Talk:Sustainability/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Removed unneeded info.

G.T. please do not add this information again

Sustainability is, in part, a call to action and this entails a dynamic for change. Sustainability science and environmental science provide much of its philosophical and analytic framework while sustainability measurement provides the evidence-based quantitative data that is needed to inform sustainability governance.

It falls under O.R. in general and synthesis.

These are articles of debatable merit in general... they are ones you created and mostly contributed to... and have been viewed (read talk pages on them) as being of dubious merit.... to put it bluntly. You are not doing this article a favor by adding this questionable amount of information as to these questionable subjects. These mostly were phrases that you extrapolated on to make articles... and one is most likely a neologism in that sense. It does not make sense to add a whole grouping of new information with articles that are not viewed much... and or questionable as to merit... or just not mainstream enough to present as good information. I really hope you do not add this information again... as it detracts from an article that is starting in some ways to improve... Also your recent sourcing to the Mill. project again to replace a fact date... is not reasonable... and how it is that you are still mono sourcing to this already over used/sourced information? Please do not do that anymore. It really detracts from other newer and better sourcing.

Also this whole idea of neutrality is breached again by your addition of the info above... Sustainability is, in part, a call to action and this entails a dynamic for change. This is your opinion and focusing on this type of thing is the point of the recent review and other comments about crusading the article. skip sievert (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In reply.

• Perhaps it is just me, but I find these across-page tags confronting. I am happy to discuss anything about the article but "tagging" like this seems more a last resort operation rather than a first thought.
• Someone sensibly marked the sentence about "scale" for a citation. The citation I put in is the best account of "scale" I know of, written by respected scientists. Yes, it is in a document discussing the framework of the MEA (that debate is over now - decision, the MEA is OK). However, if someone can find a good discussion of "scale" issues elsewhere that is fine by me. In the meantime please replace the citation you removed thanks Skip.
• I'm not interested in your view about the quality of the article - please just comment on content.
• I do take your point about the sentence I added, especially as it was added without discussion. Again, this is old ground, but let me explain again. In working with sustainability I have found it extremely useful to think in terms of a rapidly increasing and improving body of information and thought (coming from areas like environmental science, sustainability science and elsewhere) based on careful measurement and analysis that is then used to make decisions and carry out actions that will make our lives more sustainable. Now, the combination of these three factors (analysis, measurement, decision for action based on former two) seem to me to help our understanding of sustainability and the way it proceeds. In fact, I think they are "key operational principles" and that is why I put them in this part of the article. Against this it could be said that this is the way we proceed with most things in life - nothing new is being said. My only response here is that I have found the ideas extremely useful in understanding the way sustainability is "managed". As I have said before, the actual words we use for these three components do not matter and I confess that because I think the ideas are important I have tried to find precise terms to express them. This has been done in an attempt to achieve simplicity. I created an article called sustainability accounting as I thought this covered the "measurement" side of things quite well. However, it was not popular and TP suggested "sustainability measurement" which is fine by me and the article name was changed accordingly. Also, I have used the term "sustainability science" to cover the whole business of foundational studies and analytic thought relating to sustainability. I think that this is valid and has preecedence and that the article on sustainability science explains this adequately. However, I do acknowledge that others might see this differently. I am happy with a consensus decision. Perhaps simpler words would do - or, if it is distracting or confusing we can leave it out. Other views? Granitethighs (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• One final thought - the organisation of these three items together I think Skip has interpreted as an "original synthesis". He may be correct but to my mind it is not a new synthesis as intended by the tag - it is simply a way of ordering information. My thinking would be that if this is a new synthesis then so is the whole article seeing as we have probably created a novel way of presenting information about sustainability. Anyway, a point for discussion.Granitethighs (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Again Skip you are being unnecessarily confronting. Please don't make general disparaging comments about other authors' work. We're all doing our best, only one of us (GT) has the status of being a published writer which means we can only try to improve. This sort of thing takes us further from a solution to the problems you raise even where they are real.

Please also STOP when something's resolved. Continuing to say that the MEA is not a reliable source, and that news articles and other primary sources are "more up to date" and hence preferable, is just plain wrong. We went to the top on this one, you are wrong. To quote your (unnecessarily confrontational) statement on this, back away from the horse...

Leaving this and other "dead horse" issues aside, your only new claims are that GT's statement is original research and/or synthesis and that the wikilinks are to articles which are "not good". Well obviously it's not OR because it's well referenced. Is it synthesis? Working through it in stages...

"Sustainability is, in part, a call to action and this entails a dynamic for change..."

This is another one you have to stop going on about. When you (rightly) challenged us to find sources for the statement that "sustainability is a call to action/dynamic for change" we collected the following list of meta-analyses each of which concluded that this the weight of opinion of reliable published sources is that sustainability is a call for action for change: the WWF 2008 Living Planet Report; the IUCN 2008 Transition to Sustainability report, the Millennium Development Goals; The Great Transition (Stockholm); the core principles of the European Union; most publications of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change....which is a pretty impressive list so that challenge is met and you should stop issuing it. This does leave the important issue of tone; stating that sustainability is a call to action needs to be done in a way that isn't perceived as "crusading" - I agree there is room for improvement in some parts of the article, but the tone of this sentence is just fine.

..."Sustainability science and environmental science provide much of its philosophical and analytic framework while sustainability measurement provides the evidence-based quantitative data that is needed..."

This is well referenced, and the distinction between sustainability science and environmental science is exhaustively referenced within both articles on wikipedia. The link to sustainability measurement is simply the scientific method restated but this is covered in the reference as well.

to inform sustainability governance..

This is well referenced. Personally I would have referenced Agenda 21 as having higher status than the publications GT has noted, but I'm not expecting you (Skip) to agree with that.

So in summary GT's sentence, that you've queried, is certainly not original research and nor is it an original synthesis, and unless I've made some mistake in the above it should be added back.

Which leaves the wikilinks to subarticles. Well this article is too long and the only way we're going to be able to deal with this is through subarticles. The quality of the subarticles at this particular point in time is a non-issue. Everything on wikipedia can improve, some articles more than others. If an article were non-notable then there's a process for deleting such articles and then of course we'd have to sort out any links to them, as a subsequent step.

Who knows, if you were to restrain yourself to new issues and comments only, and stop dragging other authors through the painful process of reminding you not to keep fighting battles you've already lost, then some of those other authors might have time to improve some of those other articles...--Travelplanner (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? I know. Do not blame me for other people editing or not editing on Wikipedia. Talk pages are for arguing issues on articles... not your opinion of others personalities. No one is under any obligation to be here or do anything. Also I do not not like your general tone of conversation here and things like Please also STOP when something's resolved. Continuing to say that the MEA is not a reliable source, and that news articles and other primary sources are "more up to date" and hence preferable, is just plain wrong. your opinion apparently of what I think... and this is not true. So you are doing a flimsy attack. No reason to do that. I am not saying it is not a reliable source... and never have said that. I said it is overused and to have it added again is pretty ridiculous for general sourcing. That sentence was fact tagged by Sunray. I have never said that news sources are more up to date... so, I find you are talking through your hat. Don't do that anymore.

G.T. started those articles out of phrases. The articles in question originated with him. They are not important to this article. He has woven them into a synthetic o.r. that detracts from more notable aspects. You just said the article is too long... and now that is added which makes more pointless length. skip sievert (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Granitethighs and Travelplanner. The MA is a reliable source and appropriately added. IMO, the addition to the "Principles and concepts" section by GT is a good introduction and well-sourced, thus not OR. I will restore it. Please do not go down the path of disruptive editing again Skip. Sunray (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not. I have never disrupted the page. False accusations are pointless. I have brought up issues. Please do not use this technique of dealing with fellow editors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing - skip sievert (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not been disruptive recently, at least until this week. However, as Archives 18 & 19 reveal, during March you made repeated allegations about other editors on this page. All of these charges were answered, some by editors from outside projects requested to give their opinion. It was the consensus opinion of all the editors who edit here regularly that you were disruptive. I'm sure that the other editors would join with me in complementing you on your edits during the month of April until this week. The question, I think, is will you continue to edit collaboratively, or are you going down the other path, again? Sunray (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Less wikidrama please. Please remember that the lives of people will not be much affected, regards of what this page does or does not say.

S.Ray., in general, please try to be more civil. Please understand, even if you 'win the fight' (ie. people get fed up and go away). Some other editor will eventually show up and revert content that is not neutral. Such is the design and ethos of wikipedia. So, it is better to understand what is the core of what it is you are trying to say, and then state it in a neutral way with as little preaching as possible. Always be sure to back up with sources, and avoid synthesis and original research. It's the only way to ensure that what you write stays up.

Perhaps the main problem we have with your contributions is that you don't seem to be able to see the difference between summarizing sources, and synthesizing from sources. That, and the fact that G.T's comments are too long. - Because one person does not agree with a closed and pov group here... that is not disruptive editing. Do not falsely accuse. skip sievert (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with skip on this one. This article is TOO long and needs to be shortened. The principle and concepts are Not needed. The term Sustainability itself is Too General. The article should ONLY be about The general definition, And include examples. THat's it. Other wise Rename the Article Human Sustainability.

Intro

History of Human Sustainability

Economic Sustainability(summarized)-or dimension

Social Sustainability(summarized)- or dimension

Environmental Sustainability (summarized) - or dimension

Why is there a "Transformation" Section???? We are supposed to ONLY present INFO. NOt solutions. The article reads like a poster boy for recruiting environmentalists.AdenR (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

AdenR, what is it you are agreeing with Skip about? Skip said several things. If you are agreeing with him that he was not disruptive, it could be that you didn't read the archives carefully enough. No matter, perhaps best to move on.

Re: Length of article and suggestions regarding name/outline. I agree with you about the length of the article and have commented on that, above. We are going to be editing the article and using summary style. The article name IS "Sustainability" and it is intended to be a general article with many sub-articles. The term "human sustainability" is uncommon (at least according to google searches). We are definitely talking about human sustainability, though, along with the sustainability of many other affected species and ecosystems.

I appreciate your suggestions. If you look through the many, many archives of discussion for this page and subpages, you will understand that this has been a months-long collaboration by several authors. We are not finished, and you are welcome to join the project. However, it is unlikely that we will be able to go back to square one and contemplate major changes, such as renaming the article. As to your comment on the transformation section: We are currently re-writing that on a subpage. The name of the section is under consideration, as is much else. Sunray (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting it? I don't understand how the solution for TRANSFORMATION is to rewrite it. This section should be entirely deleted. This section is not neutral and very pov pushing. It talks about steps for change...and even goes far to quote Winston Churchill, which has nothing to do with this subject. This article is about Sustainability of Humans in Economic, social, and environmental dimensions. It should only talk about the balance that is needed in those aspects for Human Sustainability...Not behavioral steps as solutions for it.AdenR (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This comment strikes me as disrespectful of the hard work that has gone into the overhaul of this article. Have you looked at the subpage I referred to? The current proposal is to rename and completely re-write the section. We are awaiting Travelplanner's return as she has some further ideas about it. The closing section is important. It has to summarize the main themes of the article and highlight the thinking of experts about the future. We welcome positive comments and a collaborative approach. Sunray (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pics, side-bars, nav bars

I added some more nav bars today because they were relevant to the subject. However I'm not sure how many would be tolerated - I think we must have broken some kind of record now. What do people think? Also our side bars can be a bit similar to the nav bars and I suspect that they are not usual Wikipedia tools. Although htey seem to suit and be useful in this particular article. The pics now seem mostly good although I'm not sure about their positioning on the page - are there any conventions on this? also I notice some replication between links in nav bars, side bars and text. How do we deal wth this? Anyway - I'm seeking advice from anyone who knows these things. Granitethighs (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim any special expertise in this, but I definitely think we are overboard. There is considerable repetition between links, side bars and nav bars. There is also repetition within each one of these formats. For example the "environmental technology" nav bar contains several terms that are repeated in other navboxes. "Waste management" appears many, times: e.g., within "environmental technology" and then in several other navboxes: "Recycling and waste management by country," "Recycling by material" and "Topics related to waste management." The links within these navboxes can also be found in side bars. I would suggest that we look at Featured articles for a sense of what is the norm. I think we should be paring down the article from here on out, rather than adding to it. Sunray (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on section

Wikipedia is not a forum to promote or educate people about neglected fields. Our standard for inclusion is "Verifiability, not Truth". Facts and citations can be verified; 'truths' are often open to dispute.

While one of your editing team of three active people has produced three articles... to weave them into the article here as to notability, is not really called for. This makes the article too long also... and repeats information... and introduces information that is not particularly mainstream and is/or mono sourced.

Beginning Sustainability is, in part, a call to action and this entails a dynamic for change. Sustainability science and environmental science provide much of its philosophical and analytic framework while sustainability measurement provides the evidence-based quantitative data that is needed to inform sustainability governance. -End , info. removed.

It falls under O.R. in general and synthesis. This is not an essay on Sustainability... which if it were that might be a part of it. 'truths' are often open to dispute. skip sievert (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I left a very detailed comment above breaking this statement down and showing that there was no OR or synthesis. You took offence at my tone but have not answered a single one of my substantive points. Until you do, GT's sentence should stay.--Travelplanner (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have not looked recently but that was changed by an uninvolved editor a couple of days ago to be more neutral. It still contains dubious article connectors though. skip sievert (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Skip, let's just be clear with truth/fact/reality, such things are generally taken to mean things that "are". Hydrogen is Hydrogen, one may perceive it as something other than what it "truly"/"actually"/"factually" is, but that doesn't change the "fact" that it is Hydrogen, make sense? Nick carson (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ref for gardening book

I think it would be good idea for Granitethighs, who introduced his book onto the Sustainability article himself. Cross, R. & Spencer, R.D. (2009). Sustainable Gardens. Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing, pp. 6-8. ISBN 978-0-643-09422-2. (pbk).,, to take his book off the Sustainability article. The two other editors that have formed a team here do not like this suggestion probably if history is an indicator, as you all edit together... but, one way to look at this, is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where people can get free high-value links or refs to their own projects.

The information at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples provides a more specific answer to people questioning this idea. The book is newly published. It is not a standard or well known book nor authoritative. It is expensive. With the scant info given now, it can be googled up at book selling sites. Why not use a textbook or book not connected to the editing team to source the article? Constructive comments only please. Thank you. skip sievert (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This information can cause problems for GT. It is more reasonable to use refs not connected to the editing team. From the looks of it, The ref is not needed and can be viewed as a way to sell his book. Granitethighs should take his book off the sustainability article. AdenR (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

AdenR: It is unclear why you, a newcomer to this page, would venture an opinion on this matter. It has been thoroughly discussed on this page (see Archive #18) and through a reference to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I would refer you to the discussion on that page [1]. Note that the outside reviewer concluded that there was "not clearly a conflict of interest." No one but Skip is of the opinion that there is any conflict of interest. Accordingly we have tried very hard to move on. Skip, on the other hand, continues to press his point. If you want to make your own contribution here, fine, but please do not take up other people's old, tired battles. Sunray (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

SunRay... please read this Wikipedia:No personal attacks could you also read this Wikipedia:Civility. Also as to G.T.'s book could you also read this Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. How is it that a three member active team is using one of the three members recently published and possibly non notable book to source the article? Whether this is a conflict of interest is another issue, but it is surely not a Wikipedia reliable source or a 'good' source because of the situation here and also because it is not a standard or well known book, nor authoritative. Suggestion... Don't bite the newbies and please stop lecturing about your perceptions of what people should think and how they should act and edit the article unless you can do that constructively.

Ownership of articles by a team or by an individual is not a good idea. Tying up the article in endless marginal talk pages is not a great idea. Using the idea that the article is being readied as a featured article is not a good reason to assume ownership of it if it has problems. Articles are meant to be edited, and no editor should submit work unless they can deal with it being edited and critiqued. .. that is how they improve. Closed pov is not going to improve the article. Putting down other editors is not going to improve the article. Assuming that people that dissagree with your point of view are somehow attacking things, is not going to improve the article either. Would you please read this page Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. skip sievert (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunray: Can we Please stick to the article? I thought editors are supposed to assume good faith...I'm not fighting anyone's "old, tired battles". You have missed my point Sunray. This is about the Article. I have never said or suggested it was a Conflict of Interest. I made an observation on its potential for problems. As you can see, I clearly did not express "ANY" opinion or judgment on the matter of COI. This has nothing to do with it. This is about Shortening the Article and the large amount of refs. The refs. in question is not needed and pointless. [2] The word "home garden" is the only thing holding up this ref. There are other ways to write a short, concise introduction to Environmental management without putting in pointless refs. Doing this shouldn't be a big deal. You seem to be making it a big deal because of your history with skip.

Also, the source in General is unreliable and open to debate as skip has pointed out. AdenR (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely do not agree with AdenR that this article has too many refs. Our peer review stated the opposite, as does the advice on how to write featured articles. I have spent much time ensuring that all statements beyond "the sky is blue" are referenced to a reliable, published source - only to find much of my work undone. There is no advantage to reducing the number of references, readers can of course choose whether to follow these links or not but every reader has a right to be able to verify the statements made in Wikipedia.--Travelplanner (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

PS regarding this book, I cannot believe we are going over this one again. It's a book published by the leading scientific organisation in Australia, of course it's a reliable source. The whole COI complaint was a waste of time but it's over and no COI was found. Skip I am of course aware of your personal view that this specific book shouldn't be linked to this specific article, but your thinking this doesn't make it so.--Travelplanner (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Question. How is it that you want to use a newly published, possibly non notable book as to it being mainstream and written about, from a member of your editing team, to source this article? The two other active editors and you all edit together, virtually tag teaming your edits as to making them stick... but, one way to look at this, is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where people can get free high-value links or refs to their own projects. Granitethighs starting editing on Wikipedia about the time his book was published. What influence does one have on the other? Lets not even go there. The conflict of interest aspect is not being discussed. I will let others judge if that very expensive and unknown book is a conflict of interest. Could we get rid of Granitethings book as a ref..?. because it is not notable or a good resource, and also brings other iffy aspects into trying to source the article? Can I ask you? Were you given a copy of the book? skip sievert (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: Would you be willing to stop flailing this horse?. It's dead, Skip. Sunray (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer: Not so much. You are wiki lawyering instead of reacting to the points being brought up. This is a serious issue. Because it is not notable or a good resource. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where people can get free high-value links or refs to their own projects. skip sievert (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Skip, AdenR is the only editor other than yourself who has brought up GT's book reference. As a new editor, it is highly unusual that he would seek or stumble upon such information that you coincidentally had issues with a while back, from the depths of discussion on this article. I'd hate to think you were canvassing new editors to gain support for your assertions, which by the way still remain just that. If Skip or AdenR can provide evidence I'll be glad to reassess your assertions, in the meantime there remains no further reason to waste time. Nick carson (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence? Waste time? Granitethighs introduced the link to his book on the article. It maybe should have been revealed or talked about before that was discovered. How is it that, one of the 3 active editors here is sourcing their own book as notable? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where people can get free high-value links or refs to their own projects. skip sievert (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes evidence. Absolutely! Several editors have stated their opinion that this book meets the criteria for a reliable source set out in WP:RS and WP:VER. If you don't think that it does, you will need to present evidence of that. As to wasting time, I agree with Nick on that too. You are refusing to get the point and trying to force your point of view on other editors of this page. Would you please either provide evidence that this reference does not meet the criteria as a reliable source or drop the matter? Sunray (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We are probably going to need a request for comment here as the editing team and its pov is not really a consensus, but more like a voting block and Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is a controversial edit for now as two people agree that it should not be in the article because of notability and other issues. User S.ray, were you given a free copy of the book? Or was Travelplanner? I ask because one was mailed to me by the author unsolicited. This is an expensive book and trying to influence editors by giving it for free is questionable. Request for comment please. Here are examples of links that would be good in the article for sourcing things. Wikipedia:Current science and technology sources Lets not use personal work within the small context of an editing team with a book newly published. That is going too far in a money and pov sense for a member of the team. skip sievert (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Two editors have requested evidence regarding your claims that this is not a reliable source. Would you be able to provide that now? Sunray (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Could we agree that a better source could be found? Two editors have requested the ref be taken off for multiple reasons, or that a request for comment be used. Sourcing a commercial project, Granitethighs referenced his own book. It then becomes a spam link possibly. It is particularly grievous because it was not revealed until it was exposed and he has a monetary interest in promoting his own book. This does not add to Wikipedia credibility.

It is a controversial ref. for reasons already given. If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back and reassessing your edits in this regard. skip sievert (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to delete the two references to the book: that way some of the current steam might blow away. There are a number of reasons. Firstly, I see that they are not as necessary as I once thought. When I inserted them I was not aware of another reference that would do the job I wanted. That no longer seems the case. As has been openly discussed,copies of the book were sent to editors of the article, Skip included, because I enjoyed the cameraderie of collaborative editing - even when there was the occasional tiff. The books were sent out in that spirit. There is another interpretation - that I was in effect "buying" support ... mild bribery. This was not the intention - but then, you only have my word for that. I do not receive any royalties from the book - but then, you only have my word for that too. I do not believe any conventions or rules, Wikipedia or otherwise, have been breached in any way. I think it is a reliable and respectable source that fullfils WP criteria, even as set out on Skip's User page. It has passed, without a problem, through a WP COI process. Like TP I am running out of energy and time for edit wars and extended unwarranted debates like this one. In short, I am removing the references for everyone's peace, and to expedite the completion of the article for assessment ... not as an acknowledgement of any kind of malpractice. Granitethighs (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Granitethighs, I appreciate your offer to do this. Thank you. However, it leaves us with a problem. Your book is a reliable source. Right now, we do not have a better one. Nevertheless, given Skipsievert's intransigence, perhaps it is best to leave it out for now. We can re-evaluate it along with the sources that Skip will be proposing to replace it. Sunray (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks G.T., and I think this would probably be a well rounded source in that area for information http://www.economics.noaa.gov/?goal=ecosystems&file=users/ Economic Costs & Benefits of Environmental Management among other things. The link has lots of stuff within it to click on, and it seems to cover a lot of information. skip sievert (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The NOAA and CSIRO published material are very similar, I don't see any reason for using the NOAA as a source in preference to CSIRO published material. Perhaps we can use both where each best applies? Nick carson (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The information and the type of information given are different. One is a mainstream source and as such notable and all the information is accessable on line and does not cost money as in buying a book. The other is problematic because of things mentioned above. The other has been voluntarily withdrawn from contention here by the author... which I think was a good move for reasons previously given. skip sievert (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just note, mainstream, commercial, well published sources of information are notoriously unreliable and susceptible to bias, particularly concerning popular/mainstream points of view. This is an area of WP policy under discussion and will ultimately be subject to amendment. Nick carson (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I was reading this thread and came across the following comment people can get free high-value links or refs to their own projects. I think it important to note links from Wikipedia are not high value. In fact they are of little or no value, as Wikipedia does not allow search engine robots to follow them. So perhaps that can be put to bed. I am somewhat astounded that someone would consider a book published by the CSIRO to not be a reliable source, though. --Michael Johnson (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you were reading it because you have edited recently with a team member here Nick [3] - I would disagree about Wikipedia not being 'prominent and notable' as to information and therefore high value http://www.google.com/search?q=%27%27Cross%2C+R.+%26+Spencer%2C+R.D.+(2009).+Sustainable+Gardens.+Collingwood%2C+Australia%3A+CSIRO+Publishing&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS314US314 . I see that the group your involved with [4] is part of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne confederation of state parks?.. so I suppose both your groups belong to ARAZPA, Ecotourism Australia Parks and gardens of Melbourne. According to G.T. profits do not go to him, but this confederation of groups, of which you are a member as to your wildlife park where you are employed? Is that correct or am I wrong on that? Or does it recycle into the Australian government in general?

Also do you think it is possible that an editor may have loaded their own information across multiple articles (without revealing themselves as the author) and thus their 'for profit' for some group endeavor Human equivalent < article originated by Granitethighs) was done? This is one instance possibly of that of a number of instances of which I could provide the diffs for? Can it be assumed that the proceeds of the book go back into the consortium of groups? of which your group is a member Parks and gardens of Melbourne or am I completely off base? skip sievert (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We are a proper conspiracy theorist aren't we? Firstly Moonlit Sanctuary, of which I am CEO, is a member of both ARAZPA and Ecotourism Australia. If they have some connection with the book I am completely unaware of that, and it would be of no financial value to me or the Sanctuary if they did. We are also a privately owned institution with no connection to any Government body. We have no relationship with the Botanic Gardens other than a cordial relationship with their nearby Cranbourne branch. As for some group Parks and Gardens of Melbourne, I've never heard of it. And if you bothered to dig deeper regarding my edits with Nick Carson you will notice I am frequently reverting his edits because of a lack reliable sources, something I am sure he finds annoying to say the least.

Secondly you seem to not understand what a "high value link" is. You went searching for the book on Google and came up with the Wikipedia link. So what? How is it valuable to a publication if somebody who is already aware of it finds a link to it on Wikipedia? After all they already know it exists. Makes no sense at all. Wikipedia links to other web sites would be valuable, but Wikipedia doesn't allow search engine robots to follow. In this case I now discover there was no link from Wikipedia to a website about the book anyway.

Lastly I still can't see how a book published by the CSIRO, one of the world's oldest and most respected scientific organisations, cannot be used as a reliable source. It flies in the face of everything Wikipedia is about. Indeed I take this directly from your own user page:

The following are accepted reliable sources (in order of reliability).

  1. Peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses
  2. University-level textbooks
  3. Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
  4. Mainstream newspapers

The CSIRO is a university level institution, and it's books are of the same status as university published books. So what is the problem?

--Michael Johnson (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just couple thoughts on this. One of the authors has started other articles that features his book as the backbone of their sourcing. This could be viewed as questionable in regard to guidelines. My main concern with relation to the book would be for instance the indication of its publication as a significant event in the history of sustainable whatever. (as was indicated in a previous revision of the sustainability article, which has since been removed). Prudence might suggest that if the author wishes such a claim to be included they propose such a revision on talk page, citing outside evidence from WP:RS, and let other editors help determine if it seems significant, etc.

The author GraniteThighs probably has a good bibliography for his book, so may be able to deal with that by citing the sources the book drew from instead of a newly published book used as sourcing in a Wikipedia article that is capable of giving high value reference to an editors own personal project [5]... that also being done without discussion on the talk page in that instance also Human equivalent. This is I think a moot issue M.J. anyway and has been for a while as the author withdrew the ref/note link to this book information.. so it hardly seems an issue right now on this article Sustainability. skip sievert (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Transformation Section

Sunray: Constructive Comments are not disrespectful. Transformation section is not a well written section. I don't care who wrote it. It is about specific solutions for Human Sustainability. Solutions to obtain sustainability are open to debate, and since this whole section is covered with it, it should be deleted immediately. Do I have to wait for the team to agree with that assessment in order to have it edited? You are still not addressing my argument but instead holding it off and telling me to go elsewhere to debate it(seems like a waste of time). RESIGNED AdenR (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A team of people is currently editing this article using collaborative editing. The agreed procedures for this collaboration are listed at the top of this talk page. Anyone is free to join the team: it is not a closed group. In the meantime changes are being made by consensus as part of the endeavour to gain FA status. Collaboration reduces the likelihood of one person imposing a single view on the editing it is a way of proceeding by consensus rather than trying to impose a particular view through edit wars. Simply deleting a section is not a constructive way to edit whether or not you are a member of the team. I suggest discussion on the talk page as the best way forward. Granitethighs (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A rewritten section is at Talk:Sustainability/Transformation. Specific and constructive criticism welcome, preferably on that page (otherwise things get very confusing).--Travelplanner (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Have reverted AdenR and Skip changes to this section; please let's agree this on the sub-page and upload the agreed version.--Travelplanner (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Have uploaded agreed Transition version. I think issues on this page are now essentially addressed. Could we archive this page back to the "sign-up" list please Sunray? Granitethighs (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder here that not everyone agreed that the last section should have been used. I would say that it relies on old and probably inaccurate information. It is oversourced to old U.N. information or over weighted in that political direction. This seems like a basic mistake that has been made through out the article. This is too bad because there is much better information out there mostly by science groups that are not political in nature.

Example... The UN climate process focuses on stabilising annual emissions at a level that would avoid major climate impacts. But this group of scientists (in the article link, and not U.N. related), says that the cumulative total provides a better measure of the likely temperature rise, and may present an easier target for policymakers than the U.N. approach http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8023072.stm - end

This problem of all three active editors endorsing the same pov over and over of older information creates a problem as to neutrality of presentation or the merit of overlinking or ref/noting a pov. skip sievert (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A team of people is currently editing this article using collaborative editing. The agreed procedures for this collaboration are listed at the top of this talk page. Anyone is free to join the team: it is not a closed group. In the meantime changes are being made by consensus as part of the endeavour to gain FA status. Collaboration reduces the likelihood of one person imposing a single view on the editing - it is a way of proceeding by consensus rather than trying to impose a particular view through edit wars. Simply deleting a section is not a constructive way to edit whether or not you are a member of an editing team. Discussion on the talk page seems the only way forward in these circumstances. A single editor, Skip, has since the early days of the collaborative editing process disagreed with several aspects of the article. A purported COI went to the reporting page for external opinion and was not accepted. Concern that the MEA was not a reliable source, more a pov, was also taken beyond the article through an arbitration process that concluded that the MEA was a reliable source. So two independent sources have negated Skip's claims. Constant repetition of concerns that have been dealt with is both unproductive and disruptive. Assessment of the article will be by peer review and any concerns will be addressed then. In the meantime, IMO, editor Skipsievert has lost all credibility. Granitethighs (talk)

That is what we call a personal attack on Wikipedia. skip sievert (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me be more specific and less emotive. Skip is a disruptive editor. See following WP comments on disruptive editing that confirm this view (but read archives and form your own opinion):

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.
• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
• Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{fact}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
• Does not engage in consensus building:
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
• Refusal to 'get the point'

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is accepted when it is not. How does Wikipedia suggest dealing with disruptive editors? Granitethighs (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are you posting all that? A link would do. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You may disagree with another editor that does not conform to your team views here but that is not a good reason to post a blog like attack. Talk pages are supposed to be about the article. skip sievert (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not an “attack”, it is a serious proposal that we proceed with a community ban or request an administrator via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). We can provide evidence of diffs, your multiple reverts, and evidence that you are ignoring the talkpage consensus. Or we could try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution a Request for comment or Mediation. Would notifying you with a full record of disruptions etc on your talkpage help stop the disruptions? Other editors can post their own comments too, to make it clear that the community disapproves of tendentious behavior. Perhaps a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is appropriate as we have multiple examples to show that we have tried to address the problem via other means and have several editors who have attempted to resolve the problem, and this will help certify a RfC. There is always the possibility of a request for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for administrator intervention to obtain a RfC and a temporary block that would at least allow us time to complete the article. However, there is probably now sufficient material to file a case to the the Arbitration Committee. Granitethighs (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom is the last step of dispute resolution. Usually they request people to at least go through Mediation Committee or RFC first. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion. Lets go back to discussing the thing that was brought up and not editors. If there is a dissenting voice about aspects in the article, so be it, as long as there are good faith attempts to edit constructively. There is no reason to turn a talk page into a section against another editor like the above by G.T. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I suggested an r.f.c. long ago about neutrality and sourcing information. Another suggestion... could any editor familiar with this page remove all the extraneous information above here about accusations etc... as it detracts from actual issues with the article. This post of mine can be freely removed also. Good faith editing suggests calming down on this talk page. skip sievert (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that GT brings up a legitimate issue. There is a very real question as to whether editors can edit collaboratively on these pages given continual disruption by Skipsievert. Personal attack? Not if it is a valid point - a fact. Several editors have agreed about this. A look at this page and any of the recent archives tells the story. IMO we have to sort this out before we can get back to the FA project. Sunray (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why flame a perceived situation S-R.? - I am not now nor have been disrupting anything, so you are carrying on a personal attack here instead of discussing information as I just suggested. The team pretty much controls the article. I suggested taking off the ridiculous cut and paste diatribe above by g.t. - You do not think so... fine. It was just a suggestion. Lets not go back to baiting and taunting other editors here. The page history shows that my work on the article has been exemplary. skip sievert (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been a number of problems with editing this page over a period of almost a year. Skip suggests an r.f.c about neutrality and sourcing...I don't think the problem is limited to this but I absolutely think an r.f.c is the way to go. Much of what is on this page (and the archive pages) has little or nothing to do with the article but this "extraneous information" is in fact central to the issue of whether editing has been in good faith - this is a real and important question and there is no way this material should be deleted. I agree it should be made less accessible to readers of this article, and support the idea of archiving it.--Travelplanner (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion was to remove the above by g.t. because it violates guidelines. It is a long extended personal attack Wikipedia:No personal attacks in the form written, and it is disruptive. Stuff like In the meantime, IMO, editor Skipsievert has lost all credibility. is pretty beyond the pale. Really talk pages are not supposed go like this one has gone. As far as a request for comment that was mostly in regard to Granitethighs book which he has decided to remove himself so this is not an issue. Good faith on my part has been demonstrated every step of the way here. Content disputes are only that, and my complaint has been mostly that the team seems to edit in a mono manner pov wise. skip sievert (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We should get back to the article guys. Skip and I agree that the U.N. Material presented in the (Transition) section is Unneeded and We should use other more scientific groups than U.N. stuff. Using organizations that present scientific research ONLY should be the goal in order to present the article in a more neutral context. Quoting politicians and political groups is not necessary, even if they use others research.

We should at least shorten this section to a paragraph. This article is already too long and needs to be shortened. A consensus goal we have already established. Lets at least start from here. AdenR (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the section title is misleading. (transition) imply solutions that can be taken to accomplish Human Sustainability. If that is true, then we can include all Futurists Ideas, political ideas, ideologies etc...as steps for "change". Which negates the neutrality of the article. Presenting what is scientifically needed for human sustainability should only be written in the last section, whatever the title may be. AdenR (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

AdenR, including all those points (and more) actually contributes to the neutrality of the article. It has also been established that this article is exempt from certain guidelines such as length due to the spectrum of it's subject matter, sections will ultimately be split off to reduce the overall size of this article, but you just can't cut the subject matter of "sustainability" in half to fit WP guidelines, of you can literally, but it just won't serve the subject matter properly, it just won't work. Both you and Skip are underestimating the significance of the United Nations in terms of their published material (and in many other respects too). I totally agree with you about the use of political leaders statements, quotes, etc, however, with the exception of maybe one or two instances, I don't feel they are over represented in this article.

Skip, in contrast, your comments regarding the CSIRO published book in question could be regarded as more of a personal attack than the observations of your editing/contributions by GT. Listen to what he's saying and take it on board, soak it up and use it, before you return critique. This is basic stuff. Nick carson (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Where we got to on the Transformation section is, a draft was posted on the Talk:Sustainability/Transformation page. AdenR and Skip objected at some length but agreed to the following summary of their two main points:

U.N. statements are not a reliable source and do not verify the conclusion that there is a need for change

The quotes from politicians represent an endorsement of politics and taking political sides

There was discussion of both points. In response to your (plural) points:

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is a reliable secondary scientific source - ie. the best available document presenting what is scientifically needed for human sustainability.

The statements of UN decisions and the quotes from politicians are just that - evidence of the views of the UN and of those individuals. Do these views matter? Well if we lived in a technocracy they may not, but in the real world they do and in a real encyclopedia it is appropriate to include them.

The suggestion that evidence of changing policies of individual governments be included in this section was welcomed if you can provide a link to a reliable source stating this. If you can't provide a source, including this statement downgrades the quality of the article.

Nick's provided an answer to your new points about the article being too long.

Aden, when you say "A consensus goal we have already established" - what exactly do you mean?

Improving an article doesn't mean making it shorter or longer, necessarily. It's a commitment, to spending time thinking about the responses to your criticisms, developing your arguments, and especially finding reliable sources as references to support your point of view. There's no such thing as "proof by repeated assertion" on Wikipedia.--Travelplanner (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well put TP, I'll reinforce that the subject matter is what should be served within any article. Nick carson (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Implementation

I realised that we now have the headings "Social dimension" and "Economic dimension" which leaves out the "Environmental dimension". I have replaced "Implementation" with "Environmental dimension" so that there is a uniformity of headings. However simply removing the "Implementation" heading may be problematic. We have a lot of subheadings now and this seemed the best way of dealing with the situation without creating another layer in the heading hierarchy. However, what do others think, is this OK? Granitethighs (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should rename sections just for the sake of renaming them. I don't mind having the social and economic dimension sections without an environmental one, the ecological dimension is perhaps pretty well covered throughout the article. Nick carson (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'd better explain more - it wasn't "just for the sake of renaming" - it was to make the headings in the contents more internally consistent. We do mention the three dimensions of sustainability but dont specifically deal with the environmental dimension and the other subheadings I changed are now more explicit about the contents of the sections. We just had "resources" and this wasn't really consistent with the other subheading in that section which was also a resource (materials). I have simply made the contents of the subsections more explicit. This way people can see exactly what is in them. What I am more concerned about is that by removing "Implementation" we are are removing a key idea - we could leave it in but this pushes the hierarchy of headings down one. There may be other ways ... Needless to say I'm happy with consensus. I actually think our set of headings works well - it would seem a simple thing to do but we've had to work at it and it now makes good simple sense as an outline. And, incidentally, thanks to yourself Nick for essentially drawing up this outline in the first place that set us on the road. Granitethighs (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes that makes more sense, I agree, we absolutely need to keep the implementation section. Hehe, I'm glad there is at least a little bit of recognition and appreciation for the outline. I did spend a huge amount of time tweaking it and I was ridiculed at some points, but assured everyone it would work out well as we built upon it :] Thanks. Nick carson (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)