Talk:Sustainability/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Note: Comments by Quester which would have appeared here were left on the main talk page, pending their resolution. They should be archived immediately below when the issues have been dealt with. Sunray (talk)

Are we moving forward?

I am getting increasingly involved in unproductive and time-consuming arguments with Skip. I also suspect that I am tending to dominate the discussion too much. Best if I take a bit of a back seat for a while. Granitethighs (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Are there some changes we could make to be able to move forward with you and others on this project? I've left a couple of notes for Skip on the Talk:Sustainability/Lead page. Would some informal mediation help? Sunray (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

GT, although there is a whole group working on this, we make progress in direct proportion to your input. If you need to take a break, we should probably slow the whole process down a bit to make space for that. With you in the back seat, we'd be back to going in circles again.--Travelplanner (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Personalizing the editing is probably a mistake, and even having a category on the talk page entitled GT & Skip is not a good idea, and I suggest it be changed. The idea of going around in circles if one person is not given some special place of notability is not connected to the point of how Wikipedia works, unless that person is notable beyond ordinary every day editing. No one editor here is that important to my knowledge. There is a whole community of Wikipedia editors that over see and check the articles for mistakes or guideline problems in nearly real time. 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.

I do think the article has been improved a great deal in the last several weeks. 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. Also the tone and and presentation is much better now as to neutral approach to material in the live article content. Focus on the live article being edited by, in theory, any and every body with interest, to me is the most important aspect here, along with the more interested parties attempt to make the article more cogent as to good content. I have tried to be active in all related sandbox discussions also..., currently, focus of content we have... and possibly making incremental additions to science aspects seem a good direction. Also refocusing content in the U.N. section which is sometimes redundant... and reworking the presentation of the History section seem to be where things are at. 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) 16:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Its a bit tricky. Because I'm interested in the subject and am working on it I tend to have a lot of thoughts and input. This may swamp others and seem as though I cannot compromise or accept others suggestions. We now seem to have lost Nick, possibly for this reason. Skip I really like because to me he represents the argumentative anti-social rebel in all of us - but dealing with this is not easy - I am fully employed and it takes up valuable time. Perhaps going slowly is an option: there's no prizes for finishing the job in a week and, as Skip says, its not too bad as is and we can keep bashing away. A Featured Article obviously requires a disciplined collaborative group - we're unlikely to get to that standard by continuous editing of the article in real time because it is important to know how the thinking has evolved (there are many other reasons). What are your counselling fees for mediation therapy Sunray? Granitethighs (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Renamed this section - hope you like the new name. Remember we can email each other; this may be a better option for this sort of discussion.--Travelplanner (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

G.T. I have to mention this to you because of repeated negative attacks. Maybe I should put this on your talk page.. because it detracts from the actual subject but... since you post things here like the above let me just say in an overt... and civil way... do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Saying in a mock comic or friendly way things like to me he represents the argumentative anti-social rebel is more than a little annoying... and you are doing a pattern of this kind of tricky commentary. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. I do not like that you are jauntily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOUP ... and according to guidelines I can remove your comments... like the one above. I am finding you to be a tendentious editor and suggest that if you have an axe to grind? Try the hardware store. Wikipedia is the wrong venue for this. Thank you travel planner for removing the title above. skip sievert (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Skip that doesn't qualify as a personal attack, IMO. It was feedback, though. If you think about what you have been doing here, you may see why GT said it. And before you think that I'm taking sides, let me just say I do not believe there are any "sides." We need to stop processing everything and defending virtual turf. Nick's got a point, below. If each one of us could just figure out what s/he is going to work on and get on with it, things will be fine. Sunray (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Skip - believe it or not this was meant to be an affectionate compliment, not a personal attack. However, that is beside the point: it was clearly open to a different interpretation and was therefore not appropriate. I offer my sincere apologies. Granitethighs (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Anger, frustration, lack of motivation, these all pass with time through a calm state of mind. I've been in the studio and rehearsing for the last few days, but throughout this week I'm going to rewrite the entire article and incorporate all the section rewrites we've been doing in the talk page sections (this can be found here), from here we can improve upon each section, adding content where it is lacking (as pointed out by Q above). This is not the place for time wasting arguments, this is a place for critique and progression. If your on the editing team, make sure you understand the subject matter as much as possible, always learning more about it or confirming content that is already here. Stay focussed. Nick carson (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm talkin' about! Someone getting on with things. Great stuff Nick! Sunray (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Two things too important to discuss in the sandboxes

OK so now we are getting on with it.

There are two edits I'm suggesting in the sandboxes. They are both important, one I'm prepared to stick up for, the other I'm deeply uncomfortable with. Here goes:

First issue too big for a sandbox (in the definition)

The definition section has four subsections: Ecological / Social / Economic / Holistic. But Holistic is not familiar to me. What we do have in NZ environmental and local government law is environmental, economic, social and cultural sustainability.

There were many long and very fascinating and relevant arguments in arriving at cultural as a subset of sustainability; this discussion is in no way limited to NZ although I don't find the concept written into legislation elsewhere. Those not from the dominant western culture, notably NZ Maori people, led this discussion and eventually won it.

So in my view, the issues considered under holistic in the draft definition split into:

An emphasis on a wider view which is completely valid, but worded in a culturally-specific way; I would prefer to say that many cultures on earth hold this emphasis to be important

A set of reasons why the Ecological definition is the highest priority definition

So I've suggested an alternative wording here

Second issue too big for a sandbox (in the lead)

I am a great believer in referencing and measurement, so added a reference to the text (criticised by skip) sustainability means using natural resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. Well after awhile of searching I convinced myself that the best reference for this was here but what the reference said was sustainability means using natural resources in a way, and at a rate at which they can be replenished naturallywhich maintains the future availability of resources.

Now having read Quester67's comments, I am unhappy with my own edit. Yes I have added a valid reference to an unreferenced statement. But I've also changed that statement (I had to, to fit the best reference I could find). I think the new statement is wrong, actually very wrong, almost equivalent to saying "Loving one's mother means treating her in such a way that she will continue to provide you with stuff". What to do??

Thanks in advance guys for your help on these two, --Travelplanner (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Holistic is the context that sustainability is applied to regarding whole, entire systems. culture comes under social as it is within the human societies sphere. Culture in itself is a changing term, it can be argued that in modern human society, culture is becoming amalgamated as more people travel and migrate and resettle, cultures and races mix. The true cultures therefore are localised and regional cultures, which can also be said to be communities, again interchangeable terms. Holistic is an important context to represent in the scope & definition section as it is the application of all contexts together, hence; holistic sustainability, the reduction of the term to its barest definition, hence sustainability. It is an important context to include as we can apply sustainability to individual contexts but the only way to ultimately apply sustainability to life on Earth is to apply it holistically.

2. The first wording is the best, we can only cite the best reference we can find, or cite both! If both references cite the essence of the sentence then its wording can be altered to read best. Nick carson (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Nick has said about the holistic aspect of sustainability. I'm unclear why we are going down this path of separating the three pillars of sustainability. There is no social or economic sustainability if we burn up the planet. It seems to me that economic sustainability and social sustainability are impossible to define. Isn't sustainability necessarily holistic. While sustainability has social and economic components, there is no sustainability without ecological sustainability. Perhaps we need to adjust the outline to make that clear.

Motherhood. Nice analogy, TP. We need to agree that "sustainability means using natural resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally." Seems to me that this is the ecological component of the definition of sustainability. We do not need a citation for it, it is just another way of expressing our definition. As to culture, I am well aware why the NZ government would emphasize that. However, it is hard to write about without simply stating moral truths. We should not systematically destroy other peoples' cultures... We should abolish racism... We should all love one another (but not reproduce beyond the planet's carrying capacity)... Let's stick to our knitting. Sunray (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll definitely explain that in the main definition section, but the purpose of the "Economic", "Social", etc, subsections is to explain that sustianability is defined differently within those contexts. I don't agree with separating it out like this though, but thats the way it is defined right now, I have no doubt that one day everything will become sustainable and so perhaps even sustainability itself will be clearly and easily defined as essential to life, just as oxygen and water, and all the sub-contexts will inevitably amalgamate, but for now, this is how we human beings define sustainability, under different contexts. Perhaps its so we can deal with the ramifications of its application in terms we can understand? Economists don't want to consider the environment as being essential to economy because it limits short term profit, etc, so they try to sustain their own little economic world and call it "economic sustainability", eventually they'll come to realise that under this definition sustainability can't actually be achieved, and the sub-contexts will be forced to amalgamate. Hope that made sense :]

To conclude; we should probably just have like "social" and "economic" subsections, then have a "other contexts" subsection where we can explain how sustainability is defined within the various other contexts. Nick carson (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to try writing "social," and "economic" subsections, but we might want to hold off on it for now. Reason I say that is that this is one the trickiest aspects of sustainability, IMO. For example how many people on the planet yet know that you need a conservation ethic amongst communities of people in order to become significantly more sustainable as a society? This is a tough one for humans and, I would say that generally the awareness is not there yet. It will take us awhile to find (and agree on) the sources for this. On the other hand, I think that we need to increase our production. Because our group has been fractious of late, it likely would be easier to work on more straight forward sections right now. Once we are all used to working together, we should be in a better position to come back to the more difficult definitional sections. I'm for getting into the history piece. Anyone else interested? Sunray (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nick was putting something together I believe and that would be a great start. Granitethighs (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

All good with me. Very happy to lose "cultural" sustainability on the proviso that we also lose "holistic" sustainability (as a subheading of the definition). Do we now have an agreed version of the lead ? I think we're done with it for now and have posted a clean version at the bottom of the lead page.

Looking forward to getting stuck into the History section!--Travelplanner (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

All good by me. See you on the history subpage. Sunray (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'm going to continue on the article overall, here, once we've finished discussing each section, I'll incorporate the most up to date versions of what we've been working on and try and get the article as a whole to flow nicely step by step. Once we've finish discussing each individual section I'll have a compiled collection of them all which we can then begin with to attack all the nitty gritty stuff, references, etc. Nick carson (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. To be more transparent, it might be a good idea to move the draft article to a subpage of this page. The reason for that would be to ensure that everyone (including newcomers) can find it easily. I can do that if you wish. Sunray (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This december has so far been the busiest month for me and we're only 8 days into it! But I have merged the various proposals and suggestions for the lead, definition and history sections and reorganised them into the proposed outline. You can find it here here. I've also moved information that belongs in other articles or articles to be created to a notes section. I'm happy if Sunray wants to transfer my synthesis of our discussions to a section of the talk page. I have noticed, especially with the history section, that we really don't have as much content as we thought. I have had to do alot of research on the history of sustainability in general to write about it (half of our history section content previously pertained to literature written about economic sustainability specifically). These synthesised sections I think could be posted in their respective talk page sections and used as a basis upon which we can build from. Nick carson (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Nick, we are beginning to get fragmented in our work. I've left a note on your talk page about the rapidly multiplying subpages. My understanding was that we had agreed to work on the subpages created here (i.e., subpages of this page). I would like to continue with that. Several of us have been working on the history subpage and there is a recent discussion on the lead subpage. Perhaps we should avoid creating any other sandboxed versions to minimize confusion. Also, I'm not sure we are ready for a consolidated version yet. We have more basic work to do. We still do not have consensus on the very first sentence of the article! Some time ago I proposed that we use the "To do" list to highlight current discussions. It seemed to be a good way that team members could check and at a glance, see what current discussions were happening and what decisions needed. Skip did not favour the idea and GT supported it. As far as I can recall, neither you nor TP responded. Sunray (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nick. I agree with Sunray. I think your efforts to both draw all this information together and provide an ongoing synthesis is great but operating on more than one page will confuse both us and potential new helpers. If you wish to work in your own sandbox that seems to me a very effective way of gathering your thoughts, but difficult for others to follow. IMO if we proceed a section at a time on their sub-pages according to the "to do" box, adding "consensused" sections to the real-time article as we go, then we will see the evolving picture on the main page. Smoothing out all the bumps can then be done as a final overall edit. That would be my preference anyway. Granitethighs (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

lead sentence

Is better (more informative neutral and objective) in user Nicks carsons sandbox version, and the current edit version, in my opinion. Restoring old edits that are not written well, or not so expansive as to information understanding, seems counter productive to article. Also removing the link to Sustain in Nicks version seems counterproductive to explaining the concept. Removing a citation/ref. as to word meaning (dictionary meaning) also seems counter productive also in this case, where the term is subject to different interpretations. skip sievert (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the sandboxed page. Sunray (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the sandboxed page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick_carson/sandbox/sustainability skip sievert (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion I meant is at the subpage of this page Talk:Sustainability/Lead. Sunray (talk) 19:38, 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 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. I am finding a team tag team approach with some editors thinking they are the proprietors of the Sustainability article. To my mind Nick is making good edits and that I support. skip sievert (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "some try to promote their own point of view and fail to recognize the importance of the NPOV policy." Have I done something that you think violates WP:NPOV? If you are referring to the lead sentence, there was a statement in article that was taken from among the many definitions of sustainability. It remained in the article for many months, was discussed on this page, and there was consensus to keep it. Since then an alternative has been proposed and is being discussed on the Talk:Sustainability/Lead subpage. Two editors (of which I am one) have expressed concerns about the proposed change. So far there is no consensus to make a change. I merely restored the older and more stable version. I would encourage you to continue the discussion on the subpage. Sunray (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Skip, we are each expressing a view on what is the best lead. Is this what you mean when you express concern about npov? Each person's view is of equal weight so if we all have a different view then we must find common ground if we are to agree on what finally goes up. There are five of us and potentially five different views. If each of us had edited the page in real time that could be five changes and still no agreement amongst us. We could, presumably, then try and enforce our view by beginning another round of editing with each of us deleting what the previous person has done because we believe only ourselves to be "correct". Surely you must see how unproductive and irritating that would be? The answer to this dilemma is to work together until we all agree. Yes, sometimes that just will not be possible - in which case the rules of consensus agreed when we signed up to the team will apply - see top of the page. Do you not understand this? Granitethighs (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not as you have just explained it. No. skip sievert (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Skip, please explain as briefly and succinctly as possible what it is you do not understand. Granitethighs (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand? That is called a double negative. skip sievert (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a very simple misunderstanding here which relates directly to the article content. Most of the article talks about the effect of human activity on biodiversity and resource use - that is, the way humans have impacted on the planet. It looks at the question "is humanity living sustainably". Amazingly my quality dictionary does not even refer to this kind of sustainability (because IMO this sense of the word is essentially post 1980). Instead the dictionary refers to 12 other senses including "food sustaining an army" and to processes that go on and on as being sustained etc. I think that the general idea, the "broad sense" of sustain is just to "go on" or "endure" and this is a good place to start. I am more than happy with the sentence suggested by Sunray because it sets the scene adequately for what is to come. We can then move on to more precise ideas about sustainability as mentioned above. I cannot see how the content of the sentence itself has anything to do with a pov. Perhaps by npov you mean "it is your opinion that this is the way to start the article". Is that what you mean? That would then make sense to me. Granitethighs (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Skip: Please see the discussion on the subpage at Talk:Sustainability/Lead. We need to work this out there. Also, would you be willing to stop reverting the article page until this discussion is resolved? Sunray (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning on the Talk:Sustainability/Lead subpage. We need to collectively agree on the lead sentence. However, the one that you keep trying to insert is problematic for reasons made clear, by GT and me, on the talk page. As I have tried very hard to make clear, using examples, such a definition would not fly in a featured article. However, if you wish to pursue your argument, please do so there. Sunray (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe this issue has been resolved on the "Lead" section talk page, as of 10/12/08. Nick carson (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

You do not have a veto power. Please respect the consensus. Sunray (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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... 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. skip sievert (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. If you read my response to you on Talk:Sustainability/Lead page about citation of lead sentences, you will be aware that the definitional statement in the lead is not referenced as a general rule. The statement is simple and straightforward and needs no citation. If you still have an issue with this, please address it on the Talk:Sustainability/Lead page.

I do have an issue with it and have addressed it on the Talk:Sustainability/Lead.. but it is not being addressed. The statement is not simple or straightforward and does need a citation because it does not seem to connect with the subject as to an explanation or definition. skip sievert (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)