Talk:Sustainability/Lead/Archive 1

option 2

This is to consider a range of options on available words and to offer an alternative to paragraph 3 which is a bit clumsy in the above version. Just an editing exercise, and ignore if you like.

Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to (endure by) maintain(ing) a certain process or state indefinitely, although it is ((now) (most)) frequently used in connection with !applied to! biological and human systems.

In an ecological context, sustainability can be defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.

(When) used in a human context the word has been applied to a wide range of activities operating over many spatial and temporal scales e.g. social sustainability, economic sustainability, sustainable architecture, sustainable agriculture, sustainable tourism etc. In its widest human context sustainability refers to all human activity and its ability to exist within the carrying capacity !natural limits/biophysical limits! of the !Earth’s natural systems/biosphere/global environment!. . For humans to live sustainably, the Earth's resources !nature/biosphere/natural resources/environment! must be used !harvested! at a rate which they can be replenished naturally. (However), there is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort !global strategy/global cooperative approach! is needed to return human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits.

Since the 1980s, through the influence of the United Nations program for sustainable development, the idea of human sustainability has become increasingly associated with the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

( ) used to indicate words and series of words that can be omitted (not always necessarily ‘good’)

!  ! used to indicate alternative words Granitethighs (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Previous "worked" copy

Sustainability, in a broadest sense, is the ability to sustain capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely, although it is most frequently used in connection with biological and human systems.at a certain rate or level, hence the term; sustain-ability. The concept of sustainability applies to all aspects of life on Earth and is commonly defined within ecological, social and economic contexts. Due to factors such as overpopulation, lack of education, inadequate financial circumstances and the actions of past generations, sustainability can be difficult to achieve.

In an ecological context, sustainability is defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. In a social context, sustainability is expressed as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. When applied in an economic context, a business is sustainable if it has adapted its practices for the use of renewable resources and is accountable for the environmental impacts of its activities.

To be sustainable, regardless of context, the Earth's resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished. There is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an effort is needed to return keep human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits. This has brought sustainability to the forefront of public consciousness and is seen by many as being a natural progression in human evolution as we develop the thought and means to sustain our own existence on Earth. Sustainability has become a complex term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, particularly the many different levels of biological organization, such as; wetlands, prairies and forests and is expressed in human organization concepts, such as; ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities, and human activities and disciplines, such as; sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture and renewable energy.

For humans to live sustainably, the Earth's resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. However, there is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to return keep human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits. So, in recent times the idea of human sustainability has become increasingly associated with the United Nations global program for sustainable development expressed as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". To safeguard the interests of future generations, fundamental changes are needed in the economic, social and environmental , this to be achieved through the integration of the environmental, social and economic sectorsspheres.

Discussion

I altered the sentence to "The term is also applied in a holistic sense..." as holistic definitions have not recently emerged, rather they have been around for a long time. Nick carson (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is fine-detail stuff but I guess this is now where we are at:

Sentence 1.
I think this is unduly complicated and so I offer a simpler and “truer” statement than the current opening sentence. I have also replaced “ability” with “capacity” (ability is a “human” trait and many sustainable things are not human – “capacity” is less anthropocentric).

So:
Sustainability in its broadest sense is the capacity to endure. This is from th Oxford English Dic

Sentence 2
I don’t agree with this as expressed. The idea of social sustainability is essentially alien to me (in common usage that is), also I don’t think terms “carry” definitions (not very comfortably anyway). To keep the opening brief an simple I suggest the social/economic/environment distinction is better brought in a later section of the article. Also, as we have a definition section coming up (are we all convinced we need a separate definition section?). I think the lead would do best not to engage the word “definition” – even though it has to do a bit of loose defining. I think it best we move very gradually from the “general” sense of sustainability to the more particular.

So:
[It is a general-purpose term that can be applied in many ways – to different levels of biological organization, like sustainable wetlands or sustainable forests; human organization, like ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities; human activities and disciplines like sustainable agriculture and sustainable architecture and across many scales of space and time. Because of its wide range of application it is regarded by some as an ill-defined buzz-word. (this will be referenced)]

Now new suggestion - much simpler for the reader but covers the same ideas:

However, in recent times it has frequently been specifically applied to human and biological systems.

Sentence 3
The current sentence 3, although we understand it, slips immediately and without warning into talking about a very specific kind of sustainability, “global human sustainability” when, as pointed out in my sentence 2, there are all kinds of sustainability. It needs to be “broken in” gently.

So:
In an ecological context, it can refer to the capacity of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.

Sentence 4
We are now leading the flow of the argument to tackle global human sustainability.

So:
For humans to live sustainably, the Earth's resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. However, there is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to keep human use of natural resources within sustainable limits.

Sentence 5
Now we introduce sustainability as a human enterprise that is directed at preserving its future.

So:
In recent times the idea of sustainability has become increasingly associated with the United Nations global program for sustainable development expressed as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

This gives us a new lead of three sentences as follows (all the references can be added):

Sustainability, in its broadest sense, is the capacity to endure. However, it is frequently applied specifically to biological and human systems.

In an ecological context, it can refer to the capacity of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.

For humans to live sustainably, the Earth's resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. However, there is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to keep human use of natural resources within sustainable limits. So, in recent times, the idea of sustainability has become increasingly associated with the United Nations global program for sustainable development defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

I am sorry this leads inexorably to the UN but that now seems to me to be the current "reality" of the usage of the word. I am not altogether happy with the word flow but I think it is shorter, has a much better logical flow, sets up what is to follow, and the fewer ideas are expressed more clearly: bones on which to build a little? Granitethighs (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sentence 1. - I think the use if the word 'sustain' gives the reader some tangible sense of the origin of the term 'sustainability'. Other than that, I agree with GT's comments.

I am cautious about defining something in terms of itself (?circular, tautology). Granitethighs (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sentence 2. - I agree, we should discuss it's definition in the definition section, however I think "poorly-defined" is a better word than "ill-defined", but thats just being a bit picky :] And the use of the term "buzz-word" I think diminishes the term 'sustianability'. Perhaps it would be better to state that; "Because of its wide range of application it is regarded by some as poorly-defined and it's ultimate definition is still under debate."

All else, I agree with :] As you said, it is a good foundation to build onto as the rest of the article comes together. Nick carson (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have rejigged things slightly - left out some of the wordiness - hope that is OK. We need as much space as we can get and I feel this opening does the trick. The original longer text is in the discussion above the proposed lead if this is confusing. I also think that now, if space is a real problem, we can leave out the definition section as the lead now defines on all levels. Granitethighs (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much reject the new and old version and suggest that a discussion of much of this has already taken place. Also attempting to add U.N. things like this to the article in multiple places is not constructive to a well rounded article... and also untrue in a larger sense also as to being pov or opinion So: In recent times the idea of sustainability has become increasingly associated with the United Nations global program for sustainable development expressed as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”Sorry... but that is not true... no sourced... and reflects an opinion.. apparently your opinion... this is not good... Also... you previously used the term... replenished naturally that was edited out of the article a long time ago... because... it is ill defined... not cited...and open to blog like interpretation... look at the current edit .. please.

Also the edit you are working from is old and has been modified... so your basis is also wrong. We already are pretty much done except for tweaking in the lead. Please try to follow what is going on in the article page so that your ideas will reflect the present article. Nick has rewritten the lead... I have edited his rewrite... then he rewrote what I wrote..then I broke it down further,... and then I put in some tags to sort out. Granitethighs.... you may want to keep in touch with the actual article page to see and examine what is going on... while if you like to go off on tangents like the above... it is not really connected to what has happened in the last week. There has been a consistent editing in the article.. and it does not really reflect your sentences above much. I am going to put the current section up again here as to the most recent changes... for you, and take a look at it... that is the consensus edit presently. The language and tone you have written above have been rejected as too wordy and too bloggy or to preachy or too leading the reader and not neutral... and the U.N. stuff you keep interjecting every where ??? What is up with that?. skip sievert (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Current article update as to section of intro

I just put up the current real time intro. to the article. This is up to date as of now... it has been critically edited on the current article page so reflects wikipedia consesus. It can be changed again of course and try now to keep an up to date version of the article here in the sandbox to that purpose. skip sievert (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have one dispute with your edits, "...sustainability is problematic." It is not problematic in such an absolute sense, sometimes it is not at all problematic. Therefore I propose "...sustainability can be difficult to achieve." I thought GT's proposed lead could be better used as a foundation upon which we can build as the rest of the article is rewritten. I will make changes incorporating all 3 proposals. Nick carson (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How about... Sustainability is not being achieved in contemporary culture.

That would reflect the actual reality and not speculate. No one is serious about sustainability currently... because of economic considerations, that always take precedence in present culture. skip sievert (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Finalising this section

We already are pretty much done except for tweaking in the lead. Sorry Skip, potentially we have only just started. It is unfortunate I missed all the editing - however ... I did. And my proposal has not changed after a re-read of the current version at the head of the page. And I deserve consideration like any other member of the group. Also, unless i am mistaken, Nick looked at what I have suggested, suggested minor alterations and said. All else, I agree with :] As you said, it is a good foundation to build onto as the rest of the article comes together.

There are things we must sort out as a group.

1. The editing procedure - do we or do we not have real-time editing? At present TP and GT would rather work to consensus on the section talk page and then put it up in real time. Skip prefers real-time editing of both article and talk pages. Nick, has not commented definitively either way yet. Sunray and Ohana have not expressed a view. We are entitled to suggest major changes - even if they are rejected. This would be highly confusing if applied as editing in real time - a recipe for edit wars. Could we sort this out?

• Resolved by consensus decision. Group will use sandbox to reach editing consensus before putting up final version in real time.Granitethighs (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

2. There is no doubt in my mind that every member of the group is entitled to input and consideration of that input: also that some time should be allowed for rights of reply and general discussion before "voting". I am pleased that Nick, myself and Skip are able to put in time at present, others are not so fortunate. Editing is not over because one or two people think they have got it sorted. We have agreed to proceed by consensus.
3. Although we must allow "reasonable" time for discussion it seems fair that a limit should be set on that time. How long do you think? As we are working on multiple sections at once, my view is that we make it at least one week to allow for those with limited time to have input - or, as long as it takes ... Granitethighs (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GT for putting these questions to the rest of us. Here are my responses:

1. Please add my name to those who would prefer to work to consensus on the section talk page before putting it into the article.
2. I will try harder to be present to comment on proposals.
3. I agree with a time limit, but would like to make it less than one week.

The reason I have not been present much relates more to my concern that one person seems to be persistently going against the grain. I've tried different approaches with Skip, but really do not think that he has yet shown any real commitment to working with the rest of us to bring this article to a higher standard. He seems to continually repeat certain refrains, such as: 1) the article is fine, 2) there is no team, 3) we must follow his interpretation of policy. I find it discouraging. Sunray (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines

While it may be interesting for you to speculate as to all this and that is fine... I suggest you read the basic wikipedia guidelines... an not try to reinvent the wheel. skip sievert (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Who are you addressing and what on earth do you mean? Sunray (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is sustainability difficult to achieve?

Still a little bit of repetition in the first two paragraphs, I think the key concepts are all included in the more brief paragraph below, though the other versions are good too.

Sustainability, in its broadest sense, is the capacity to endure. It is frequently applied specifically to biological and human systems, and refers to the capacity of a biological system to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. When applied to human systems, sustainability means using natural resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally.

First sentence of the next paragraph is almost perfect, just omitted "however" (a much over-used word) at the beginning, and adjusted the phrase "keep human use...within natural limits" (because in the first half of this sentence we said it wasn't within natural limits now):

There is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to reduce human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits.

Now we strike a few problems - this is the lead to a sustainability article, there is already a perfectly good article on sustainable development.

So, in recent times, the idea of sustainability has become increasingly associated with the United Nations global program for sustainable development defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

I think we lost social sustainability because an editor objected to it, but I think we need this concept, or something similar, to complete the picture (and hence the lead):

Lasting change is needed, which in turn means that people and communities need to understand and be involved in that change; sustainability cannot be imposed on an unwilling population.

I also sincerely hope we have lost the following sentence from the lead:

Due to factors such as overpopulation, lack of education, inadequate financial circumstances and the actions of past generations, sustainability can be difficult to achieve.[2][3]

Of these, only overpopulation is real. The graph & content I've put up under measuring sustainability proves pretty conclusively that

• nations with lower rates of formal education use less resources
• people in better financial circumstances use many times more resources (this also applies within countries)
• past generations used far less resources than the current generation

So this sentence has to go.

The second and third paragraphs of the lead, as at the top of this page, are good, except we could do without the sentence This has brought sustainability to the forefront of public consciousness and is seen by many as being a natural progression in human evolution as we develop the thought and means to sustain our own existence on Earth.[who?].

One last point, it is a real challenge for me to get time to edit, so a week is a very short time from my perspective, although if I've joined a team that works faster I'll just have to speed up or drop out I suppose.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

PS Sunray my kids mutinied at one point, hence the meaningless unsigned post on this page...gone now.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comments and proposed changes and think that they generally read better (shorter, simpler, fewer big words), while conveying the important points we have discussed. We need citations for everything (other than self-evident facts) in an FA. I presume you are retaining the existing sources (which we will need to verify to ensure that we are still within their intent). I haven't figured out whether new ones are needed or not. Did you consider that? Sunray (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest proposal

The following is my understanding of a version that incorporates the views of GT,TP, Sunray and Nick as expressed by TP above. Could we have a last round of comments – I may have misinterpreted people’s views? I have added references and notice some of the existing ones are a bit weak so we can all have a go at improving these where possible. As it would be good to include TP in future editing (she has limited editing time) could I suggest we allow a week per section when we tackle future sections?

Sustainability, in its broadest sense, is the capacity to endure. The term is frequently used in relation to biological and human systems, and refers to the capacity of a biological system to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. When applied to human systems, sustainability means using natural resources in a way, and at a rate at which they can be replenished naturallywhich maintains ensures the future availability of resources.

There is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to reduce human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits.

Lasting change is needed, which in turn means that people and communities need to understand and be involved in that change; sustainability cannot be imposed on an unwilling population.

I am not altogether happy with this last sentence as I dont think we can express views in this way in an encyclopaedia, no matter how true. I think I was the person who suggested we leave the complication of social and economic sustainability out at this stage… but perhaps it could be broken in gently within a new last sentence and TP clearly thinks it deserves a mention. What about:

Since the 1980s, through the influence of the United Nations global program for sustainable development, the idea of human sustainability has become increasingly associated with the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Very happy with your suggested last paragraph, and suggested deletion. Note reference and small change at end of para 1.--Travelplanner (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

References

It has picked up refs in the top text, not the text immediately above. See actual text for refs.How do you get 2 lists of references on the same page?
I think the UN definition is an important one because it is about the only definition of sustainability that is quoted to any extent.

Also the idea of a combined social, economic and environmental drive came directly out of the UN sustainable development program. Although we need a different take on matters from the UN in this article I do think the work, ideas and definition need acknowledgement somewhere and this may be the place to do it. If people agree then some better wording might be suggested. Also TP I believe indicates some elements of paras 1 & 2 at the top of the page may be beneficial to add? Granitethighs (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest you read the current edit on the article itself. That is the consensus version to date.

• GT,TP,Sunray,&Nick have all agreed to work to consensus on this page before puting up the article in real time.Granitethighs (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Also something like:

Sustainability, in its broadest sense, is the capacity to endure. Does not define the term but turns it into someones poetic concept... apparently an editor here? You can not make up definitions for words. Currently the word sustainability is sourced http://xmlgadgets.com/home.pl?site=mdict&query=Sustainability - not a good idea to make up a definition.

• Refs have not worked (the top ref entries have been put in) in the actual text you'll see it is a Dictionary definition, nothing to do with poetry..Granitethighs (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

--- When applied to human systems, sustainability means using natural resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. No it does not... and this was removed from the main article long ago... replenishing naturally is opinion, and not connected except for opinion. Editing in this manner like some kind of story telling is not appropriate for the project.

• OK, not perfect, could you try expressing the sentiment in a more satisfactory way?

There is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to reduce human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits.

• Nothing wrong with this and 2 reliable references are given here. It is a statement of fact.Granitethighs (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This again is a romantic blog like statement. Wikipedia is not a blog. See the way the article is currently phrased. This is the current edit on the article page... it is devoid of the philosophic commentary There is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an effort is needed to keep human use of natural resources within sustainable limits. That is appropriately written, not a bombastic statement. We are not marshaling the people here, and blowing trumpets. We are not notable, to make comments such as starting social revolutions... we are only providing neutral and sourced information that people can look through. We are not trying to impose our judgment or bias.

Lasting change is needed, which in turn means that people and communities need to understand and be involved in that change; sustainability cannot be imposed on an unwilling population This is basically another blog comment which is empty commentary in my opinion. This is not good writing, for this type of presentation. It is leading a reader. It is lecturing a reader. This is opinion. Read the current version on the article page, and start from there would be my suggestion. I will put up the new lead again here for a reference point.

• Please make constructive suggestions rather than using abuse - you agreed to civil behaviour when signing up to the project. Granitethighs (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

skip sievert (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling me abusive for making suggestions is really a personal and undeserved attack. I did make constructive suggestions... please do not say the contrary. That is a double negative then. Edits on wikipedia are subject to merciless editing and discussion (within reason). I totally reject the ideas and formatting and language of your projected edits of the article G.T. that you are presenting here. It is unsourced or uncited, value judgment and opinion pov editing. It is commentary... by an editor. I also find it a distraction now because it seems out of touch with what is going on in the article the last couple of weeks... as it has been improved and been looked at by multiple editors. That is my opinion. Also please refrain from posting inside of my posts... that is confusing... and breaks up my thoughts in a way I do not want them broken up. I tried to write something here in an explanatory way. By chopping up and interjecting my thought you are altering my writing. Please do not do that again. skip sievert (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Skip: I'm not sure what GT was referring to when he mentioned using abuse. I don't see anything abusive on this page, but maybe I missed something. I agree that we shouldn't break up each others' posts unless we add a different font colour and say that we are doing so (as we have done in the past). I had trouble reading the comments above as I could not tell who was talking when.

Would you be willing to work collaboratively on this project? What could I or other team members do to assist you in that? Sunray (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think personalizing the editing is probably a mistake. No one editor here is that important. There is a whole community of Wikipedia editors that over see and check the articles for mistakes or guideline problems. By focusing so much on editors and their opinions... whether good or bad or neutral or pov it seems like to much effort is made in that social relationship aspect. It is a fact that many eyes are following this article that will pick out problems. Yesterday I put up the most recent version here for that reason. I do think the article has been improved a great deal. I do believe that we are ok in the content dept. and mostly need focus as to presentation and taking out extraneous or repeated content. So actually I think things are going well. The article looks good and is incrementally improving to good purpose... in my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-state latest proposal

I think we've agreed on the lead below - with the proviso that it will be revisited after the other sections are done.

Sustainability, in its broadest sense, is the capacity to endure. The term is frequently used in relation to biological and human systems, and refers to the capacity of a biological system to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. When applied to human systems, sustainability means using natural resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally.

There is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to reduce human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits.

Since the 1980s, through the influence of the United Nations global program for sustainable development, the idea of human sustainability has become increasingly associated with the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Still needs work here on references. I can help out. Granitethighs (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

References

(still not sure how to generate two reference lists for the same page) --Travelplanner (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I see what you mean. I guess the template only lets you use one "Notes" section per page. Then the only way you could do it would be to generate a list of references on a page without one (your own talk page or sandbox) and copy/paste it into the talk page. Sunray (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What the...

I havn't checked this page for a few days and alot has happened. "the ability to sustain" is less ambiguous than "the ability to endure" and it lets the reader relate directly to the term itself "sustainability". If we stick with the exact version that is at the top of this page, then I agree with the proposal that the "Definition" section should be scaled down. I think it still needs to be there just to summarise the definition and scope, extrapolated from what is stated in the intro, and to provide some main article links. Nick carson (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Nick, I know the feeling. You and Skip had been making good headway when I suddenly realised I was well and truly left behind a few days ago. There are quite a few ideas to reconcile on this page. We might have to put our hands up on a few matters - but that is OK isn't it?

On a minor technical matter I'd like people's view on one point. The opening sentence. I am cautious about defining something in terms of itself (?circular, tautology) which is why I like "endure" rather than sustain; it rings true to me as a very broad notion of sustain that people can latch on to (although Skip referred to it as "poetic" so clearly I might be the odd one out here). My direct question and comment is this: my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary refers to 12 senses of "sustain". None of these is really like the sense in which we are mostly tending to use it ("human global sustainability on planet Earth" - which, I believe, came mostly out of the UN program for sustainable development and the dictionary has not caught up wit it yet). I must admit that the sense "endure" was chosen out of the list of 12 senses because it fitted with what we were about to say. The Dictionary can be cited as a reference - but I have clearly been selective here. Is that OK? Is "endure" OK? How important is the citation here? Granitethighs (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely that one should not define a term by itself. Saying "sustainability... is the ability to sustain..." is pretty weak. I've reinstated the original version:

Sustainability, in a general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely.

Seems to me that is a very simple statement and rather uncontroversial - exactly what we need for a lead sentence. If we want to work on an alternative here, I am game, but in the meantime, what was there (for a very long time) seems superior, as a general definition than any of the alternatives yet produced. The changes that have been happening to the lead sentence, to my mind point up why we should all cease editing the article in real time (except for reverting people who vandalize the article). It is a real time waster. The sign clearly gives direction about the article re-write. Sunray (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Nick version is better, with a broad dictionary definition... you can not make up your own version of a definition on wikipedia because you think it is exactly what we need... and endure is a nonstarter, and no, it is controversial...very controversial... and this seems to be a problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN ... also... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEMOCRACY#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy, and the editing process creates a new consensus (within reason). Some try to promote their own point of view, failing to recognize the importance of the NPOV policy. skip sievert (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I've missed something. Are you saying you prefer a statement that says: "Sustainability is the ability to sustain?" Sunray (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you just asked that. Not me. Read what I said. skip sievert (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the statement above, it is not clear to me, and I don't believe you have understood what I am saying. I said we need a simple and uncontroversial statement for the lead and that the existing one was that. However, I also said I was open to finding a better statement. It is just that I haven't seen one yet. I didn't say that "'endure' is a nonstarter." Nick said that he found it vague. I said that we shouldn't say "Sustainability is the ability to sustain." I've been fairly polite about it, but frankly, it is an asinine statement - yet that is what someone put into the article. With respect to your comments about WP:OWN and WP:NOT#DEM, I don't see how they apply in this discussion. I'm wondering if it might be better to stick to content. Sunray (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not like the first sentence in the lead. It is based on p.o.v. and has no connection to the subject. This sentence Sustainability, in a general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely. Does not sound like any definition I have ever heard connected to the subject, and it does a poor job of starting the article. Has any one ever heard of sustaining something indefinitely..? The phrase does not make particular sense in the context of the article... and starts the thing off with a thud. You also removed the actual citation to a dictionary definition with multiple definitions when you removed the citation/ref. skip sievert (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Skip said: "I do not like the first sentence." Fine. Please come up with something that we all find more suitable.

"The first sentence...

1. "...is based on a pov..." - hardly. As I recall, it was originally taken from a university glossary. It is probably the antithesis of POV.
2. "... has no connection to the subject..." It is exactly what it says it is "a general sense."
3. "... doesn't sound like any definition I've heard..." I have no way of knowing your expertise in sustainability definition. It is a fairly scientific statement.
4. ...poor job of starting the article..." like, dislike, good, bad, poor etc. are subjective judgments. We need to find something we can all agree with.
5. ... Has anyone ever heard of sustaining something indefinitely?" Are you confusing indefinitely with infinitely? Indefinite means we don't know how long it will last.
6. "... does not make particular sense in the context of the article." Please explain.
7. "... starts with a thud..." Pretty subjective.
8. "... removed citation..." If we are going for featured article we will need to avoid citations in the lead sentence (please check this out, if you doubt it). I looked at the first thirteen articles for December. The only ones with footnotes were two with something unusual about the name (Frank Zappa, Elaine Paige) and one that quoted a statistic (Amateur radio in India). As to dictionary definitions. These are generally to be avoided (again, by all means, check this out).

NOW let's get back to business. Contrary to what you seem to think, I am not trying to cling to the sentence that is there. I think it is a tad too scientific in tone. I would be delighted if we can improve on it. WP:LEAD says:

The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?".

I don't think we have yet fulfilled that requirement. So let's stop arguing and find something more suitable. Sunray (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Since parties seem to be confounded or at a loss here I suggest using Nicks well rounded and meaningful beginning sentence. He also incorporated the dictionary definition into this sentence. This sentence Sustainability, in a general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely. is not connected to the concept to my knowledge. It does not give a good idea as to the topic. I suggest that attention is given to Nicks edits... more because of their quality and neutrality. It does not appear that people are going to his sandbox... where the actual article is being reworked to good effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick_carson/sandbox/sustainability in my opinion. My plan is to start moving his rendition of the history section over to the article soon if he does not. skip sievert (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we can find a better lead statement. In fact, that is what I've said above. This is the version currently in Nick's sandbox:

Sustainability, in the broadest sense, is the ability to sustain a certain process or state at a certain rate or level, hence the term; sustain-ability.

Defining something by itself (using the components of the very word one is trying to define) is circular, and not up to the standard for an FA. I have stated this as clearly as I can. So far you have not addressed that concern. In effect, while I agree that the current statement needs improvement, the one proposed is much weaker, IMO.

Since we are spinning wheels on this, let me propose a way forward: I have posed my concern about the lead sentence to Nick and have also asked him to abandon sandboxed versions other than on these talk pages. I am waiting for his response. Once he responds, I suggest we move on with other sections of the article. Whenever someone has a better lead sentence to propose, they can bring it here, alert others to it, and we can decide. There is no rush, however. All of the lead will have to be reviewed in light of the complete article and parts of it will likely need revising before we submit the it for FA review. How does that sound? Sunray (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Granitethighs (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that the wording I proposed essentially a self-definition, I thought this would make things clear but it also has other implications. I agree that the "Sustainability, in a general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely." is the way to go. Also, I've begun putting the content I was working on into the talk page subpages so we can all work on it and discuss it there. I think I've only added the "History" section so far. I try and get to the rest today. The "Measuring Sustainability" section is looking pretty good! I didn't make any changes to it in my sandbox so I'll just leave that one there. Nick carson (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Again we move forward! We need to get some forward momentum, and I think GT is sending strong signals that he too is keen on that. With the three of us, we should be able to advance. I'm sure TP will join us when she can. Skip, I think, needs to make a decision. Sunray (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit rationale

I have decided to edit the lead so that we can get closer to consensus. I agree with TPs proposals in regard to sentence removals so two of us (at least) are in agreement here, probably more. I am using crossing out so that we can revert the changes should that be the consensus decision. Please note: all changes are negotiable. Granitethighs (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC) One sticking point is the inclusion of definitions of social, economic and environmental sustainability - partly because they are probably contentious, partly because they complicate these first few statements, and partly because I feel they need some explanation. All of this can be dealt with deeper in the article but I hope the last sentence I've added covers it a bit. TP said she was happy with this last sentence. The change is a bit drastic but it is something to work on again. It is now very brief. You will probably feel we need to resurrect ideas or add to it - if we resurrect then I would like to work on the clarity of expression please. As I've left it i can see there will be objection to the mention of the UN and to emphasis on human systems. I just cant think of a good extension to the biological/ecological section. Granitethighs (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's looking gooood now :] Nick carson (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Professional quality editing, GT! Sunray (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you guys really are more or less happy I think TP will be more or less happy too, based on her comments (we'll wait and see though), then we are on the way. I can add citations to the factual assertions. There can of course be future tweaking and you may not have seen my latest adjustments when you wrote the above notes. I've started looking at the history outline. Granitethighs (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

True dat. I lingered over the phrase "human sustainability." I find it jarring somehow and almost changed it to "sustainability of the human race." However, that didn't seem right either. I elected to leave it and see if how it wears. Sunray (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - the lines have gone through all the first stuff for some reason. We can delete the "human" in human sustainability. I suddenly got nervous about using sustainability in a relatively restricted sense. Granitethighs (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell what you had intended to strikethrough and what not. Somewhere you have one or more <s> without a </s>. If you explain what you were trying to strikeout, I can fix it. Sunray (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence in reference to the definition in the social context should be included. I also added an extra word. Everything else looks good. Nick carson (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nick, I hesitate because, if I have the right sentence, it gives a definition that is now in the last sentence and begs the question as to why we have not given an economic definition, also whether the "social" definition is more a "social, environmental and economic" definition. Perhaps I have misunderstood or got the wrong bit ... and I do realise you are being extremely tolerant of my editing thanks. Granitethighs (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Have suggested an alternate wording for the last sentence, also a small change in the middle that I suggested awhile ago and nobody objected to but which got lost in the mix of edits. --Travelplanner (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems we are ready to upload. We may need to come back to that last sentence. I think we likely all agree that it is an important statement. We may need to find a more encyclopedic way of saying it. However, if we upload, we may get some suggestions. Sunray (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just striped the "strikethrough" and "font colour" instructions out and am not at all confident that what emerges (see next section) is exactly what we wanted. The reason I say this is because I came to successive <s> instructions without intervening instructions. GT, would you be able to take another look at it?

I veto this suggestion and think it is poorly phrased. More meaningful as to an explanation would be something more connected to this Capable of being sustained.

Capable of being continued with minimal long-term effect on the environment is better. Saying that sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely is not accurate or a meaningful explanation and does not conform to any definition of sustainability I have seen... so I would have to say that this is original research... and it will be tagged as such if placed in the article. Getting a consensus for original research does not change the fact of something being original research, unless this is sited as an actual definition somewhere by notable standards... this does not fly. I suggest something more akin to the actual concept of sustainability as in a scientific definition be used. As is it could also be tagged current with a who said tag. Who formulated this definition? Definition can not be made up at will. This would have to be cited. I doubt very much that it can be cited... so it will be removed from the article if introduced... after being tagged if it is not sourced. skip sievert (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal for a new lead sentence is noted. However, it seems far too narrow to be a general definition for the article, which covers social and economic considerations in addition to environmental. You again raise the question of citation. Perhaps you missed the explanation I gave, above:

If we are going for featured article we will need to avoid citations in the lead sentence (please check this out, if you doubt it). I looked at the first thirteen articles for December. The only ones with footnotes were two with something unusual about the name (Frank Zappa, Elaine Paige) and one that quoted a statistic (Amateur radio in India). As to dictionary definitions. These are generally to be avoided (again, by all means, check this out).

Sunray (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

One can not just say something that does not make sense in an article such as a homily as a definition. That is antithetical to any one understanding the material. There are plenty of articles with citations in the lead area. skip sievert (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Revised version

Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely, although it is most frequently used in connection with biological and human systems In an ecological context, sustainability is defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.

Sustainability has become a complex term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, particularly the many different levels of biological organization, such as; wetlands, prairies and forests and is expressed in human organization concepts, such as; ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities, and human activities and disciplines, such as; sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture and renewable energy.

For humans to live sustainably, the Earth's resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. However, there is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to return human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits. So, in recent times the idea of human sustainability has become increasingly associated with the United Nations global program for sustainable development expressed as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." To safeguard the interests of future generations, fundamental changes are needed in the economic, social and environmental spheres.

Is this what was intended? We have lost several important references. Overall, it seems thin for a lead for an FA. Sunray (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Revised revised version

I know this is extremely irritating after so much work but as I re-read the above lead I find there are, to my mind, still logical difficulties and minor inaccuracies - and it could be written in a more user-friendly style. I have, in the light of Sunray’s comment and the Wikipedia advice on FA leads edited the lead mercilessly to what I would prefer, reducing it to 3 paragraphs, also added references. This is cheeky, so I will not be in the least bit offended if changes are reverted and further modifications made as we head towards consensus. Its still sparse but "filler" should not be a problem at a later stage Granitethighs (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state. In recent times it has become more, although it is most frequently used in connection with biological and human systems In an ecological context, sustainability is defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.

Sustainability has become a complex term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, particularly the many different levels of biological organization, such as; wetlands, prairies and forests. It is now regarded as a guiding principle for managing human organizations concepts, such as ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities, human activities and disciplines sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture green building and new technologies such as the encouragement of renewable energy systems. As such, sustainability is sometimes seen as the most recent progression of the latest technologies of various human systems and thought most innovative thinking across various disciplines and fields. These are most often categorised as separate disciplines such as "sustainable economics" and "sustainable architecture", rather than Studies within conventional economics and architecture.

For humans to live sustainably, the Earth's finite resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished. However, there is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an effort is needed to keep resource use to within sustainable limits.The United Nations global program for sustainable development defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Fundamental changes are needed in the economic, social, and environmental spheres of humanity, if sustainability is desired.

I suggest before we all commit this to real time we read the WP guidelines about leads in FAs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section. I confess I have been only broadly aware of these. Sunray has drawn our attention to them several times. I’ve copied the main opening points here:

• The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

• In general common usage, sustainability has very little to do with what we end up talking about in the article. I’m a great believer in simplicity and I think that its general all-purpose meaning is best summed up by the word “endure”. However, what we have in the article is fine, except it takes 11 words to say the same thing. Of course I will accept consensus on this – just that we have been a bit indefinite about this so far.

• Nick, I let the addition of “most” to the opening sentence go but feel uneasy about it. Yes it is sort of broadly true but it is not, in general chat, used in relation to biological systems much.

Granitethighs (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with all that. I this is the best version of the opening sentence. I've added one sentence pertaining to sustianability as a recent progression of human technologies, ideas and systems. This was indeed iterating GT, but worth it, much better than before. Nick carson (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your addition at the end of paragraph 2 works well, Nick. I've tweaked it a bit. I tend to agree with you about "most" in the second sentence and have restored that. But I think that we are being a mite picky with our edits. Probably not a bad thing right now, as we get to know one another, but we will probably need to elect an editor-in-chief when we get further along.

We should probably let this sit for now. I suggest that we just leave it here for awhile and go on to other sections. We will definitely have other ideas as the article evolves and we should then take another look at the FA criteria and revise it accordingly. Sunray (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Granitethighs (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Though I must say I don't agree with the proposition that sustainability is the product of development of technologies. I won't edit it back to how it was before now as we seem to have agreed on stopping tweaking, but I'd like to see it tweaked later on as sustainability certainly isn't a product of human advancement, it's what human advancement is moving towards. Nick carson (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite right about sustainability not being the "product" of technological development. I've restored "progression." I see the meaning you intended and agree with you. Sunray (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Should we upload this to the main article now and deem it done for the time being? Of course, we'll come back to it for another rewrite once we've been through the whole article. Nick carson (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Reads fine to me, great effort guys. Whoever uploads it better check the punctuation, it's hard to work out with all the crossings out. Also can we have a copy on this page to put any notes onto - eg places where a citation would be nice, ideas about what might need changing as the article progresses, etc...--Travelplanner (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The first line is not accurate and it is misleading... Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure by maintaining a certain process or state indefinitely. In recent times it has become more.. etc. etc. This is not really a definition that can be defended as it has no parallel to any literature or commentary to my knowledge. It is confusing. No one to my knowledge defines sustainability as maintaining a certain process indefinitely and why phrase something like although it is most frequently increasingly used in connection.... that a strange turn of phrase.

This is not accurate either at which they can be replenished naturally. Science and technology are being used to try to re-balance things and in many cases have to be used because the natural law process has been tampered with to the point of it becoming dysfunctional. This is why they poison a lake sometimes to clear out vegetation... or species... because nature can not. Also because of climate change... it may not rain in some places.... changing Co2 may change that... is running a car or not a natural process?

This should not be in the lead. This is biased in the context of presentation... sustainability has become increasingly associated with the United Nations global program for sustainable development. Editors (despite their personal affiliations with groups) should be neutral here as to presentation. This information goes in a separate section mostly with U.N. material. Many people do not like the U.N. - It is a political organization controlled mostly by countries controlled by various special interest groups. Special interest groups always want to deprive others of something. Many people consider the U.N. a failure with their approach. It is not a good idea to phrase the U.N. and their material as an end all of be all ---- as to sustainability. That ruins the presentation of neutral well rounded information. skip sievert (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OK Skip, we kind of knew you didn't like some of this, however we still need to move forward. The current lead on the main article is embarassingly bad, the above is significantly better. I say go ahead and do the replacement, but keep this page open and keep this discussion going, improvements are always possible.

You make a set of points, some of which could lead to improvements to the lead, some of which don't take us anywhere useful. I especially object to the suggestion that poisining a lake to clear out vegetation is a way to achieve "sustainability" - the aim of sustainability is absolutely to support and nurture the processes of nature, including the natural processes by which lakes heal themselves after natural (or human-created) shocks and adapt to changes in temperature, runoff, vegetation etc. Yes things can get so badly overloaded that this natural "capacity to endure" ceases to function and the only option is to kill the whole lake and start again, but that will never be the "sustainable" option. Recognising the value and complexity of natural ecosystem processes, and the fact that humans cannot hope to replicate them, is a central theme of sustainability.

Would you agree to the changeover, putting the new lead on this page also, and you & others can make your comments and suggested improvements on this page. That way, we have a lead that looks clean and is useful for the reader, but we can continue to improve on it.--Travelplanner (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

On Skips and TPs points. Re: the opening sentence: my soed gives 12 senses of "sustain" with the words "maintain", "support" and "endure" being a feature. I suppose this is the "broad" sense in which Shakespeare would have used the word. We (as a team) now use the word largely in relation to things like human population size, carbon emissions, recycling which would have been totally alien to Shakespeare. Because of the many senses of sustainability we need to start of in a general sense and move to a more particular one. I could have my arm twisted to reduce or slightly improve this sentence but think, by-and-large it is fine. By the way the soed defines it using "to cause to continue in a certain state" "to endure without failing or giving way", "to keep going (an action or process)". Close enough I reckon. We can tweak the "turn of phrase" thanks. The "replenished naturally" bit refers to global sustainability and can be tweaked, thanks. On the UN: I am, in the sense of the article, not in the least bit concerned whether the UN is good, bad, indifferent, a front for dark forces or whatever. Its influence is undeniable and a fact (witness the constant reference to its definition of sustainability). So far as I'm concerned this statement is a neutral observation of fact.

TP I agree about a "clean" copy at the top of the page, perhaps one can be put above the present one to show our working? Granitethighs (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty much nonsense in my view Since the 1980s So, in recent times the idea of human sustainability has become increasingly associated with the United Nations global program for sustainable development defined as expressed as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." It has set out to achieve its goals by an integration of To safeguard the interests of future generations, fundamental changes are needed in the economic, social, and environmental spheres. It is biased and not neutral and you may find people to agree with it... those who support the U.N. but in the article it is a nonstarter. This is not an article about the U.N.... and already in the talk page of the article a new comer came and complained about them and there programs.

I especially object to the suggestion that poisoining a lake to clear out vegetation is a way to achieve "sustainability Sorry I did not suggest that. Just mentioned that calling for natural methods in the article only sounds silly and romantic.. and is not related to what is actually going on in the world. Many times invasive species are poisoned to try and get an eco system back. That is a simple reality. Recognising the value and complexity of natural ecosystem processes, and the fact that humans cannot hope to replicate them, is a central theme of sustainability. Not sure what you mean here. This does not jive with any kind of reality I am aware of in sustainability issues. Who is talking about replicating them. Not I. As far as OK Skip, we kind of knew you didn't like some of this, however we still need to move forward. The current lead on the main article is embarassingly bad... I would say that it is better than what is presented here currently. Especially with the U.N. bias aspect. Also as said.... The first line is not accurate and it is misleading... Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure by maintaining a certain process or state indefinitely.. ??? Could that be sourced somewhere by an expert in the field or a major authority that is notable in the context of sustainability issues? In recent times it has become more.. etc. etc. This is not really a definition that can be defended as it has no parallel to any literature or commentary to my knowledge. It is confusing.

No one to my knowledge defines sustainability as maintaining a certain process indefinitely Every thing in an eco system changes all the time. It is never aimed or meant to maintain a certain process indefinitely... this is not a good line. If it were true... then the dinosaurs would still be munching away. Nature is changeable... sometimes very drastically. Oh if the U.N. statement is used at all it should be in a reference footnote and not as the way presented. In other words the quote can be used but not the un neutral statement and biased statement about the U.N. which is a political in nature... and driven by money issues mostly. That is the most glaring thing that is wrong in the lead. skip sievert (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

On Skips and TPs points. Re: the opening sentence: my soed gives 12 senses of "sustain" with the words "maintain", "support" and "endure" being a feature. I suppose this is the "broad" sense in which Shakespeare would have used the word. We (as a team) now use the word largely in relation to things like human population size, carbon emissions, recycling which would have been totally alien to Shakespeare. Because of the many senses of sustainability we need to start of in a general sense and move to a more particular one. I could have my arm twisted to reduce or slightly improve this sentence but think, by-and-large it is fine. By the way the soed defines it using "to cause to continue in a certain state" "to endure without failing or giving way", "to keep going (an action or process)". Close enough I reckon. We can tweak the "turn of phrase" thanks. The "replenished naturally" bit refers to global sustainability and can be tweaked, thanks. On the UN: I am, in the sense of the article, not in the least bit concerned whether the UN is good, bad, indifferent, a front for dark forces or whatever. Its influence is undeniable and a fact (witness the constant reference to its definition of sustainability). So far as I'm concerned this statement is a neutral observation of fact.

TP I agree about a "clean" copy at the top of the page, perhaps one can be put above the present one to show our working? I have created one at th top of the page. Granitethighs (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Could everyone please have another look at the latest "clean" version at the top of the page - it is still being worked on - it has not been put up as "final". Granitethighs (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stripped of all the crossings out and changings, the third paragraph reads as a list of lists, perhaps needs a few more words added so the ideas run together in whole sentences.

Second to last paragraph has "return keep" (I prefer return, but either is better than both!)

Some of the citations and internal links seem to have been lost.

Skip I know you disagree with much of this lead but can you answer one question - do you agree to disagree on this discussion page and leave the new lead on the main page clean until we have a new agreed version?--Travelplanner (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is factual enough to be on the main page and also think it is biased and non neutral in presentation. It does not belong in the article for those reasons. skip sievert (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe any of those assertions, nor do any other editors who have seen and commented on the proposed lead. Explain... Nick carson (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the obvious slips. Granitethighs (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had another look at the proposed lead and I'm happy with it all, very happy, it will obviously change a little bit as we work through the rest of the article but the next time we go through the lead again should be after we have gone through the entire article. Ready to go into the main article? Agree? Disagree? I agree. Nick carson (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree--Travelplanner (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest clean copy above critique

Latest clean copy

Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely,wrong words... maintain... and indefinitely although it is now you mean in this article now? most frequently used in connection with biological and human systems.says who?

In an ecological context, sustainability can be defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.[4]Why not just start out with that? that is sourced to the U.N. and as a citation that is fine... citations in articles leads are fine. You are referencing the U.N. again... and again here. Could be a conflict of interest as editors involved in the U.N. movement could be biased..... no?

Sustainability has become a complex term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, particularly the many different levels of biological organization, such as; wetlands, prairies and forests and is expressed in human organization concepts, such as; ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities, and human activities and disciplines, such as; sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture and renewable energy. There is no such thing presently as sustainable cities so where does that come from? Could someone name a sustainable city?

For humans to live sustainably, the Earth's resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. This is not actually a fact and means almost nothing in context However, there is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to return keep human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits.This leads magically into U.N. material then, which should be in a separate area

Since the 1980s, through the influence of the United Nations global program for sustainable development, the idea of human sustainability has become increasingly associated with the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This is biased, and not neutral and is not appropriate in this section. Could these obvious things be corrected for starters? Is it really a good idea to advertise the U.N. as the one to integrate economics... social ... and environmental spheres??. That is pretty overtly an advert for an organization and not neutral in the least. The article is not called Sustainability and the U.N. That would be a different article. skip sievert (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

On the UN: I am, in the sense of the article, not in the least bit concerned whether the UN is good, bad, a propaganda machine or a front for mysterious dark forces. Its influence is undeniable and a fact (witness the constant reference to its definition of sustainability).The statements in the lead are a neutral observation of fact. I agree with "says who" but the other comments hardly merit discussion. Granitethighs (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Skip, in regards to whatever your opinion (or anyone elses) is of the UN, the fact remains that it's major fundamental problem is it's lack of power, it's a paper tiger! They've got their arms open, they want to educate people about sustainability, they want to do good. We must be more concerned over what some other international organisations are doing than with our own opinions of the UN. Regardless, such a debate does not belong here. Nick carson (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Now it does. I have brought up this issue numerous times that U.N. material is being over done in the article. You either work for or promote the U.N. -- and you have a conflict of interest here as a member of that organization. This has now led to the lead being framed wrongly. You think they want to do good... others would disagree with that. You are biased apparently with the edits here... as any casual observer can tell... I suggest you start a Sustainability and the U.N. article. That would be more appropriate, than to inject this material and p.o.v. into the lead of the article. As to my opinion of the U.N. I have said before I do not have much of one and have not thought about them much. However it is plain to me that a p.o.v. toward them that is over weighted in the article... is not a good idea. You are defining every thing in the lead around them. That is not neutral. That is P.O.V. editing. You are `am involved in the United Nations education program as part of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development in Australia. That means you have a conflict of interest with your editing here in this if every thing points toward that by what you are writing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick_carson -

This is not a personal attack. It is pointing out that you are editing something you are in a conflict of interest with. When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identify themselves or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing. skip sievert (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Skip, while it may, or may not, be a personal attack, it is irrelevant and a sideshow. We each have a POV. That is not the issue. The question is whether one can control for one's own point of view, and, if not, whether the team can do so. I see lots of evidence of both. I've asked you previously not to be disruptive. I will ask you once again: Would you be willing to either cease this sort of disruption, or edit somewhere else? Sunray (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions Not disruption... discussing article points is not disruption. skip sievert (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in any of the above to make me change my view - we should upload the new lead now, ASAP, the current one is not up to standard, not that I have the time to do a blow-by-blow demolition job on it, I would make no points anyway that have not already been made.

If anyone has any positive further suggestions for improvement of the lead, this page remains open to facilitate that.

The alternative seems to me to be to bicker on the talk pages forever as the article gradually spirals from B-class to C-class and beyond. I don't want any part of that.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I had previously suggested that we leave this version of the lead for now. The article is still very much under construction. Usually the lead is done last, as it should cover the sweep of the article. Sunray (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary

This is what is provided in Wiktionary as two definitions of sustainability, not bad if tweaked a little, can Wiktionary be used as a citation? It (they or whatever) would be good either in the Lead or Definition section. Have they got any potential? What do people think?

Sustainable: (ecol.) able to be sustained for an indefinite period without damaging the environment, or without depleting a resource; renewable. (ecol.) a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in the very long term. Granitethighs (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the best definition I've seen yet. It is encompassing and detailed, yet concise, very well worded (as strict definitions should be). While this may not be appropriate for the lead in the wikipedia article on the subject (as it is a definition) we should include it somewhere in the article and at the very least provide a link to this definition in the "Definition" section. Nick carson (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either is great, although if you want to create an internal link to Wiktionary, fine, but that seems a little superfluous. I myself would rate the first sentence of the current lead as 100% more readable, simple and to the point. Why are we relitigating this? Are we ever going to move forward??--Travelplanner (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TP on this. Let's just continue with the rest of the article. Sunray (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK - we know its there if we ever need to dig it out Granitethighs (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit for neutrality

Removed some of the overt over weighted material on the U.N.--- that material would not be considered neutral as written.. and now some of the information is already in the history section... and the amount pointing the finger at the U.N. was truly ridiculous in the lead. Now it is fairly object and probably ready to be added to the actual article as well as the first history section is probably ready... not to say both can not be tweaked on the sandbox pages or on the article itself. Also removed one word indefinitely.. because it is not sourced... and no one has sourced it. It was marked in the main article for the last month... and not given a ref or citation... so it is original research and not appropriate. Also went through and looked at the lead for continuity and clarity in general. The new first line is now very basic... not filigree or original ideas.. Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity of maintaining a certain process or state. I am going to move this to the main article now. That does not mean that it is a final edit.. but it is better than the current edit. - skip sievert (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Back from hols and into the fray again. Happy New Year all! A few comments on the above.

• IMO it does not show respect to a working team to make edits to a consensus piece of work and then immediately place it up in real time without allowing time for further comment and consensus. There was agreement that sections would be worked to consensus and then placed up in real time. The reason for this was that, being under active revision, a consensus would reduce the likelihood of constant changes and reversions in real time, that is it would reduce the likelihood of edit wars and constant changing of text on the main page. Although Skip is probably within his WP rights I regard his action above as inconsiderate, and a confronting disregard of the cooperative editing process he knows exists on this page. It does not make me feel well disposed towards him.
• We need to sort out, as a group, our attitude to the UN. IMO since the 1980s the UN has provided a lead to much of the thinking on sustainability. I neither approve or disapprove of this - I see it as a fact that needs recording in the article: it is nothing to do with p.o.v. Yes, the weighting (space) given to the UN can be adjusted (but preferably by consensus here rather than unilateral decision). The definition presented in the lead came out of a UN report and I see no reason to hide that fact: it does not endorse the UN or take any position other than quoting the definition (which is the one that is far and away the one most often quoted). In other words IMO the reference to the UN should stay in.
• I am unsure of the WP requirements for sourcing in the lead. Skip may or may not be correct about sourcing here (what do people think?), but IMO the possible correction of one difficulty has produced a rather clumsy replacement sentence. It may be edited easily but nevertheless this demonstrates a good reason to work on a sub-page together.
• For the most part people have made edits by "crossing out" unwnated text, and making their additions in their own colour so that their changes can be viewed. It is extremely annoying if one person edits but the changes are not evident (as you have done here Skip). Again, if edits are clear for at least a day or two then it gives everyone a chance to agree or disagree with what has been done and to discuss the new suggestions. This has been extremely successful so far - but these latest changes are not helpful. Granitethighs (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What I did about a week ago was to clean up the article section to get ready for presenting it in its current version. Obviously it is still open for editing in either case. I made some minor edits to it also. skip sievert (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)