Talk:Lisbon Principles

Comment

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

No original research is one of three core content policies. The others are neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

This article which revolves with a couple others all contain much of the same information. This one in particular does not contain citations or refs and contains many open ended aspects that appear to be generated as original research. Since this article is generated by one person... and contains speculation and pov apparently toward some aim, this article seems to be not a good source of neutral information skip sievert (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

These issues have been addressed. There is, of course, always room for improvement Granitethighs (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment#Possible_problem_with_original_research_by_a_user_in_articles_connected_to_the_Sustainability_article. about this article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Article

Made some rephrasing for neutrality and objectivity and spelling improvements. Also added information to the see also section. skip sievert (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible deletion for article

It may be a suggestion on this article to present it for A.F.D. consideration. I am giving some thought to tagging this article with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion because it appears to be that maybe the article has misconstrued some article titles for a new discipline, with a new name... and it seems the same subject is covered in more actual titles of the sustainability related field. Also the fact that there are three articles that seems to lead in circles to the same information is perhaps an issue, as although these are based on U.N. material mostly... which can be good... it would seem that the actual focus is on the U.N. and not so much the article titles. skip sievert (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The debate

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 this article. In settling issues to do with neologisms Wikipedia calls for common sense to prevail. I suggest that unless and until alternative convincing "terms" are found, the "tags" at the top of the article page should be removed.Granitethighs (talk) 22:08, 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. skip sievert (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Debate continued

This debate is now focused at sustainability science. Granitethighs (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed neologism tag

The "neologism" tag has been on this article for over 2 months without any comment from any editor other than the one who posted it. It is clearly of no concern to other editors and has therefore been removed. It can, of course, be replaced should interest be rekindled. Granitethighs (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed notability tag

The notability tag has drawn no interest from any other editor in two months. It has therefore been removed. If you are concerned about this please consult a third party for resolution. Granitethighs (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This article may not be notable. It also may be a neologism term. By removing the tags you do a disservice because other people need to examine the article. You also are showing possible overt pov in that you started the article. You need to allow the tags to do their work. It is beneficial for an article to be tagged because all aspects are then examined. Recently you used another new article to source this article Earth System Governance Project. The other article looks non notable... it is sourced only by the group. You also started that article in what looks like an attempt to source this article perhaps. This may not be enough. Leave both tags on the talk page. skip sievert (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

These tags are presumably placed on the articles to encourage editors to comment should they be interested or concerned. There is little point in them being placed on articles in perpetuity. As you are clearly the only editor that has any concern in these matters then the relevance and utility of the tag both here (and those you have put elsewhere) is highly questionable. In other words both the concern and interest is yours and yours only. I shall allow one more month for the tags - if at the end of this time no-one has shown any interest then I shall remove them. If that does not appear appropriate to you then I suggest you take the matter to a third party rather than entering into an unproductive delete/undelete war. Granitethighs (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is not a guideline. Since you originated this article and the other you are sourcing it with now... you probably should leave the tags alone... and let others examine both articles. The article is now being sourced with another very iffy and probably not notable article that you originated that is sourced by the subject itself. The tag should be looked at as a positive thing. A thing that encourages people to examine both articles. Earth System Governance Project this recent addition to this article in an effort to source a term which is more like a phrase... that is open to all kinds of opinion or diverse commentary, probably very much deserves to be tagged and looked at by others. Earth System Governance Project looks like an advert for a group that apparently has not been written about... and may not show notability. skip sievert (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that the tagging is "your opinion". Whether or not it is so is not for you and me to decide - but other people. It seems to me that no action is disinterest, and although I too see it as a "positive thing" other people have totally ignored the tagging and therefore it is serving no purpose. The new source was not meant to be back-up evidence but more information on the topic at hand. Just out of interest, why do you not tag the tens of thousands of other entries that are "phrase-like" - for example sustainable architecture, sustainable fisheries and over a hundred other similar phrases starting with sustainability - and so many many more that are present throughout WP? Granitethighs (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Because those are probably notable whereas I do not think this one is. Mostly it seems vague and political and opinionated based on abstracted belief systems tied in to various special interest groups... or factions that have an ax to grind. If there was such a thing as Sustainability governance I do not think sourcing it to some un notable group ... just originated makes for notability. skip sievert (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What is notable about the Sustainable Commodity Initiative, Sustainable Communities Plan, Sustainable resource extraction and myriads of others? Just try typing in random thoughts and you will come up with heaps of “phrase-like” terms along these lines. No offence intended but why not assist people with their articles by adding useful information, references, citations and the like - or better still, engaging people in positive discussion on the talk pages and then doing the improvements after all parties understand what is going on? Granitethighs (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you are talking about in regard to other articles. I am not comparing things. I also look out for articles that are either subpar with pov... or not sourced or sourced in concentric circles, or written poorly. I also do a lot of vandal patrol. Positive discussion is in the eye of the beholder sometimes. I think this article is weak... to the point of not being notable. Having expectation of what you think other editors should do... is probably unrealistic. Everyone offers something unique. skip sievert (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed tags

These tags have been on this article for more than 6 months with comment from one editor only. There is clearly no interest in this matter - the tags are removed unless and until other editors express concern. Granitethighs (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed the notability and neologism tags which have been there since November 2008 and have attracted no comment at all. The new tag has been left on the article page to allow time for comment. Granitethighs (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the one tag is new. I have expressed concern. That makes this a concern. Let others look at the new tag. skip sievert (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is attracting about 20 hits a day. If there are no comments from other editors on the latest tag placed on this article it would appear that the use, over time, of three different tags is excessive to the point of being an example of disruptive and tendentious editing. Granitethighs (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is a phrase and deserves the tag. It appears to be original research and the sourcing and material in the article does not relate to the subject for the most part. skip sievert (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If your arguments are rejected [or ignored], bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. Granitethighs (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Using this talk page for discussion

Skip, please discuss removing blocks of text and large-scale edits on this talk page before carrying them out. This is standard part of Wikipedia etiquette, general consideration, and being civil. See [1] Granitethighs (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the links to ref/notes on the article page do not go to information and hence must be taken on faith to connect with the information they are saying they are reffing. Suggestion... Get connectors that go to actual information, otherwise it is difficult to source the article with things that people can verify or people will not be able to go to other information to make their own opinions on the sourcing.

Also. The writing style was verbose and chatty and directive rather than neutral or just information giving. It was telling the reader rather than making information available. It is still like that in places. The biggest problem though is the lack of connecting material in the article and that the article seems to be built on a phrase... or abstract concept and not on a real notable concept. skip sievert (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for Article for Deletion

I think this article is a candidate to put up for inspection in an A.f.d. - This I hope to get around to soon. The article is based on a couple of phrases that were stitched together from several published writings... and Granitethings book chapter titles... which he may have used here as a quest for notability as may also have been done on other Wikipedia article, example [2] Not sure that is the case but it may be because using someones books... (his) [3] seems to have been done routinely by that editor on other articles [4] To my knowledge this article is composed of original research and synthesis... a couple of abstracted U.N. links and some website that is also probably not notable that the article is based around ... and that was even a more recent addition for I suppose some notability attempt. skip sievert (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I fully support an Afd. Sadly, this seems to be the only way to (possibly) avoid edit warring. Unfortunately Skip has little respect for consensus and is likely to continue reverting etc. regardless of any WP protocols or conventions (I can provide many examples if required). Granitethighs (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is not notable. You took some phrases from your recently published book and tied them into some very vague sourcing that does not reflect any meaning beyond o.r. and synthesis. You also product placed your book recently through out other articles such as here [5] and here [6] without alerting anyone to give a chance for discussing whether your book is notable. skip sievert (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

See [7] concerning notability, and [8] concerning COI - resolved as no COI through request to Noticeboard. Now let it rest - the tags are up - wait and see what happens. Granitethighs (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They said it was not clearly, not clearly a COI problem.. but I believe it was as this is also where you sourced your book in a completely out of context context Human equivalent there is a neutrality problem in this and other articles also [9] skip sievert (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not have time for edit warring - have transferred Lisbon Principles to new article - re-submit for deletion Skip. Granitethighs (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to maintain good articles is not edit warring. The article actually looks a little decent now because the unrelated stuff is stripped off... and the other aspects of things are shown. Lisbon principle are important and interesting and deserved an article, without being mixed into this one politically. The Earth System Governance Project as: political science, sociology, economics, ecology, policy studies, geography, sustainability, and law related actually reflects what you were trying to connect the information to more now. skip sievert (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lisbon Principles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090129134940/http://www.eoearth.org:80/article/Lisbon_principles_of_sustainable_governance to http://eoearth.org/article/Lisbon_principles_of_sustainable_governance

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)