Talk:Sustainability science/Archive 1
Added template
[edit] | This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. (March 2009) |
The reason...? the article seems to be written more like an original research concept where citations and refs are added but only about 3 or 4 to ref/cite everything. These citations contain nothing to click on to verify and also no page number or chapters or isbn numbers are given so it is impossible to know if they are books or magazines or where they come from.... using 3 or 4 of these citation is being used in the article to source statements... even quotes so it is impossible to say these citations are accurate because they are used to back up different material. I suspect the problem some might have here with the article, might be the fact that the concept is used in different ways by different people, and is trying to be formatted as a separate discipline.
This supports a original contention -- that Sustainability science is a collection of tools and/or an amalgam of fields, not a field unto itself as represented on the article page. Here are a couple reference points for making citations that may come in handy for editors here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations skip sievert (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- This has all been discussed before ad nauseam. Tag removed. Granitethighs (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Article changes
[edit]How did this article written by Granitethighs... suddenly go from this in the beginning Sustainability science has emerged strongly in the 21st century as a new academic discipline. However, as taught in academic institutions, and variously defined, the distinction between sustainability, sustainable development, and sustainability science is not clear. In many ways the new title reflects dissatisfaction with the adequacy and perceived politicisation of “sustainable development” and a desire to give the generalities and broad-based approach of “sustainability” a stronger analytic and scientific underpinning.Komiyama,H. , Takeuchi,K. 2006. Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustainability Science 1:1–6. To this Sustainability science has emerged in the 21st century as a new academic discipline. http://www.sustain.hokudai.ac.jp/poster2006.pdf Japanese Research Institute for Sustainability Science http://www.sustainability.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp University of Tokyo, Japan http://www.lucsus.lu.se/lucid/index.aspx University of Lund, Sweden http://www.icis.unimaas.nl/activities/phd.html International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development, Maastricht University, Netherlands Sweden http://www.cid.harvard.edu/sustsci/ Sustainability Science Program at Harvard University’s Center for International Development http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaft German Wikipedia entry on Sustainability Science The name of this burgeoning scientific field reflects a desire to give the generalities and broad-based approach of “sustainability” a stronger analytic and scientific underpinning. Komiyama,H. , Takeuchi,K. 2006. Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustainability Science 1:1–6. Sustainability science brings together scholarship and practice, global and local perspectives from north and south, and disciplines across the natural and social sciences, engineering, and medicineClark, W.C., & Dickson, N. M. 2003. Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(14): 8059-8061.— it can be usefully thought of as neither ‘‘basic’’ nor ‘‘applied’’ research. It is a field defined by the problems it addresses rather than by the disciplines it employs; it serves the need for advancing both knowledge and action by creating a dynamic bridge between the two.Clark, W.C. 2007. Sustainability Science: A room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 104: 1737-1738; published online on February 6, 2007, 10.1073/pnas.0611291104 And at the same time using the same references. Also. Is it appropriate to use the German wikipedia as a reference citation? skip sievert (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Skip I edited it. I think it reads better as currently written, dont you? Is there a problem? Citing the German Wikipedia simply indicates that the German Wikipedia community recognises the field and has not tagged it as a neologism. Perhaps you would like to tag their article? You can move the citation to the "see also" section if you like. By the way - please sign your entries on this page. Granitethighs (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- It should be clear what text in the article has come from what source. Otherwise material can be challenged and possibly removed on the basis that the source does not validate it. If multiple paragraphs come from one source it is a good idea to put the ref at least at the end of each paragraph. There is always the possibility of a problem if someone inserts new material in the paragraph, not from the same source, so you may want to add the ref to some/all of the sentences in the paragraph, depending on the nature of the content. If the beginning and end of a paragraph are from one source and the middle from another, then they all need to be referenced, i.e. beginning (ref 1), middle (ref 2), end (ref 1). If the beginning is take from two sources and the rest from only one, accuracy demands: beginning (ref 1, ref 2), the rest (ref 1). And so on. Best to over- rather than under-reference. Using the same refs for completely different sounding material as you have done seems questionable... as the information from one version of explanation to another one as to focus seems very different. skip sievert (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Skip, I think that is accurate and useful advice and a procedure I usually follow. However, you are absolutely correct in this instance, the article has been adjusted accordingly. However, you have deleted valuable references to academic institutions with Sustainability Science programs. Could you replace those - also any other references you have casually deleted. I find unjustified deletion confronting - kindly discuss such actions before you do them. I do not want to get into an edit war. Granitethighs (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also I now notice that, in spite of your advice, you have inaccurately reduced multiple refences to a single reference. This would be much better left to my judgement - simply deleting them is not a useful thing to do. Granitethighs (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Skip, I think that is accurate and useful advice and a procedure I usually follow. However, you are absolutely correct in this instance, the article has been adjusted accordingly. However, you have deleted valuable references to academic institutions with Sustainability Science programs. Could you replace those - also any other references you have casually deleted. I find unjustified deletion confronting - kindly discuss such actions before you do them. I do not want to get into an edit war. Granitethighs (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is not in the guidelines to make six references to something.... like a statement or sentence or idea even. Also the citations you are using do not reflect content in the article, really they are not appropriate for the most part. I notice that an Admin. Ed. took off the link to German wikipedia. Wikipedia, as I had mentioned, is not considered a good source on Wikipedia, so yes, you were going against the guideline. Using a paper forum title or article title to source something as mentioned is not appropriate because a title contains a generality name. Mostly using the same link over and over to source different things is also probably not appropriate. Taking off who said and fact tags without providing information is also against guidelines. skip sievert (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not talking about 6 references I am talking about 2 or maybe 3. You are arguing elsewhere that there is no credible evidence for this subject. It is not logical therefore to delete credible evidence. Also I would like the references to the different universities and research centres returned. I do not care where you put them - but they are useful to readers of Wikipedia and should be returned. Please return them. Granitethighs (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The original debate on neologisms and request for move
[edit]To whoever placed the sign on this article. Please read the titles of the reputable journal articles that are cited and then remove the sign. ~~
- The sign was placed because three articles lead in circles to themselves to information that has been covered elsewhere with more formal names and research and information that is not connected or new or newly connected to newly minted words... but older words that talk about the same information and has talked about the same information for decades. Little bits of a title of something may not be the best way to title a new article. The article its self says this presently However, as taught in academic institutions, and variously defined, the distinction between sustainability, sustainable development, and sustainability science is not clear. So it is unclear as to notability... as other terminology expresses the same thing and is more known and mainstream. skip sievert (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would have to agree with Skipsievert here. He/she is not disputing the legitimacy of your referencing, but the labelling of the subject. This should be merged into other Sustainability related topics. - lucideer 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am happy to accept such a decision from an outside and objective observer. However, if you are suggesting that the Sustainable Development (as well as the sustainability science) article be effectively deleted and subsumed in the sustainability article then I question your judgement and request a second opinion. I would also appreciate an explanation of the criteria of merging or deletion that relate to "labelling" i.e. what is it about the "labelling" that is a problem. Granitethighs (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was referring to another article, not development. It's late, so please regard that as a typo for the moment... I'll try think of the article I meant. - lucideer 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, firstly, the article I meant was Sustainability governance, not development.
- Secondly, forgive my haste in the above comment. While, to be honest, I have never contributed to any articles here on sustainable development, it's a topic do I feel strongly about (hopefully I'll contribute a bit in future). Neologisms and protologisms often tend to demean topics they apply to, sometimes creating an impression that they're buzzwords or jargon for a "pseudo-science" or untested theory. So seeing the title just sparked a bit of a kneejerk reaction. Maybe suggesting the complete removal of the article was a little extreme, particularly since I see the Sustainability article is quite broad and unfocused as is. Perhaps a new title would be more apt, something like Sustainability in Science or The Science of Sustainability?? Or maybe it should be merged with some other articles; there are quite a few candidates here - lucideer 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- The following note and points transferred from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment page.
- I am happy to accept such a decision from an outside and objective observer. However, if you are suggesting that the Sustainable Development (as well as the sustainability science) article be effectively deleted and subsumed in the sustainability article then I question your judgement and request a second opinion. I would also appreciate a more cogent explanation of the criteria of merging or deletion that relate to "labelling" i.e. what is it about the "labelling" specifically that is a problem.
- A few points:
- If you have university departments and a substantial literature dedicated specifically to Sustainability Science as a topic – then doesn’t that become adequate reason for an article, regardless of the “labelling” logic?
- Isn’t this distinction a rather fine one. Indeed, how “central” to science is sustainability? Yes, you could speak of sustainable chemistry or sustainable palaeontology but that, surely, is drawing a long bow and certainly not a “given”.
- There are also articles on Social Science and Political Science even though it can be cogently argued that all science has a strong and universal social and political content in spite of rumours to the contrary. I’m sure you wouldn’t dream of saying that we should exclude these articles – and the reason you would not is because they are well entrenched in common usage. I would argue that Sustainability Science is also becoming well entrenched in the same way.
- The environment is everywhere and, in a sense, everything and yet we have Environmental Science. What’s the difference?
- Are you arguing that Sustainability Science just doesn’t make sense – that it is a kind of oxymoron – in which case Wikipedia has an article on “Military intelligence” an oxymoron if ever there was one. Perhaps that should that be merged under Military?
- Newspapers (good secondary sources) carry advertisements for Research Scientists so this idea clearly has currency in the public domain as well as the research and science communities.
- “Research science” is just another way of saying “scientific research”. Are you suggesting that “scientific research” is in some way a nonsense either as an idea or occupation?
- Fine distinctions aside, surely the question is not whether you (or anyone else) thinks it is too large an area to be an “isolated field” but whether it actually is, in practice, treated as an isolated field (which it is). And finally, I see you now say on the Sustainability Science talk page that you did not intend your argument to be applied to the "Sustainable Development" article. But didn't you just say, in effect, that sustainability can be applied to all science and so making the sustainability science distinction is not warranted? How can you make an exception for Sustainable Development then because, surely, sustainability can be applied to all development? Granitethighs (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I must say, some of your points are quite good and did make me consider reconsidering.
- Firstly, I think it's important to draw a distinction between Sustainability Science and Sustainable science. You make the point that I have no issue with Sustainable Development, but that is not to say I would not take issue with Sustainability Development. It is a term that makes sense: development of sustainability. However, I don't think it constitutes a field, do you?
- (6,7) Similarly a Research Scientist (i.e. the ones in newspaper advertisements), is someone who carries out research into a particular scientific field, not someone who specialises in studying the science of research as Research Science would imply. Again, a term that does make sense, but does not constitute a Wikipedia article on it as a field of study. (It is not "another way of saying scientific research"; scientific research is research into whatever arbitrary scientific discipline is being studied, research science would be a scientific field studying research - i.e. the study of the scientific method in general.)
- (4) The environment is not quite everywhere. People are not generally considered themselves to be a part of the environment, which is why medical sciences are in large part excluded from the umbrella term "Environmental Science". Astrology is not included as the term generally refers to the environment in which we reside, although I'd imagine this will change in future.
- (3) On social and political science, you could argue that these are not in fact sciences, as by Wikipedias own definition they are not ("Science is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works."). You could argue that however many decades ago these terms were coined someone should have objected to their use. On the other hand you could also argue the definition of the word science. One could argue many things. I won't attempt to do either here, I'll just assume these are both sciences, and are therefore studies into the respective scientific fields of sociology and politics. Which brings us right back to the afforementioned argument of differentiating between sustainability within science and the study of sustainability itself.
- (2) Sustainable chemistry or sustainable palaeontology, two examples of fields in which sustainability is integral. Obviously, sustainability is not a massive issue in any theoretical field of science, as palaeontology often can be outside of field research, but it is in any science which effects the environment in any way, incurs costs, uses resources of any kind. If one wanted to be bombastic about it, one could argue that the sustainability of any human action should be considered; a footstep negatively effects microbiotic soil biodiversity central to our sustenance, etc. This level of argument is of course ridiculous, but can you really argue that sustainability is not an central part of much or all science?
- (1) I am not aware of any institutions with a department entitled "Department of Sustainability Science" - are there any? I'm assuming, since you make this point you are aware of one or more. I'd be interested to know where they are, and what the department covers. My own institution ran courses on Housing, Neighbourhood and Sustainability in the Social Science Department, Sustainability of Agricultural Ecosystems in the Food Science department and Energy and Sustainability Issues in the Engineering department. How would one department approach such diverse topics? - lucideer 06:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm.... military intelligence. Interesting concept, I wonder could it work...
Lucideer – You have stayed up late considering my case and you are close to being convinced of its validity. However, my brief frivolity has suggested to you that I am not serious in my quest for a reconsidered verdict and so my thesis has elicited an ambiguous reply. Ultimately you will acknowledge the awesome power of my arguments and succumb. But first you must put aside your annoyance with my arrogance because we both know that our differences can only be settled by pure reason. You currently have the advantage, but you have also conceded ground. There is hesitation: we do not have closure. There is work to be done.
We must return to the debate where you must acknowledge my questions and provide answers that have credibility. The strength of your replies must adequately counter the penetration of the question. If the reply does not carry weight then, whatever the outcome of this discussion for Wikipedia, you will know in your heart that you are responsible for an injustice.
I will now keep the discussion simple.
1. You ask whether “Departments of Sustainability Science” exist (while quoting your insular experience within the United Kingdom). I trust you acknowledge that to name one or more sources should count as real evidence in favour of my case. Could you now access on the net Harvard University (it is a famous university in America). The address is http://www.hks.harvard.edu/sust/. This is the tip of the iceberg. You will be able to find others for yourself.
2. Reply to your statement no. 1. The question we are addressing is not “is there such a field as “sustainability development””, what we are asking is “is there such a field as “sustainability science””. As you see from 1 above, the answer is in the affirmative.
3. Reply to your statement 3. Your assertion is simply not true, ask any environmental scientist whether they would regard people as part of the environment or in some way “outside” it. There is no question that they would regard humans as part of the biosphere.
4. You say "I'll just assume these (social science and political science) are both sciences, and are therefore studies into the respective scientific fields of sociology and politics. Which brings us right back to the afforementioned argument of differentiating between sustainability within science and the study of sustainability itself." You argue that social science is a scientific field of sociology. What is environmental history? Obviously a historical field of environmental studies. What is sustainability science? A scientific field of sustainability. If you look at the article on sustainability science you will see that is precisely what the broad objectives of the field are. You are exactly right – the field of sustainability science aims “... to give the generalities and broad-based approach of “sustainability” a stronger analytic and scientific underpinning.” Why is this any less like a “field” than the scientific credential claimed for what you do acknowledge as a “field” viz. social science?
6. You ask “Can you really argue that sustainability is not a central part of much or all science”. And “How can one department approach such diverse topics as sustainability and housing, sustainability and energy, or sustainability and agricultural ecosystems. I think we are getting down to tin tacks here. Two extremely important points individually sufficient to make my case compelling regardless of the previous discussion. Firstly it is precisely because sustainability cuts into so many fields that it is becoming sensible to make it a single discipline (field) in its own right. The history of science is full of disciplines splitting up like this. My training is in botany but at one time it was simply a part of medicine – this is how new studies are spawned surely. It could be argued, I am serious – this is not some slick argument - that any discipline concerning itself with the material world is physics. Truth is, we look at this field of physics from different perspectives, one is chemistry. Point is, sustainability is not all-encompassing in any exclusive sense, not to the exclusion of subdisciplines. How is sustainability part of physics as it is taught in universities? The honest answer is no part whatsoever.
7. Once again, I state, the question is not whether you (or anyone else) thinks Sustainability Science is too large an area to be an “isolated field” (I have just demonstrated that this is not the case) but whether it actually is, in practice, treated as an isolated field (I have demonstrated that it is). I would like a convincing riposte to this assertion please?
8. Skipvert (see below) claims these so-called "neologisms" are used by the UN. Seems an extremely good argument for them not being neologisms. No?
9. A fact from "Sustainability accounting" appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 June 2008 and there was absolutely no concern about its title. Does this not indicate an over-reaction in the attempt to get it merged or deleted?
Other minor points to consider: (a) By your own admittance you are not familiar with the subject. (b) You point out that a major reason why Wikipedia concerns itself with proto and neologisms is that they can demean the topic they apply to, sometimes creating an impression that they are buzzwords or jargon for a "pseudo-science" or untested theory. This is not the case for “sustainability science” (less so than for social science anyway) so in this instance the concern is unfounded and the deletion or alteration in any way therefore unwarranted.
- If you provide sound, logical counter-arguments to the questions above I shall never darken your doorstep again. If you cannot – then your position must be reconsidered. Granitethighs (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability_science&diff=prev&oldid=255758800 directed information is a personal attack. do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor, and you are doing a pattern of this here and on other articles Sustainability. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. If you have an axe to grind? Try the hardware store. Wikipedia is the wrong venue for this. skip sievert (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence above (Behold etc. ... as revealed in the web address) was written in response to a heartless recommendation to delete the Sustainability Science article. The recommendation for deletion has since been removed, presumably because it is incriminatory. Please put the web address up Skip, so that people can see, I dont know how to do that]. I point out that the comment was removed as soon as it was clear that it had given offence.
- The above http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability_science&diff=prev&oldid=255758800 directed information is a personal attack. do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor, and you are doing a pattern of this here and on other articles Sustainability. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. If you have an axe to grind? Try the hardware store. Wikipedia is the wrong venue for this. skip sievert (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Granitethighs (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- While I would agree with you skip sievert that personal attacks do not belong on Wikipedia (I can't think of anywhere they do belong), seeing the masses of friendly discussions you have had with Granitethighs in the past, you might think to assume good faith in this case. Anyway, just my two cents. I personally found the remark to be quite lyrical, and it certainly would not have swayed my views on "the debate" in anyway. Then again, the remark was not about me, so perhaps I'm speaking out of turn here. Also, why did you remove your comment on the AfD??
- @Granitethighs - Thank you for your message, I have just got it. A lot has been written here since, I haven't yet read the section below this. On your above points (I will form my reply in order unlike last time which was a bit confusing.)
- I was aware of the Harvard program you mention (I did read the article before engaging in debate). However it is a program, not a department as I mentioned. The university I "quoted my insular experience" in (which is certainly not anywhere in the UK), has as a "Sustainability Officer", who's resposibility is to promote sustainable practises within research in the college. Not quite a program, with a board attached, but for a college on a small island, without such notability as Harvard, comparable. Neither constitute a department - the department the Harvard program is under is the Harvard Centre for International Development, another topic which Wikipedia states "lacks universally accepted definition" (and one which I would also label as inappropriate, but I'm sure someone would disagree and as a newcomer and massively inexperienced Wikipedia editor I think one debate with a far more experienced user is about as bold as I'm willing to be at this stage). Either way, my comments on Departments of Sustainability Science was worded as a question. I was not making a point, merely inquiring out of curiosity as to their existence. I am actually quite surprised there aren't any. I don't think I was arguing against the inclusion of the contents of this article, merely it's labelling. I strongly agree with this article, and documenting topics broached by every educational/research institution (including Harvard) is within this scope, but categorising these topics using terms used by each and every one of these institutions would be either impossible or result in reams of duplicate content.
- Does a program constitute a field of research? Does a department? I think my biggest "gripe" would be that, having read the Wikipedia article, I don't understand what the "field" is researching. I don't put this down to your authorship (your writing style is excellent, in particular in discussion - lyrical), nor a limitation of my own ability to grasp such concepts. Every statement of purpose of the "field" is broad and vague. In the Definition section there are two quotes attempting to do this (the first of the four is on development, the last a call to action not attempting definition). The first is very deliberately and quite hilariously vague: "evaluation of practical interventions that promote sustainability in particular places and contexts". The second could almost be reworded to say: "Sustainability science focuses on interactions" without losing any of it's present meaning. My question (and I'm sure there is an answer, this is a question, not a point), is what does a Sustainability Scientist do? While I'm aware some might jokingly ask the same of a Social Scientist, I'm seriously curious here.
- Whether you regard people as part of the environment and whether you regard a person as part of the environment are too ever so slightly different questions. Do you believe that human biomedical science should come under the heading of Environmental Science? If you do, please explain. If you don't, then I'm sure you can understand my assertion here.
- I agree wholeheartedly with all of your assertions in this point. Please see my point 2 above.
- ?? (You can use a hash for numbered lists to avoid human errorr.)
- You say sustainability "cuts into" many fields, as if it and other fields simply crossover. I see it as an integral staple of all fields, like research, theory, development. "It could be argued... that any discipline concerning itself with the material world is physics" - in my own personal experience it is argued, often assumed. "How is sustainability part of physics as it is taught in universities?" - The honest answer is in countless ways, and how you could think otherwise astounds me. Is physics not the field in which sustainability is talked about the most, the field in which research leads to more technological development than any other field. Physics keeps the heat in passive houses and turns the vanes of windmills. In fact I think sustainability may be more a part of physics than of any other scientific field. "Sustainability... is the ability to sustain a certain process or state at a certain rate or level" - "Physics is the science of matter and its motion."
- skip sievert's comments on the UN are relatively valid as it is a political, not a scientific organisation. Harvard would be a better gauge in my opinion.
- What appears in "Did you know?" is decided by WP:Did you know?. According to the project page "There is no formal hierarchy, and no particular editor or administrator has authority over others". It lists 5 active contributors. Also, there are 8 facts in that section, that appear for no more than a day. Neither of the facts are labelled with article titles.
- On my experience: I'm not sure whether I said that exactly; correct me if I'm wrong but I may have been commenting on my experience as a Wikipedia contributor, not my experience outside of Wikipedia. However, since you bring it up, my knowledge of this topic might not be as great as yours but does this preclude me from expressing my view?
- I'm not sure why Wikipedia concerns itself with neologisms, but this is one of the reasons I would concern myself and the reason I made this point is because I personally believe that this could be seen to demean the topic in this specific case. Maybe demean is too strong a word, but let me elaborate by trying to put some perspective on my point. While I see where you're coming from with Social Science, I would disagree that this the case for social science more than it is for "sustainability science". Sociology, anthropology, et al. don't have large powerful consensuses questioning their necessity. Labelling sustainability as a field of science could/can give the impression that it is very separate topic, one with it's own devoted minority field of research, a diluted topic. Something which is relegated to a section of science carries less weight than that which is unilaterally associated with every aspect of it.
- On AfDs: while I am not suggesting this article be deleted, one should not have such a defensive reaction to the idea. I think of myself as an inclusionist regarding Wikipedia (see the essay I referenced earlier), and to be honest, I believe the current policy of removing any record of content that has being deleted is a bit severe. However there are many many fine, well regarded articles that have been through AfD (some numerous times). An AfD is not necessarily an entirely negative thing: it opens up debate to a broader audience who may not discover the debate otherwise, and can often bolster the keep argument quite confidently.
- On darkening my doorstep, I would be fairly disappointed if you didn't. Ne'r a finer arguer did I come across.
- On reconsidering my position, I do so constantly - lucideer 05:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Lucideer - you have politely countered my arguments. I respect and accept your decision and thank you for your honesty and effort. I may turn to you in future times of need knowing I have someone who is true to themself and other people. Granitethighs (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, thank you. Be sure that I will be doing the same in future, particularly on any issues pertaining to sustainability et al., which I should hope I'll be doing my best to contribute to as much as possible in future (hopefully in more creative ways than this).
- Anyway, regarding your above comment: "I respect and accept your decision", I'm not sure what to do. Should I place something like the below at the top of the page, or what do you suggest? olucideer 17:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine by me. Where did you get all the programming skills and info? Granitethighs (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think an Afd may be in order for the article or just merging/redirecting it, to other more notable disciplines regarding Sustainability and science. Mostly it presents political U.N. information that could be out of place, as to the title of the article, also renaming it, as currently suggested, does not alter that. It does seem like more a vehicle for various aspects of U.N. programs, with a Harvard link in it, that has been noted... is just a title and not a department, so the sourcing of so many U.N. related concepts seems inappropriate.
- Also even in the Harvard link, (which has been stressed by an editor to gain notability for the article) in the meetings and discussions Events page given here, does not characterize what they are doing as Sustainability science... http://www.hks.harvard.edu/sust/events.htm ... and the link has nothing listed in recent years under this events section above given either, at least nothing since 2001 or 2002... so it seems outdated in that sense.
- Whatever actual information is in the present article could be deconstructed and moved to more recognized mainstream science based articles that are in the forefront of the thoughts connected with these issues. In the trio of articles created by user Granitethighs, Sustainability accounting probably should for starters be given an economic category designation since it is mostly a monetary interpretation of sustainability, and unlike other articles that deal with physics and energy, for instance Ecological economics .. Environmental economics .. Environmental science, all are actual scientific disciplines ... that are cross connected with other mainstream disciplines, directly connected with science/sustainability issues.
- Also the other of this trio... Sustainability governance also is iffy as a discipline or recognized idea outside of the U.N. - Is it really something that deserves an article outside of a U.N. article.?.. and are these trio of articles mostly information concepts that could be stated in a sentence or two in a U.N. article instead of being presented as separate concepts?
- I am not sure just renaming this article takes care of these issues. I think the article may be confusing in regard to actual science sustainability concepts covered elsewhere, as to the content and conception of them, which makes them iffy as to notability as stand alone articles. Right now a REDIRECT to Environmental science would be my suggestion. skip sievert (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- @[User:Skipsievert|skip sievert]] - The above section of text is fragmented and quite difficult to follow. It also seems to contain some repetition. Please take it as constructive criticism if I say I find can't make out much of it, you might consider a slight restructuring for clarity. Anyway, as I've said before, I would certainly agree with you on some of the points I can makeout from the block.
- @Granitethighs - One thing I find invaluable here on Wikipedia that I'd recommend is namespace searches; let's you search for pages on Wikipedia policy specifically, and exclude the main encyclopedia from your search. I found all that "Moving template" code info I posted at the top by simply doing search. First result gives policy on what to do. - olucideer 23:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Lucidee: "I am not aware of any institutions with a department entitled "Department of Sustainability Science" - are there any? I'm assuming, since you make this point you are aware of one or more. I'd be interested to know where they are, and what the department covers..."
There are some:
- Japan: Graduate School of Sustainability Science - University of Hokudai http://www.sustain.hokudai.ac.jp/poster2006.pdf
or Research Institute for Sustainability Science http://www.ir3s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/outline/member/riss.html or
- Tokyo: http://www.sustainability.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp/
- Sweden - University of Lund : http://www.lucsus.lu.se/lucid/index.aspx
- Netherlands: http://www.icis.unimaas.nl/activities/phd.html
- USA: Sustainability Science Program at Harvard University’s Center for International Development
www.cid.harvard.edu/sustsci/grants/fellows/07_fellows_RFP.htm
--Encyclopaedus (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Encyclopaedus, they seem to be programmes rather than departments per se (see pedantic argument above) but they are very interesting nonetheless. I was aware of the programme at Harvard (also discussed above), and I'm afraid my Japanese is a little rusty these days, however the programme in Sweden does interest me greatly as I am planning on visiting Lund University very soon. Maybe I could slip in to LUCID and see if anyone there can define the field for me more precisely. The webpage for the programme in Holland does seem to describe the "field" more explicitly than I've seen elsewhere. It seems to imply that it is a predominantly mathematical field concerned with statistics, uncertainty, risk, etc. This doesn't seem to be mentioned in this article, is it incorrect?
- All fastidiousness aside, I'd like to "vote" for the removal of the neologism banner. The argument for or against it doesn't appear likely to progress positively until/unless more external voices join the discussion. Having the banner there hasn't attracted any comments to date (my comments weren't motivated by the presence of the banner). olucideer 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- As an aside, may I suggest some of this talk page be archived as well...it's quite long
Further debate on neologism
[edit]There are three related articles marked as potential "neologisms": sustainability accounting, sustainability science, and sustainability governance. It is true that these are all relatively recent additions to the literature. IMO this is because sustainability as a study is not an established discipline - it is in its embryonic stages and is gradually finding its focus, terminology and scope. In terms of its operations IMO the above three topics are critical - sustainability governance is guided by the evidence provided by sustainability accounting and the whole process is under the critical eye of sustainability science. I am in discussion with an editor in regard to improving the article on sustainability accounting - this simply refers to the quantitative evidence used to assess sustainability (Ecological Footprint and a host of other quantitative tools). There is no universally accepted term for this. One simple way of dealing with this is to call it "sustainability measurement"; other people refer to "sustainability metrics" (there is a Wikipedia entry on this - is it a neologism?) there are others - none has been taken up universally by teh sustainability community. The attraction of "sustainability accounting" is that it captures the close way we manage our economic lives and is therefore an excellent marketing tool for the concept - it is certainly a good contender because it is well established in the literature. "Sustainability governance" is also well established in the literature but not universally accepted - it is simply the process whereby sustainability decisions get implemented - call it suistainability management or sustainability administration if you like. "Governance" is generally taken to include informal decision-making (like deciding to rade a bicycle to work to reduce emissions) so it captures this side of the process, as well as the formal political process. "Sustainability science" is the formal academic analytic and critical appraisal of all aspects of sustainability. It is a newish discipline but formally recognised as a specific "field", for example, at Harvard. IMO there are no unequivocal or unambiguous expressions covering these three concepts - if any of them is deleted or subsumed then very important operational concepts are lost.
So where does that leave us? All these articles are well referenced with reliable primary sources . It would be a simple matter to add secondary sources if required. They contain valuable material of interest to people in the sustainability field and provide an excellent basis on which future editors can build. Overall Wikipedia would be the poorer without these articles. In settling issues to do with neologisms Wikipedia calls for common sense to prevail as suggested by the neologism tag itself.
 | This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
I suggest that unless and until alternative convincing "terms" are found, the "tags" at the top of the article pages should be removed.Granitethighs (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sustainability accounting appears to be a kind of economic article. It is mostly promoted by some accounting professionals on websites. Sustainability governance seems to be mostly a U.N. generated construct which is not a thing unto itself in the real world. Sustainability science is a new term that is being used and is not yet an autonomous field or discipline, but rather a vibrant arena that is bringing together scholarship and practice, global and local perspectives from north and south, and disciplines across the natural and social sciences, engineering, and medicine [2] — it can be usefully thought of as neither ‘‘basic’’ nor ‘‘applied’’ research. It is a field defined by the problems it addresses rather than by the disciplines it employs; it serves the need for advancing both knowledge and action by creating a dynamic bridge between the two. This is according to the article presently. Also as commented on before mostly these three what appear to be walled garden articles all turn around and within themselves mostly as U.N. sourced material seems to be almost the entire jumping off point... even when U.N. material is being mined to make a case for these three articles... mostly the information in the articles is more immediately understood and referenced from mainstream ideas as to mainstream disciplines such as Ecological economics .. Environmental economics .. Environmental science etc. It is a fact that you created all of these articles originally, and have been pretty much the only person involved in them. They are relatively new. skip sievert (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that a case can be mounted for Ecological economics and Environmental economics being neologisms and a stronger case for these two articles being merged. Perhaps someone could look into this, I have more important things to do. Granitethighs (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Not really. They are known and recognized and well documented, and separated from each other as to information and focus... and they are all highly thought of in regard to interdisciplinary literature and refernces. They are not even remotely neologisms. The problem with the series of articles created by yourself... is that they seem to be more about the U.N. than anything. No problem with that ... the U.N. has some good information sometimes... but to cast these articles in the image of U.N. sourced material mostly and portray them mostly as academic disciplines may not be a good idea as to accuracy. You originally created these articles... and have been pretty much the sole editor to them. skip sievert (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[Clearly they were well written; editing often reflects dissatisfaction with content not engagement with topic]Granitethighs (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- A number of points. Firstly, the topics you question are well known and well documented, it is just that you are unfamiliar with them, as I am unfamiliar with Ecological economics and Environmental economics which sound to me like recent and very minor adjuncts to their main field of economics. The distinction between the two must surely be highly dubious and, if obvious at all, obvious only to a few experts in the field - so we have here an excellent case for the merging of articles. The article itself says: The identity of ecological economics as a field has been described as fragile, with no generally accepted theoretical framework and a knowledge structure which is not clearly defined (this is referenced). If ecological economics does not warrant the title "field" then environmental economics surely has even less credibility. In addition, are these articles similar in content - I have not read them in detail, if they are, then the case would be totally compelling if it is not already. The references given to the sustainability fields we are discussing stand up well. Also, have you visited the Harvard site I pointed out http://www.hks.harvard.edu/sust/ - they are recognised in various spheres, not just the UN which seems to strike strong negative chords with you for some reason. Secondly the articles are, in fact, not preoccupied with the UN as you imply, although the UN does get mentioned. And why would this present any problem, in fact it acts to the contrary. In terms of neologisms it seems more likely to me that a neologism would emanate from a narrow academic sphere because it would have no exposure (an example being environmental economics) than from the world's major international means of communication where it is well and truly in the public domain. Use by the UN is surely an exttremely strong reason for a term not being a neologism. Granitethighs (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sustainability Science versus Sustainability in Science
[edit]I agree totaly with Granitethighs ! Thank you for your good work - we have since 2005 already a german lemma for Sustainability Science (Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaft). http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaft
There are 3.260.000 google hits for "Sustainability Science" - thousands of sources,a lot of books,even Master-Programmes, e.g. but only 12.100 google hits for "Sustainability in Science". The Lemma "Sustainability in Science" would be really a neologism ! Sustainability Science is a scientific term build on consensus of the international scientific community ! There is no consensus for "Sustainability in Science" also "Sustainability Science" is totally different from "Environmental Science".
Sustainability Science was officially introduced with a Birth Statement on the World Congress "Challenges of a Changing Earth" 2001 in Amsterdam with 7000 scientist through the International Council for Science (ICSU), the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP) and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). I was there . --Encyclopaedus (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sustainability accounting recent edit
[edit]This edit below reflects these issues.... the information previously does not really. This is cited information. Please do not change this unless it is discussed on the talk page... and the previous edit is explained ... as to accuracy.
Sustainability issues in science assist management of those issues by providing and improving evidence-based quantitative measurement in an economics or money sense combined with ecological sustainability. Sustainability accounting indicators may include benchmarks, audits, indexes and other metrics connected to economic factors and sustainability in relation to human social conditions.[1] skip sievert (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Skip, against my better judgement I have redirected "sustainability accounting" to "sustainability measurement". Would you kindly restore all the references that you have deleted, remove your text referring to monetary matters as it is no longer relevant, and I will reduce the number of reference citations that I originally gave for important assertions and correct other matters you referred to in relation to the citations. Granitethighs (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you made a mistake by redirecting it. It was what it was... and accurate before for what it was. Renaming it is not such a good idea. Really it is a separate thing called Sustainability accounting... and is known as such. It is an economic term... and as such could probably have an economics tag at the bottom. It solves nothing to not acknowledge that reality. The references you put in were mostly not really applicable. The one I put in was really applicable. Really I do not wish to argue such points. The redirect means you would have to create another article and that seems pointless. Reality is that the U.N. and its material has some relevance, within the money context. That is the context of which we all presently live. This is not something that needs to be hidden or ducked from. Not sure if you follow what I am mentioning... but. I suggest you forget the redirect... and also stop using multiple ref/citations for generic labeling. Really that is pointless... and the fact is that Sustainability accounting within the current context of thought is a real thing. Again it may be a mistake to dove tail information as to ideas already thought about or sourced elsewhere in better terms. Also I have to tell you that putting links to web pages in see other zones when they are all ready linked into the article is not according to policy guidelines. It is kind of over kill in that sense. You have done that in several cases which I have removed. There is no real reason to duplicate links as you have done. skip sievert (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Skip, I suggest you re-create the sustainability accounting page based on your concept of monetary accounting since you think it is essentially a money term. I can mention the potential for confusion in the article or, perhaps better still, we could use a disambiguation page to sort it out. I am not aware of the "duplication" that you mention. You have deleted so many references and links that I have no idea what was there originally or what is going on. I know a couple of highly relevant and useful references have now gone altogether. I suggest you put all the references back, as they were originally (in that latter section of the article that is). I will link them in the way you suggest and reduce the multiples to 2 or maybe three that are directly relevant. That way surely we will both be happy. Again I suggest you discuss any deletions before you make them - it is a very confronting thing to do. There is always the temptation to delete parts of your entries without warning - but how useful and productive would that be? Granitethighs (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not doing any thing out of meanness or spite at all. Just trying to get at a good article. The fact is that the U.N. and its material is very much based on the status quo of our current political money system and hence it really is a form of special interest group as to economics in the current configuration. You repeated information below in links above... Also you have made so many red links as to almost make a red link parody of certain sections of the sustainable accounting or sustainability measurement article. It is no sin to make it what it is... and again I do believe that you have mislabeled what it is now... and encourage you to go back to the original name... which is more accurate. All the links you gave previously gave this title also. So, I would say get rid of the redirect. It is pointless... and not really the issue here. One link per idea should be sufficient unless something is really iffy or very interesting information can be piled on... but in this case one link seems to be about right to explain something this basic in context. skip sievert (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Skip, I do not understand. You have tagged the article a neologism, and even at one stage suggested it should be deleted I believe. Now you want to keep it. You have suggested that the expression is used in two ways - one in a literal monetary way (in some sense doing the monetary accounting related to a sustainability situation): this is the sense you appear to prefer, that's fine. I use it in another sense which I have seen elsewhere - that is as a general term for any form of sustainability measurement, including monetary. I understand and appreciate this distinction. If I go back now this confusion will remain and I agree that it is possible that someone in the future will want to set up an entry precisely for the monetary sense. I am happy to correct the "red links" - there must be a way. Viewed even in the very best light you have managed to create a lot of work and confusion. If you had not tagged the article a neologism everything would have been fine. Granitethighs (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. Every thing would not have been fine. Also... the new term may definitely be a neologism... the old term may not be because there is background on it. Sustainability measurement is not as far as I can tell a real title... and should be changed back. Also the reality of Sustainability accounting is such that ... it revolves around money. That is a fact.. but also Environmental economics in general revolve around money... and that is a fact... Also Ecological economics revolve around money... even though they claim other wise. So... It may be just as well to call a spade a spade... and re-title the article with its most notable name. There is no doubt in my mind the new title is a neologism. The old title with some editing might make a decent article though... and it may not be a neologism... possibly if the information is presented as it actually is. skip sievert (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Skip, this does not make sense, either as an explanation or as a suggested way forward. Why recreate the article if it sits there with a neologism tag on it? You say "the reality of Sustainability accounting is such that ... it revolves around money". I am saying that is fine - do your entry accordingly. If you think ther is potential for confusion people then do a little sentence explaining this at the start of the new article. Incidentally, I suggest you forget all about neologisms until cases arise that are genuinely problematic. Granitethighs (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. Every thing would not have been fine. Also... the new term may definitely be a neologism... the old term may not be because there is background on it. Sustainability measurement is not as far as I can tell a real title... and should be changed back. Also the reality of Sustainability accounting is such that ... it revolves around money. That is a fact.. but also Environmental economics in general revolve around money... and that is a fact... Also Ecological economics revolve around money... even though they claim other wise. So... It may be just as well to call a spade a spade... and re-title the article with its most notable name. There is no doubt in my mind the new title is a neologism. The old title with some editing might make a decent article though... and it may not be a neologism... possibly if the information is presented as it actually is. skip sievert (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- The new case is pretty cut and dried as to it being a neologism, in the redirect. Using the Sustainability accounting sourcing for a new word, is not going to work out most likely. I think it may be a good idea to get rid of the redirect, and just use the current sustainability accounting as the basis of this idea in the other articles. Reality may be, there is a much better case for Sustainability accounting ... not being a neologism... than there is for Sustainability measurement, as an apparent neologism word. If the Sustainability accounting article can maintain good sources and not try to be something other than it is, like another U.N. article link excuse... that is over sited in it... I would think the neologism tag could come off. I think it may have been a mistake to do the redirect. There was no need for it. It seems to have created another problem. It may be a good idea to just get rid of it... and edit sustainability accounting to better effect (my opinion). skip sievert (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Skip, you have tagged the sustainability accounting article a neologism, implying it should be renamed or deleted. I have agreed to rename it. You now suggest that I not do that - that it should be left as it is. I do not find this helpful. Also you have completely deleted a number of citations. It is possible that some of these could have been better placed within the article. However, they were highly relevant to the topic and useful to both myself and other Wikipedians; they also clearly referred to and discussed the field of sustainability science itself. You did not discuss this deletion but simply carried it out. I would like access to these references in some form (I do not know how to revert). Please make them available (to me at least). Granitethighs (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think some of this information (below) would be better with some of the stuff in these three articles now.
Start Economic Sustainability: Agenda 21 clearly identified information, integration, and participation as key building blocks to help countries achieve development that recognises these interdependent pillars. It emphasises that in sustainable development everyone is a user and provider of information. It stresses the need to change from old sector-centred ways of doing business to new approaches that involve cross-sectoral co-ordination and the integration of environmental and social concerns into all development processes. Furthermore, Agenda 21 emphasises that broad public participation in decision making is a fundamental prerequisite for achieving sustainable development.Will Allen. 2007."Learning for Sustainability: Sustainable Development." Finish
- A lot of the stuff you have worked on is sprawled out in lots of directions as to focus. This information is more standard and specific above as to U.N. and is cited recently. I will look at these three articles and insert this where proper where now there is roughly cited stuff.
- I wish you had discussed renaming the article. I never suggested renaming anything to you. I would have given you my opinion. Keep in mind that I am not trying to make things harder. I do think now that Sustainability accounting after sourcing it better... (I did add an important citation/ref to it) is a real thing... and was for sure going to take the neologism tag off that particular article this morning... so it was a surprise to see the new article title redirect, and the problem all started anew.
- This is not really a good way to proceed with the new title. I think it will now be impossible to source right as to ref. citation that directly relate to the title... and this brings up the basic problem again of this being a neologism probably now for real. I found enough stuff on the other title.... as said to get rid of the neologism tag... so... this has complicated things. If you go with the old title, I will NOT put the neologism tag on it, because I sourced the name and material in it with that website mentioned before. The focus is money... and in money its regard for Environmental sustainability mostly. The information is not lost... but hold on for now putting so much information back on. It can be picked through later. I would be happy to show you how... but right now lets just get an honest good accounting of what sustainability accounting is.... so... My best suggestion is to go back to the old title... then source it correctly. With the citation I put on it... that is probably enough now as to the basic thing of what it is.
- Again... I suggest going back to the original title. skip sievert (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- At last I understand. You wish the article to stay but the emphasis to be shifted to money aspects, real "accounting" not accounting as "measuring". This puts me in a very difficult situation. The article was originally written to synthesise all the metrics associated with sustainability - all the methods of quantifying sustainability, the methods usede to answer the question "How do we know what is sustainable?". This is critical and extremely important - money has little relevance here. I am more than happy to leave "sustainability accounting" to economists or environmental economists or whatever - but I need somewhere to put the extremely important information I am talking about. It is because of this dilemma that the title first emerged. I can transfer it to a long-standing article called "Sustainability metrics and indices". If I put it there will you then label the article "Sustainability metrics and indices"a neologism? Granitethighs (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- No... that is not it. Here is the situation. It can be called Sustainability accounting... because that is the actual name... and although new... it is cited enough to make sense and has third party citation refs etc. You can also link the other article into the information "Sustainability metrics and indices". If you return it to sustainability accounting.. you can also add that link to "Sustainability metrics and indices". So... Also I do understand what it is about... and it is about the other things you are talking about... as to sustainability metrics of thinking... what I think you may not get here is that this is also an actual accounting using money as a fulcrum in the sense of Sustainability development. This is key. It is a fact that we use our economics system in regard to all choice. You see? Rename the article and get rid of the redirect... and we can straighten out the article to reflect what it actually is... in a realistic way. I just redid the section above again slightly differently as to the other topic and added it to the article here... Here is the newest version here below
Sustainability science derives its impetus from the concepts of sustainable development and adds proposals from the Brundtland Commission of the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987. [2] As outlined by the Sustainability Science Program at Harvard University's Center for International Development sustainability science seeks to: advance basic understanding of the dynamics of human-environment systems; to facilitate the design, implementation, and evaluation of practical interventions that promote sustainability in particular places and contexts; and to improve linkages between relevant research and innovation communities on the one hand, and relevant policy and management communities on the other.<ref> [1] Sustainability Science Program at Harvard's Center for International Development End
- This reflects the actual material better and is not so cluttered. I am still not happy about this article here... which still could be a neologism for Sustainability development. That is another issue though.
- Skip, I believe we are both acting in good faith but we are at cross purposes. I am interested in the UN only insofar as it concerns itself with providing ways of measuring sustainability. At the international level it has produced a "toolbox" of sustainability "indicators" so it certainly needs a mention. However, there are a whole host of other sustainability metrics - for example the Ecological Footprint - that have little if anything to do with the UN. Because the topic is so large the article concentrates at the global level - that is why we see the UN in there. Sustainability scientists work in many other ways than simply complying with the UN. I am currently working on a sustainability audit for home gardens and dont even know who is now the boss of the UN, I think he is Chinese. However, my work is what I would once have called Sustainability Accounting but now call Sustainability Metrics and Indices. I am not prepared to leave the current article under its present name if it is to be converted to a treatise on either environmentral economics or the UN. ~~~~
- That information is in the links on the article page now. Tool box issues. Cluttering the page is pointless. As you know a sustainability audit... takes money into consideration.. and we do live in a price system. It is not going to be converted into an article on Evironmental economics... but you would be wise to ascertain this concept very carefully because of the energy aspect... and not the money aspect... Natural capital etc. and Energy economics in general. We could turn a sustainability accounting article into a good and useful tool of information. Not so sure that the current title has any hope of that because it is misnamed now as to focus of material. Also there is a whole branch of economics not connected with money as to measurement that I do not think you are incorporating here... and that is something I can do... but it has to be named right to begin with, and it has to reflect the reality of what it does. Sustainability development should not be shied away from... at all. If there is a thing really called sustainability science... it is based on sustainability development... because of the current system... that measures things always that way. This may be new information but I think it is vital to take the most well rounded approach here ... and keeping the old title does that in my opinion. ~~~~
- Firstly, your assertion that "Sustainability science derives its impetus from the concepts of sustainable development" is not self-evident. I regard myself as a sustainability scientist and my operations have absolutely nothing to do with the UN - I suspect that most universities would say that the UN is largely incidental to their work. Secondly, much of my garden auditing deals with the uptake of energy and CO2 into vegetable matter, the effective use of rainfall, the cycling of nutrients and so on - all of which deals with money in only the most oblique way. To put all this under the rubric "Price system" is to draw an extremely long bow: it is ecology, not economics or economical ecology or even ecological economics. Also I have made a reasonable request for the return of my deleted references. They do not have to be in the article although there would certainly be spots where they would fit. You can email them to me if you like. ~~~~
- These article are improving... but I think this sustainability science one is still questionable... in the sense that its information could fit into any number of articles with similar links. all of which deals with money in only the most oblique way. Well, I assume you get paid for your job..?. probably you buy food with the money you earn. That does not explain the oblique manner then of dealing with these issues in regard to money. Bottom line is that ecological economics is the closest thing to actual natural capital accounting in the current system, and even at that ... it is pretty much a sham in regard to actual sustainability. I tried to make this point elsewhere. Money is still the fulcrum and lever of arbitration... almost exclusively... unless survival is suddenly the issue. I will try to find a source for that material... but it was already sourced in that area by the link already there mostly. But more sources are good. All your links... which mostly are duplicated elsewhere, are still around in old page histories... so that should not be an issue. ~~~~
Notability?
[edit]Why is Sustainability science not notable and a possible neologism?
There are departments of ecological economics, courses in environmental economics, a journal of Sustainable economics, peoples whose job is applied to sustainability issues, books on applied enviromental economics, articles on the meaning of these terms as fields of study.
- There are departments of sustainability science, courses in sustainability science, a journal of sustainability science, peoples whose job is applied to sustainability issues, books on applied sustainability science, articles on the meaning of these terms as fields of study. All this should be clear when reading the article. ~~~~
I suspect the problem some might have here with the article, might be the fact that the concept is used in different ways by different people, and is trying to be formatted as a separate discipline.
This supports my original contention -- that Sustainability science is a collection of tools and/or an amalgam of fields, not a field unto itself as represented on the article page. So it appears to be a neologism when referenced that way.
Citations
[edit]- There are departments of sustainability science, courses in sustainability science, a journal of sustainability science, peoples whose job is applied to sustainability issues, books on applied sustainability science, articles on the meaning of these terms as fields of study. All this should be clear when reading the article.
- I am cross that you have deleted references from this article (which you did not replace or supply to me when requested) and now you plaster [citation needed] all over it. This is not a good way to start 2009. ~~~~
- Wrong. I put fact citations on a segmented area below that never contained citations and makes claims in a number of things. It is better to cite those things I fact tagged. Also in a couple of places that sound as though things are stated in a factual way... but the statements are not cited or ref. I have not deleted any ref's for some time, and if I did before I would have said why in my edit report. Please try to edit the article dispassionately and try not to assume the worst of some kind of motive. Also if you could source to things that can be clicked on and looked at that would be good. I also notice that you are using references that could relate to things that are not talking about sustainability science except as a general phrase and as a phrase some of these refs lead to the idea of neologism again... of taking an oft repeated phrase which in and of itself is part of something else... and not no notable. And... how is it that you are using the same citations to site things over and over in the article without giving the page and section chapter and so forth? These new citations look really iffy... and probably make the article look like it is being over loaded with variations of 2 or 3 books that seem to cite all your contentions... this does not look good without being verified by being able to look at them. ~~~~
- You have done it again. You have asked for citations and then, when these are added, removed them. An encyclopaedia article is obviously a synthesis of material about a topic. What is written in the article is not a "new idea" in the sense of a "new theory" or "new knowledge" it is simply an extraction of common themes that occur in articles on the subject - as it states in the article itself - how many citations do you want? I have on other occasions put in up to five and you have removed them as excessive. The suggestion that sustainability science is a neologism is decidedly iffy, as stated by people other than myself (see top of page). ~~~~
- Please note below and assume good faith. The citations were not really properly made or connected to the material... that could be usable... and would not stand up as good citations. Because this article is tagged as possible original research the citations probably should reflect some actual quotes or reference some actual notable ideas the way they are placed in regard to information... and not used as a scatter gun approach... and should not be marginal or general inferences. ~~~~
Added template to top of talk page and also article
[edit] | This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. (March 2009) |
The reason...? the article seems to be written more like an original research concept where citations and refs are added but only about 3 or 4 to ref/cite everything. These citations contain nothing to click on to verify and also no page number or chapters or isbn numbers are given so it is impossible to know if they are books or magazines or where they come from.... using 3 or 4 of these citation is being used in the article to source statements... even quotes so it is impossible to say these citations are accurate because they are used to back up different material. I suspect the problem some might have here with the article, might be the fact that the concept is used in different ways by different people, and is trying to be formatted as a separate discipline.
This supports a original contention -- that Sustainability science is a collection of tools and/or an amalgam of fields, not a field unto itself as represented on the article page. Here are a couple reference points for making citations that may come in handy for editors here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations
- This is the last time I will defend what is a well cited, well-sourced and clearly useful article. I think it is time outside opinion be brought in to adjudicate. This is where most of the references occur. Let me explain:
- Sustainability science has emerged in the 21st century as a new academic discipline. [1] This new field of science was officially introduced with a "Birth Statement" at the World Congress "Challenges of a Changing Earth 2001" in Amsterdam organized by the International Council for Science (ICSU), the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change ([index.php?title=IHDP&action=edit&redlink=1 IHDP]) and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP).
- This is the last time I will defend what is a well cited, well-sourced and clearly useful article. I think it is time outside opinion be brought in to adjudicate. This is where most of the references occur. Let me explain:
The name of this scientific field reflects a desire to give the generalities and broad-based approach of “sustainability” a stronger analytic and scientific underpinning as it brings together scholarship and practice, global and local perspectives from north and south, and disciplines across the natural and social sciences, engineering, and medicine[2] — it can be usefully thought of as neither ‘‘basic’’ nor ‘‘applied’’ research but as a field defined by the problems it addresses rather than by the disciplines it employs; it serves the need for advancing both knowledge and action by creating a dynamic bridge between the two.[3]
Sustainability science derives its impetus from the concepts of sustainable development and environmental science.[4].Information from proposals from the Brundtland Commission of the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 is also a component of sustainability in science issues. [5]
- Ref. [1} can be regarded as being the locus classicus for sustainability science. It explains the whole situation well - I recommend it. It deserves its place right at the start of the article.
- You ask for direct quotes. Refs [2] and [3] come directly from their cited articles.
- Sustainability is an especially difficult field to define. It is not unusual to find this - I note a similar statement in the "ecological economics" article for example in relation to clear definition. This is not a useful point to make.
- Yes, ISBN nos would help, and page numbers, and I will get these together. But this is surely editorial nit-picking. What about making a positive contribution to the article, or help by adding these yourself?
- For the reasons above I have removed the "synthesis" tag.
I urge you to adopt positive editing rather than engaging people unnecessarily in such discussions. I have run out of time for extended and unnecessary debate in defence of content and will, in future, simply put your case to another editor for assessment. ~~~~
Sourcing, refs
[edit]No offense intended here. I think your sourcing is not accurate. That is the reason for the tag. Others may come here and scrutinize the article to see if it is accurate sourcing or not. Since you originated the article, and it has been debated about different aspects of it, it may be that others have to check different aspects of it and debate the sources... for objectivity and neutrality. Therefore it should be cited the way it was to bring others to make more of a scrutiny toward it. I would remind you that the Ecological economics article has reflected that you may be taking on sourcing and siting that may be incorrect or inaccurate to information. That may be the case here also. Using citations to refer to different things in 4 or 5 areas ... using the same citation with no chapters or pages may indicate that. ~~~~
- ^ http://www.accaglobal.com/publicinterest/activities/research/reports/sustainable_and_transparent/rr-078
- ^ Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Published as Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427