Talk:Sustainability/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

The to do list for article

Sunray... how is it that you are reverting the to do list for the page when the editing is underway and it is obvious... that these sections are not done? This makes no apparent sense to me. So could you not do that any more.?.. also could you read this if you would please. I am having a hard time here trying to figure out how it is that you are reverting something on the list which obviously is being redone... and is not done... the Definitions area is not done either... so for crying out loud... stop saying it is in your reverts please! Also a whole bunch of issues I have brought up to discuss here are not being discussed... like this section added # 2.3 Sustainability science which was added without discussion and I do not believe should be in a separate category in the article but should be included in a couple of sentences with the links in the U.N. section.

Please read. Thank you.

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable.

Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.

A representative group may make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact. skip sievert (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A consensus of editors of this page established the "To do" list in August. The editors who were working on the article at the time agreed, again by consensus, on the content of the first two sections of the article and marked "done" on the "To do" list. That doesn't mean that it is perfect, only that there was consensus on what should be in those sections by the editors who had agreed to work collaboratively. As you will note, further down the list, there is the item "Edit entire article." The plan was, and is, to re-consider all content when we get to that stage and edit for appropriatenes of content, flow and readability, checking against the criteria. The "To do" list is a list of items for the team of editors working on the FA project. Please respect the consensus.

As to the issues you have brought up. We will consider them. However, you have indicated that you: a) think that the article is good as it is, and b) do not want to join the team of editors who will be working to bring it to featured article status. That is all well and good. However, you will have to accept that we will deal with your suggestions when we are working on the appropriate section. Please make your requests brief and to the point. Also bear in mind that we will decide things by consensus, which is not necessarily unanimity. And yes, of course, consensus is not immutable. It changes as necessary to reflect new information. To change it though, requires a new consensus. Sunray (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Their does not seem to be much involvement from the team that provides the consensus you are mentioning here. In fact virtually no one besides myself and the newcomer, that mostly rewrote the beginning seem active right now. Also by putting up information that the article was or is or had been decided on the area called the to do list... it confused people as to what is going on here. Trying to reinforce that idea by reverting to old information that is not related to any consensus... in the literal sense, seems a bit confusing to say the least. That is why I added this tag to the list

Also since you are saying there is a team here... I would suggest that the talk page for the sustainability article deal with issues being brought up. I have brought up many things here and the team if there is one... does not respond, and does not seem to be a part of the discussion really. Example the article section mentioned above that was put in with out your team consensus sustainability governance. skip sievert (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for definition area of article

Definition (proposed)

Sustainability can be a property of living systems, a manufacturing method, or a way of life. Although the definition of sustainable development given by the Brundtland Commission (used above), is the most frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part from the fact that it may be seen to encompass all human activity. Although science forms the basis of sustainability concepts, it is perceived sometimes as a general concept like "liberty" or "justice", which is accepted as important, but is truly a "dialogue of values" that defies consensual definition. It is also open to political interpretation.

Current version in article now

Sustainability is many things to many people.[citation needed] It can simultaneously be an idea, a property of living systems, a manufacturing method, or a way of life. For some people it is little more than a hollow buzz word.[who?] Although the definition of sustainable development given by the Brundtland Commission (used above), is the most frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part from the fact that it may be seen to encompass all human activity. It is a very general concept like "liberty" or "justice", which is accepted as important, but is truly a "dialogue of values"[8] that defies consensual definition.[9] It is also a call to action and therefore open to political interpretation concerning the nature of the current situation and the most appropriate way forward. A further practical difficulty with a universal definition is that the strategies needed to address "sustainability" will vary according to the particular circumstances under consideration[citation needed]

All of the original citations have been kept in the first version above which I am suggesting be used in the article section. skip sievert (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As included in my temporary rewrite of the intro, the definition of sustainability depends upon the context in which it is used. We have to uncomplicate information & simplify it, not oversimplify, but make it concise. Just a quick example... In my intro rewrite:

"Sustainability, in the broadest sense, is the ability to sustain a certain process or state at a certain rate or level.[1] The term carries multiple definitions depending on the context in which it is applied, the most common contexts being; ecological, social and economic. In recent years the term has been applied in a holistic sense, focussing on how these contexts interrelate."

We can then use that as a platform to explore the definition of sustainability in greater detail in the 'definition' section. Your proposed definition section jumps around a fair bit, it is an improvement on the previous version, but I think still only temporary. The real discussion we should be having is; How do we extrapolate and further explore the definition of sustainability from what is already given in my temporary intro rewrite? This would be the best place to start for the definition section. I might add that it would be a good place to start in general; 'definition' and 'history', rewriting these sections first is the logical place to begin, at the beginning. Nick carson (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition

No one has objected, so I am posting the rewritten definition area. No one commented on the rewrite either. Here is pretty close to the new version below. If there is a functional team that wishes to edit the article, it is suggested they become more active in discussions of issues concerning the article itself. It seems pretty obvious that this section needs immediate attention.

Sustainability can be a property of living systems, a manufacturing method, or a way of life. Although one definition of sustainable development given by the Brundtland Commission, is frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part from the fact that it may be seen to encompass all human activity. Although science forms the basis of sustainability concepts, it is perceived also as a general concept like "liberty" or "justice", which is accepted as important, and can also be viewed as a "dialogue of values" that defies consensual definition. It is also open to political interpretation.

It is also suggested that citations and references for the first segment of the article be looked for as the next to do thing to improve the article. I think the first area in the article the Sustainability beginning is to long according to guidelines of about three paragraphs.... and could be shortened. I am suggesting it be pared down a little as to the last paragraph which is covered in the body of the article. skip sievert (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing Team Regroup

OK, last effort. In the interests of the article - and so that we are are all singing off the same hymn sheet, I propose that we apply our collaborative editing to the lead and definition sections. I can understand Nick wondering what on earth was going on here. We can then go back to the agreed "to do" list knowing that we all have an agreed basis from which to work. It is important that editors who have signed up to collaborative editing participate in this process - which will mean, on most days, at least a few moments to make a brief comment or cast an opinion. There is strength in the argument that inaction amounts to the failure of collaboration. Granitethighs (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Sorry - I see this process has effectively begun - see above, it is difficult to follow where we are at. Granitethighs (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused too. I think the best thing to do would be to have dedicated talk page sections for "Intro", "Definition", "History" and start discussing the content of each respective section, rather than jumping around all over the place. Also, outdated or irrelevant discussions should be deleted or moved to an archive. Nick carson (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree Granitethighs (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of separate pages for each section. I agree that much of this page needs archiving and will do that as soon as the new pages are set up (assuming agreement on that). I think we should also identify a deadline for comments on each proposal (perhaps 24 or 36 hours for simple ones such as this; longer for major proposals. At the deadline, the proponent could do a quick tally, decide if more discussion is needed, and, if not, implement. Sunray (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree Granitethighs (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! I would also suggest directing people to the main discussions rather than having a whole bunch of little proposals pop up. If we're to be smart in this collaboration we should establish when the most likely time would be that we're all editing together so discussion can occur quicker and easier. Nick carson (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I follow Nick, we are spread round the globe - wouldn't a time deadline achieve the same result - or have I misunderstood? Granitethighs (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, just trying to think of how we could all be online at the same time, may be impossible to achieve. Nick carson (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Of those who have signed up so far, we have people in Australia (Melbourne), New Zealand, the west coast of North America and eastern North America. There is thus a window between 9:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m., UTC, each day which, if my calculations are correct, works out to:

• 4:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m., eastern NA (EST)
• 1:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m., west coast NA (PST)
• 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. New Zealand (NZDT)
• 8:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Australia (EST)

Do any of you edit during those times? I usually edit earlier or later than that, but could arrange to be present for part of that window. Sunray (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree separate pages for each section will be very helpful, and make it clearer what we are proposing for the final article. Strict time limits will probably leave me behind, as I don't get a lot of time here, but I do accept the need to keep moving.--Travelplanner (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Beginning part

Tweaked as to suggested by an editor as to the business part..in the beginning area... that was not cited either. Small change below of paragraph in that section.

Edit done When applied in the ecological context, it is defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. When applied in the 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 holds itself accountable for the environmental impacts of its activities. This includes businesses that operate in a socially responsible manner and protect the environment.

Former edit

When applied in the ecological context, it is defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.[4] When applied in the social context, sustainability is expressed as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.[5] And when applied in an economic context, it is defined as the qualification and viable continuity of interaction, inter and intra entreprise, and is used as a synonym for supporting business practices, processes and systems enabling the long term development and growth of an activity.[citation needed] skip sievert (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good edit, don't get too bogged down in little piece of the intro, it'll need to be rewritten at the end anyway, but at least now we've got a half-decent intro in the interim. Nick carson (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The U.N. flag is being used inappropriately in the article as to context

"WP:MOSICON" redirects here. For the Wikipedia directory of icon collections, see Wikipedia:Icons.

For the purposes of this guideline, icons refers to any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals, flags and similar graphics, unless otherwise stated.

The overuse, misuse and abuse of icons in Wikipedia article text, lists and tables presents a number of problems. How to avoid the principal issues is summarized below, followed by more in-depth discussion of each problem. I think using the general picture of the U.N. in a session meeting is fine though, and moved it up to replace the flag icon. The U.N. flag as such is a political statement that is controversial in the article presently... as the U.N. is a political org.. and a flag here is a charged icon... the guideline says this:

Do not repurpose icons beyond their legitimate scope Icon can represent a specific entity and should not be repurposed to represent something else, e.g. because an actually appropriate flag is not available. For example, do not abuse the flag of the United Nations to represent the entire world, as this is not an accurate application of the official flag of that international organization. See also the next two sections. skip sievert (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Skip, we are heading off in all directions again. Anyway, what about just suggesting to the group that inappropriate use of UN icons and images be seen to. The signs you have posted are a bit confronting for such a small issue. Examination of images in the article was suggested as a specific phase on the "to do" list, they could have been dealt with then. Incidentally, I think the expression "a picture saves a thousand words" is often well founded, so I'm not especially well disposed to the "nutshell" thingy. However, do what you like with the UN pics. What do others think? Wow! I've just seen you've signed up - welcome aboard. That does mean you have agreed to proceed by consensus, good to see. Granitethighs (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The picture is not a big deal. It just violates policy so I took it off and moved the assembly picture up. Because there seems to be such a general non participation in the page, I just wanted to cite some information about icons so it was clear. I signed up yes... and will try to follow wiki article guidelines... but that is expected of all editors. There are no contracts of supermajority as to wiki guidelines that I am aware of. In fact, that would be counter to the normal ideas of consensus editing. I think the U.N. section (which probably could be called (Environmental issues and the U.N. - since mostly this quotes U.N. material), should be focused on now, as there is unsourced material ... which sounds like editorial commentary in that section. My suggestion is that area of material should be scrutinized now where it is unsourced as to who said certain statements. If those statement are opinion, and unsourced a fair amount of time should pass and those statements then taken off that section. skip sievert (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We should stay on track and deal with images when we get to them. I agree with skip in the renaming of the UN section to "Environmental Issues and the UN", however, we should deal with the content of that section when we get to it. Nick carson (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Suggest we leave the images as they are for now (minus the UN ones - point made Skip) Granitethighs (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing on "To do" list

Skip: I too am glad to see that you have signed up. I would like to get some agreement on the "To do" list. Several of us were fine with it, but you seem to still have some objections. Would you be able to make some brief suggestions about what you think is needed in order to remove the "disputed tag" and/or remove it? Sunray (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the tag as it is reflecting now the current editing position. I think the to do list is a good reminder for things... and as Nick has suggested different parts of the article could very well be rethought as to information and titles within segments of the article and consolidated into other segments in the article, or even changed as proposals are made. It could remain fluid for that reason, and reflect what is going on in real time, so I suggest that people feel free to edit it as things change. Nick brought up some good points as to that. I will also change the section to Environmental Issues and the UN as suggested, and I suggest now that the section which seems orphaned now ... that probably belong also in the U.N. section is this below

Start Sustainability science

The formal study of sustainability has relatively recently emerged as an academic discipline referred to as sustainability science which examines and underpins the

broad, inclusive, and contradictory currents that humankind will need to navigate toward a just and sustainable future

it also encompasses the study of sustainability governance as the process of implementation of sustainability strategies; and sustainability accounting, as the evidence-based quantitative information used to guide governance by providing benchmarks and measuring progress. end

It is another question whether to put this section in the U.N. part at all... as they are new and mostly designed by one person on the editing team... and all three need work... one has been improved recently... but it may be a mistake to overweight the article with U.N. material, even in the U.N. section... it may be redundant. In other words these three articles and that section could be reduced to one sentence in the U.N. portion of the article... they are start class and have very little interaction as to other users improving them.

Also that area in the bottom of the U.N. to be section is lacking in citations as to who said what and this also is a glaring thing presently. Those areas probably need removal as they look now like blog like commentary as they are un sourced. I also agree with Nick that it makes sense to mostly start at the top and work down... and to be creative, and simple, in that all eyes can focus on things that show they need improvement... however... when a person sees something or could improve any aspect at all of the general information they are encouraged to bring it up ... or to make an edit that improves material. As to other suggestions... having separate pages for making improvements seems like a bad idea to me. It takes away the focus from improving the article and makes the focus more into the methodology or talking about improvement and formatting improvements instead of doing improvements... If there is a disagreement about editing it can be changed... and being bold sometimes and making an edit is appropriate to improvement. Also I wish (my opinion) that the color coded edits on the talk page do not continue. It is a terribly confusing thing for people to come and look at... or was for me when I first came to look at the talk page.

If material is presented here in a section it can be quickly looked at and interpreted as to its content and appropriateness. It can be tweeked then or rejected or what ever... Also... lets try to stick with the bottom of the page (talk page) as much as possible, although the talk page can be sorted out with the page history when needed as to time flow context of editing events. I guess my hope now would be that people do not engage in long drawn out contemplation of issues but make an attempt to delve into the article and improve it and then allow others to agree or disagree... and/or make incremental improvements. Also... the article is pretty good now. So I wish the focus to be on making the article shorter by consolidating it ... something Nick has mentioned recently ... and .. when ever it is possible material that is cited and sourced I would hope is maintained if it is going to be moved for the time being. This history section now may seem a little confounding to some... and perhaps as Nick has suggested it is the beginning of another article in and of itself.. .that may be... but.. that information is scholarly currently as to the subject and is well cited.. and as the basis mostly of the science aspect of Sustainability very important (my opinion). Mostly the history section now is a lead on and introduction to what led up to Environmental economics and even more importantly the framing in sustainability of those issues by Ecological economics.... as well as the science and thermodynamic aspects of energy and resources. So... while some of that information could be moved.. I hope that the information will remain in the article because of its science aspect of importance. skip sievert (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Skip. One more request: It has been suggested that we keep things simple. I think that short, direct messages on this page will make it much easier to communicate effectively. I for one do not have time to wade through lengthy posts. Would you be willing to keep your posts short and to the point? Sunray (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The very last thing in the world desired by me is to make lengthy posts as to what is going on. However, because of a combination of confused issues and organizing aspects, there did not seem to be a way out of it recently. Things could indeed be simpler here if responses, by interested parties, are given in a timely fashion, to issues from whatever direction. skip sievert (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that things have not been well-organized. Hopefully if we all pull together, that will change. As far as your requests not being dealt with: Speaking for myself, I can only say that I just don't read posts that are several paragraphs long. You might try asking questions or making suggestions in short paragraphs like the one I am replying to now. Sunray (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

U.N. section

Removed some unsourced information from the lower end of that section... and also brought down the information This has been recognised by the United Nations who conduct global education programs as part of the International Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014). sourced by Nick in the lead into the U.N. section where it is more appropriate. I think we have to be careful not to over spill directly related U.N. info through out the article... that is giving to much undue weight to it and using the article as a vehicle to much for the U.N. -- Since there is a U.N. section now that is identifiable... that issue is now addressed for U.N. information focus. None of the material Nick introduced was thus lost... only moved to a more specific area. skip sievert (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)