills, preferred role, and availability. Skills needed include: research, writing, editing, copyediting, graphics, FA criteria assessment, etc.

• Sunray (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC) - mediation, editing, article standards, verification of online sources; moderately available now (> 1 hr/da)
• Granitethighs (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC) - research, writing, editing (1/2 to 1 hr/day)
• OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC) - copyedit, checking for weasel words (various availability)
• Travelplanner (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC) - research (especially citations), editing (various availability)
• Nick carson (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC) - writing, editing, copyediting. sourcing references is my weakness. (~1hr/day)
• skip sievert (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Overview of science aspects. Syntax, wording to subject and neutrality. There is no such thing in wikipedia criteria of a supermajority as described above. I am agreeing to use wiki guidelines and not one editors opinion or two editors opinions of how the article should be.
  • Comment: We can decide to do anything here that is consistent with WP policies. The concept of supermajority is a type of decision rule for consensus that is entirely consistent with WP:CON. Five people have agreed to this, ergo, consensus.

Discussion/comments

To improve the Sustainability article to meet the featured article standard as assessed by Wikiproject Environment.

Why go to all this extreme control as to the article with forming a so called team etc. - The article looks good and is being improved on a daily basis. This article is also very stable to content and approach and is being incrementally improved. Could it be that if the article needs to be assessed by the Wikiproject Environment that it can just be submitted now..??. and then a laundry list of things will be made if needed? Would that not make more sense currently, than attempting something that may or may not improve the article, which is thought by many to cover issues and present good information in its current incarnation? Right now the article is being improved. My opinion, that a team, is important to that, is that it is not important. In my opinion, given this article, it may not be a good idea, because p.o.v., in a not so good way, is then more likely. I say keep it open ended and be welcoming to every editor that appears here, and encourage editors to come here and look also, which I recently did on the Wikiproject Environment discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment. Perspective is then maintained and several people ... who may or may not have a wonderful perspective, will not try to control the many varied issues here connected. So... lets just put it up for assessment, and see what happens. Most likely we will get some very good advice and can continue on to incrementally improve the article with little or no drama connected. skip sievert (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Forming a team - next steps

It looks like we have the nucleus of an editing team. Let's proceed. I would like to follow the suggestions made by Travelplanner (whom I assume will also be joining the team) and also to get back to the "To do" list. Sunray (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sunray. I have re-read Travelplanner's fine proposal and its replies and am happy to follow your suggestion as you expressed it below:

"Breaking the task down makes sense. However, we can proceed without getting an assessment done on each section. Let's do that ourselves. Some of us have worked on FAs and we just need a team member who is reviewing the criteria and giving feedback to the other team members. I will volunteer to do that. Then when we have gone right through the article (per the To Do list, above) we can request an assessment." That's fine Sunray - whenever you are ready. Granitethighs (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of proposals (a) the sign indicating that the article is undergoing revision be reinstated - this lets people know that making changes at this stage may be unproductive - also that the article is under critical review by an editing team. (b) changes have recently been made to sections "ticked" on the list of jobs to do. While modifications are always to be expected, these sections were recently approved by the editing team (e.g. the Definition section). I suggest that these changes are reverted. Perhaps they could be put on the discussion page for the editing team to review. Granitethighs (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the sign mentioned off. I also suggest that the constant attempt to form a team here is not needed, and seems to actually stymie improvements in the article. It dissuades others from actively participating in the sense of scaring people off. I also put a mention of this article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment to encourage new people to come here and look at and edit the article. I do believe it is counter productive for 2 or 3 people to assume a command and control attitude toward this article. I suggest that it be looked at and mercilessly edited to the best ability of those who care to do it. Trying to control content is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN may be at issue. I will not say that is the case, but by every indication it seems to be as there is a huge resistance to openness on this article and a pattern ... or so it seems in my opinion. I think the idea is to improve the article with good well sourced and accurate information, and to follow Wikipedia guidlines in doing that. skip sievert (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of the sign. If we are going for FA, we need to let people know that the article is being worked on and encourage them to check this page. GT, I also agree with you that the changes made to the Definition section should be reverted and will do so.

It is important that all editors understand that consensus is the "fundamental model for editorial decision-making." To get to FA status, we need to have people on the same wavelength. Sunray (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The sign does need to stay, without it I never would have known that it was under a rewrite. Nick carson (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

added picture and aspects of CO2.

Ecological analysis of CO-2 in an ecosystem

Comments or suggestions, skip sievert (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Globalisation and governments

Changed article heading from Globalisation, governance... to Globalisation and governments... rephrased this section in the article to this...

Main articles: globalization, sustainability governance

An increase in globalization and trade and exchanges of technology, along with increased migration, and communication and some attendant global approaches to the management of environmental problems, frames many sustainability issues. The power of some national governments appears to have decreased in regard to transnational and non-government organizations.

Previously it read this way below... tried to remove some un neutral aspects

Globalisation, governance

Main articles: globalization, sustainability governance

The increasing globalization of trade and exchange of technology, along with increased migration, and communication together with a global approach to the management of environmental problems, are all indicative of an emergent global culture. The power of national governments appears to have decreased in the face of transnational and non-government organizations. Sustainability must be a key part of this increased connectedness and transition towards an international value system.[91] skip sievert (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This section Sustainability science

Here below, as in the articles linked... this looks suspect as to information and the way it is being presented... unsourced and opinion oriented, by articles recently created by Granitethighs... which from all appearance, for most part are unsourced and a combination of original research and attaching citations and references to un cited material opinion material.

Start

The formal study of sustainability has relatively recently emerged as an academic discipline referred to as sustainability science which examines and underpins the

broad, inclusive, and contradictory currents that humankind will need to navigate toward a just and sustainable future

it also encompasses the study of sustainability governance as the process of implementation of sustainability strategies; and sustainability accounting, as the evidence-based quantitative information used to guide governance by providing benchmarks and measuring progress.

End article section ^

That section now below has purely pov. research or so it appears, such as this from Sustainability governance

In the formal political process sustainability policy is implemented in exactly the same way as any other policy. However, governance (the implementation of decisions) is not confined to the formal political process of government. Sustainability governance is carried out at many (all) formal and informal levels of human organization acting, in turn, on many levels of ecological/environmental organization over many scales of space and time. These articles do not seem to be cited in huge sections.... it appears to be commentary and original research.... These articles, I think have to be seriously looked at... possibly as original research unless they can be cleaned up as to the huge amount of opinion/commentary in them... and this section Sustainability science, probably can be removed from the sustainability article. Creating material here to fit, topics concerning this subject, all bolstered by the creation of other articles with loads of original research and pov connected to that... seems like a really bad idea. Much of the material in that section seems to go around in circles to U.N. (United Nations) material... much of which is good material... but it seems to be presented over and over redundantly in these articles, and the U.N. in general seems to be very much over weighted as to presentation in the article. skip sievert (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Redoing the first part of the article as to dead weight of chatty opinion and commentary... and speculation (O.R.)... and paring down the information while keeping the existing sources and citations and adding a dictionary definition at the beginning to start things off with some form of actual reference for the word. The lead was to long... now it is 3 paragraphs... There were sentences that led in circles of opinion or speculation or nudging the reader to think a certain way. This section below is re-edited

Sustainability', in a general sense, is something capable of being sustained or capable of being continued with minimal long-term effect on the environment. As applied to the human community, sustainability has been expressed as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Given the present level of human numbers, this may be difficult to achieve.

The term is also used in the business world to qualify the viable continuity of interaction inter and intra entreprise. Here sustainability is used as a synonym for supporting business practices, processes and systems enabling the long term development and growth of an activity.

The term also has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. To be sustainable, nature’s resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. There is now clear scientific evidence from environmental science that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to keep human use of natural resources within sustainable limits.

Definition

Sustainability can be a property of living systems, a manufacturing method, or a way of life. Although the definition of sustainable development given by the Brundtland Commission (used above), is the most frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part from the fact that it may be seen to encompass all human activity. Although science forms the basis of sustainability concepts, it is perceived sometimes as a general concept like "liberty" or "justice", which is accepted as important, but is truly a "dialogue of values" that defies consensual definition. It is also open to political interpretation.

End new version

Old version below

Sustainability, in a general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely. In recent years the concept has been applied more specifically to living organisms and systems. As applied to the human community, sustainability has been expressed as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.[1] Given the present level of human numbers, this may be difficult to achieve.[2][3]

The term is commonly used in the business world to qualify the viable continuity of interaction inter and intra entreprise. Here sustainability is used as a synonym for supporting business practices, processes and systems enabling the long term development and growth of an activity.

The term has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.[4] To be sustainable, nature’s resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. There is now clear scientific evidence from environmental science that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to keep human use of natural resources within sustainable limits.[5][6]

Sustainability has become a controversial and complex term that is applied in many different ways: to different levels of biological organization (e.g. wetlands, prairies, forests), human organization (e.g. ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities) and human activities and disciplines (e.g. sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture).

Sustainability is many things to many people. It can simultaneously be an idea, a property of living systems, a manufacturing method, or a way of life. For some people it is little more than a hollow buzz word. Although the definition of sustainable development given by the Brundtland Commission (used above), is the most frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part from the fact that it may be seen to encompass all human activity. It is a very general concept like "liberty" or "justice", which is accepted as important, but is truly a "dialogue of values"[7] that defies consensual definition.[8] It is also a call to action and therefore open to political interpretation concerning the nature of the current situation and the most appropriate way forward. A further practical difficulty with a universal definition is that the strategies needed to address "sustainability" will vary according to the particular circumstances under consideration. skip sievert (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

These changes were made prior to any discussion about them. The lead and definition sections were agreed to by consensus on this page when we started the current round of article improvements. I'm not saying that they are perfect, only that there should be discussion prior to making major changes. I've gone back to the agreed upon version for now. Further changes should be the result of a new consensus. Sunray (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you or anyone else did anything wrong individually, the problem is a systemic failure, and the desire to control an article with a cabal of people. Excluding others from editing this article is a mistake in my opinion. No one here should be give undue weight. The article was hijacked by single-issue obsessives who drove away just about everybody else, leaving an impression that theirs was a consensus position whereas actually it was just that nobody else had the energy to make better edits any more. A cabal of 3 or even 4 people forming a so called team is not a consensus. I have asked others to come here to examine the page. Incremental changes... positive changes following guidelines is a good method. Please do not remove better edits for the sake of a pseudo consensus. Removing fact tags is not a good idea either, as you have just done in the article. You also removed a dictionary definition as to the subject that was cited... sourced. You also removed the former pov chatty nonsense that was used in the article which was embarrassingly bad. skip sievert (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling your fellow editors "a cabal" and "single-issue obsessives" is not the way to win them over to your point of view—and win them over you must. I am reverting your changes which are against the consensus, but will restore the "citation needed" tag. Please do not start an edit war. Discussion on this page is the only way to go. Sunray (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusing someone of starting and edit war when reverting better made edits that are less pov and more accurate is kind of like the when did you stop beating your wife argument. It does not fly. The article is being improved. You are trying to control the article in a negative way in my opinion, by making better information not available. You removed a better sourced definition. You removed a citation for that. You used a definition that is not even in the ball park... Sustainability, in a general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely. Someone here make that one up? Here is an actual definition that was taken out of the article by Sunray. How is that a good idea Sunray? http://xmlgadgets.com/home.pl?site=mdict&query=Sustainability . Is is it really a good idea to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research even the beginning definition of the subject? skip sievert (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of "starting an edit war." I merely requested that you not do so. There is a group of people who are dedicated to improving the article. You are welcome to join in. So far you have elected to go your own way. That is fine, but we are making changes by consensus and with respect to WP policies. If you have a different opinion, I am certainly willing to read it. But the consensus of all the editors on this page will determine what goes into the article. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, according to your editing team before... the first two sections were done... but were they done.?.. and did you all decide they were done?, and how was that a good choice considering the many flaws in the basic presentation, including the basic definition? I presented information... like a real definition of sustainability http://xmlgadgets.com/home.pl?site=mdict&query=Sustainability, and it was reverted for this? Sustainability, in a general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely. Then sourced somehow... but not sourced to any thing that said the phrase... just who is it Sunray that says Sustainability, in a general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely. Can you write the paragraph with that phrase in it from the source you used? Does it do any one any good to put in citations that do not actually reflect the contention? ... or if it does where is the proof... or is the phrase... Sustainability, in a general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely... more original research? Since the team here is making controversial edits it may have to get specific about this now. That would be good faith at this point. I am the only one that has posted edit differences and why, on this talk page in recent time. "It is generally considered that...", means just about the same thing as in a general sense... in other words weasel wording....plus where does the indefinitely come into the picture when it is not a apparent in the citation given? There are many definitions on the thing you gave... none approximating the sentence you reverted though that I can see. Point it out please by giving the whole thing here. skip sievert (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Skipsievert does have a good point regarding the definition of sustainability. The fact is that it's definition changes depending on what context it is referred to in. I rewrote the intro here and included the problems of multiple context definitions. It is important that we make the overall broad definition clear first, then summarise the definition in other contexts (one or two sentences each) before talking about the current state of sustainability. Again I refer you to my rewrite which I believe deals with definition issues quite well. Perhaps we could combine elements of my rewrite of the broad definition and summaries in the completed intro? Nick carson (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro rewrite and reword

I've begun rewording the intro as per WP:BB. I'm trying to keep as much information and references as possible. Mostly correcting spelling, grammar and making information flow correctly. Nick carson (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed my edits to the intro were reverted. I'll continue the rewrite elsewhere and then discuss if we should include it first if you like. Some dialogue on the matter would be helpful as I have no patience for people who revert and slap tags on things without doing any actual work. Nick carson (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick: Please note the "under construction" sign. We have a group of editors who are working on this article to bring it up to FA status. If you look at the "To do" list at the top of the page you will note that back in September we agreed on some basic parameters for the lead and checked it off. Further down the list, you will see "Edit entire article." And at the bottom of the article we have "final copyediting." The idea was, and is, to get consensus on what the lead should cover and then, once the article was completely re-written, revise the lead so that it will be an effective overview (per WP:Lead). So I have reverted your changes for now. BTW, you may well have missed the fact that we had completed the lead, because someone erased the "done" notation. I've restored that.

Note that we are trying hard to abide by WP policies and to make decisions by consensus. Several editors have signed on to the FA project and you would be most welcome to join us (note sign-up section, above). Sunray (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the mismanaged to do list confused me. I wasn't aware that articles were exempt from being edited whilst under construction. I would have thought it helpful to have it updated whilst in transition rather than persist in leaving the old version up as its what everyone who visits the article in the meantime will see. My version of the temporary intro can be found here, I think it would be better than what is currently there until the entire article revision is completed. Thanks, I will sign up, I'd love to help :] Nick carson (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's great that you will join. I wouldn't say that the article is exempt from being edited. However, we do rely on the goodwill of editors to cut us some slack while we get the project moving forward. i was getting a bit concerned, because one editor (who has not signed up) seems to disagree with just about everything that anyone proposes. Hope that will change. Glad to have you aboard. There is lots to do! Sunray (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to editors: Nick has a suggested re-write of the lead here. Suggest that editors take a look at it and if folks agree, we can switch it for what's there now. Here are the two versions, side by side (Nick's on the left). Please whether you support the changes and any further modifications needed:

• Support - Flows better. Seems faithful to the main considerations raised in previous discussion. Sunray (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support in essence, although the "business" sentence I think could be omitted. It is a bit difficult to compare the two versions. Also I am concerned that this collaborative discussion is buried in the depths of the discussion page and will be missed by editors. Could the proposed version be placed at the bottom of the page together with editors' comments? I would do this but am a bit lost as to exactly where we are at now.Granitethighs (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It can be tweeked to complicate it less and tie it into the rest of the article.... proposal - A business is sustainable if it has adapted its practices for the use of renewable resources and holds itself accountable for the environment in its activities. skip sievert (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the current version of the intro is good enough in the interim until we come to do the final intro rewrite. (Final being in regards to this particular rewrite, I'm sure there'll be plenty more changes in the future as information progresses.) Nick carson (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

To do list out of date

The lead and definition sections are actually in need of attention and have not been completed as the To Do list at the top of this page suggests. Nick carson (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Several editors were away for a few weeks in the early fall. Again, if you look at the FA project sign up section, you will note that four of us have re-committed to working on this project. We will update the "To do" list as we get going. However, if you follow the discussion on this page, you will note that we have been discussing the "History" section. Travelplanner has made a proposal for that and we are about to get on it. Sunray (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, misunderstanding averted. Nick carson (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In case you have not noticed Nick several people are controlling this article with a cabal attitude and an appearance of themselves being the most notable characters as to determining the issues here. They do not seem interested in things like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BRD As you noticed they marked the first couple of sections done. Are they done or are they providing protection for some O.R. ? I reverted that... again. This is a good example of the control and disconnected aspect of some of the editing going on here - I suggest also that you go back and read this talk page and also the diffs in the article for the last couple of months to get an idea of what is actually happening here and who is doing what in the article... Also... you may have noticed that the article leads in circles in many areas to the U.N. and material connected with it, mostly because of the team. Although the U.N. puts out valuable information, it is over weighted in information and sources in the article. The U.N. is not an end all and be all. In fact it can be seen by many as a problem as it is a political and special interest controlled body also. I will note here that the issues as you saw immediately relate here to science and ecology... and the context of viewing so many things through the U.N. lens shows a bias that the current self described team is upholding... in my opinion. I do not think the team is making good edits in other words to this point... mostly they are talking about the team and getting the article to a certain status and preventing people such as yourself who mentioned this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BB and rightfully so, to edit the article here. I think the team has assumed ownership of the article. The team is preventing others from making better edits... and that is really not a good way to run a team. Oh and why does Sunray mark the first two sections done...? Is that what the team wants? When the sections are actually being actively under discussion and edited? Could that be explained also? Why is that being reverted when it is under discussion and being edited? There are a lot of things not adding up here... except in a arbitrary control aspect of the information involved. Now it is being voted on to change the lead... but the lead is marked done by Sunray. How is that the case Sunray?

I would also note that a member of the team incorporated this into the article recently with no discussion....

This section added# 2.3 Sustainability science

The formal study of sustainability has relatively recently emerged as an academic discipline referred to as sustainability science which examines and underpins the

broad, inclusive, and contradictory currents that humankind will need to navigate toward a just and sustainable future

it also encompasses the study of sustainability governance as the process of implementation of sustainability strategies; and sustainability accounting, as the evidence-based quantitative information used to guide governance by providing benchmarks and measuring progress.

And none of the team members put up any complaint at all... even though all of these articles could be mentioned in one sentence in the U.N. section. These articles were also created from scratch by one of the team members Granite thighs...and one was blatantly O.R. to the point of having no refs. or citations.sustainability governance skip sievert (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time with WP politics and eccentricities that I don't understand. It's not important. We need to stick to the basics first before becoming bogged down in specific disciplines. There's no need to overcomplicate things. Get back to basics :] Explore the root meaning of sustainability and how to best describe it in an encyclopedic format. Nick carson (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The article was devoid of Ecological economics and science related articles before. Also the team does not appreciate an actual history of the concepts of these ideas relating to the actual people who wrote and began the discussion of same, apparently. The basis of sustainability is related to science and not the U.N. interpretation of life and culture. I think your rewrite is just about right for the intro Nick carson. I also like the dictionary definition I put in previously. I am not in any way a drama fan. I appreciate another voice here and encourage more people from other areas connected to come here and do improvements. Thank you.skip sievert (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks, it's by no means final, we'll have to wait until the entire article has been rewritten, then go back and do another rewrite of the intro. The 'business' sentence would perhaps be better worded 'economic'. Regarding the history of sustainability, I imagine it is far too detailed to be included in this article, a new article may have to be created "History of Sustainability" or something similar. If you have enough knowledge regarding the history of the concept of sustainability then my advice would be to invest your time into writing about it and even creating the article, remembering that it would still be subject to alteration by other editors. Nick carson (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)