Talk:Sustainability/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Current state of article

The article is long. It over sources the U.N. and other sources that do not emphasize aspects of sustainability like population and issues connected. Control of the article has been maintained in too few of hands for an overly long time. It is time to let go and let the greater community take a stab at the article. The F.A. project stalled out long ago into a G.A. project and it appears that is stalled also.

Refocus. Things like this [3] and this [4] need more focus in the article. skip sievert (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the FA project continues. We are working on reducing the length (it is down from about 120 kb to 100 kb). With respect to recent changes by you, the lead has been agreed on by all the editors of this page but you. Please discuss changes here before modifying it. The references you have referred to above are good and should be incorporated into the article, IMO—though not in the lead. Sunray (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If the former project continues I fail to see any evidence of that and the sign up team opted by consensus to go for a G.A. status, so that information is also wrong and misleading as to where the sign up team is currently going. The team does not discuss changes... not this time or last time it just reverts people other than people in the team. One look at the article history confirms that, and consensus changes. Please do not remove sourced and pertinent information that is creatively done [5], it replaced the former sentence and is sourced and reliable. The sentence replaced was close to meaningless as construction and meaning, and the other sentence actually says something... goes somewhere... and is sourced. skip sievert (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

FA or GA doesn't concern me - just that we achieve as high a standard as the editing collaboration can muster - it's not worth arguing over. We have nearly deaqlt with all the peer review suggestions. Sunray is working on reducing down the section that has been tagged as long and off-the-point, and I will continue on references etc. My own view about radio and newspaper citations is that they are often ephemeral in content, deliberately sensationalist, and unstable as references (their site can change or be removed) so I would rather they were not used. It is also adding more references to an already extensive bibliography. In this I disagree with Sunray and Skip who think they are worth including. Of course I will abide by consensus on this although I do not think the latest addition (no. 154) fits where it has been put and the sentence could probably be reduced in length. Progress might be slow but it is happening and anyone is welcome to help with the work. Granitethighs 01:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My own view about radio and newspaper citations is that they are often ephemeral in content, deliberately sensationalist, and unstable as references (their site can change or be removed) so I would rather they were not used. end quote and noted... that this is your opinion and in no way reflects guidelines on Wikipedia connected to reliable sourcing -> reliable sources. - skip sievert (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You left out It is also adding more references to an already extensive bibliography. However, your point is taken - it is just my opinion and I think the consensus of editors is against me on this one. You win! Granitethighs 02:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely it depends on how they are used. However, this change made by Skipsievert to the lead and addition of a BBC source are inappropriate. The change is made against consensus and the wording is not supportable by the source. I am opposed to this change on both grounds. Sunray (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, on balance it is not an improvement, suggest it is reverted. --Granitethighs 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with it, go ahead and revert. :I've already reverted it once. In the meantime, I've removed the reference, which does not support the statement. Also, we had determined that general statements such as "sustainability is the defining issue of our time," if they are supported by the article as a whole, do not need references. Sunray (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've tweaked the second sentence slightly to read better IMO - see what you think. But the sentence formerly in contention seems to have disappeared in all the changes. I'm not sure what has happened to it. --Granitethighs 10:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Broadening sourcing

This document could maybe use some focus on the article as alternative to U.N. over sourcing... which is still rampant throughout the article as to overload. ->Union of Concerned Scientists, 96 Church Street, Cambridge, Mass 02238-9105, USA Warning issued on November 18, 1992, ->good information and creative thinking as to the issue - skip sievert (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info skip.

Welcome back AdenR, and with any luck the article will open up to broader editing. Generally speaking scaring off new users, as may have been done previously as to yourself... is not suggested so this may as well be in the open. It is noted again that we are here to Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, and not get tangled up in conflict. Your further comments and editing is appreciated. skip sievert (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello guys. There are problems of U.N. sourcing that do need to be addressed. There are many repetitive sourcing and writing in the article. Such as global goals, mentioning(although somewhat differently) of over-consumption of resources. Their are also some sections that can be "squished" together because they pretty much share the same info. AdenR (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Aden - please make specific suggestions here.--Granitethighs 22:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AdenR: Good to see that you have decided to rejoin the editing and discussion on the Sustainability pages. We are going into the final push towards featured article, status and will need lots of hands to assist with this.

One thing I wish to mention, though, is the matter of tandem editing with another editor. When you were editing the sustainability page previously, several editors noted that you almost always agreed with Skipsievert. This relationship with Skip was so evident that a sockpuppet investigation was initiated. While sockpuppetry was unproven, a subsequent investigation found evidence of "tandem editing."

So, welcome back, and we hope you will bring a fresh pair of eyes to the task. I mean that sincerely. What I would caution you against, however, is a return to tandem editing, as that will detract from us seeing you as a unique individual. If it happens, I, for one, will treat you and Skip as one voice. Sunray (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The above is a direct insult to a newbie and also a personal attack in assuming guilt where there is none. This is an example on not assuming good faith and also accusatory nonsense. If anything the signup group is much more at fault in a tandem editing construct as opposed to consensus editing. Sunray... cease and desist this type of negative interaction. It is rather juvenile. I am not connected with AdenR. Repeat... not connected... but you are in the sign up team which does edit in tandem. Stop now with the accusations. skip sievert (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not my intention to insult anyone. I merely wanted to put on record some facts and state my position about them. "Tandem editing" by you and AdenR was noted by the clerk in closing a sockpuppet investigation.[6]. Sunray (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on other editors

I have removed a couple of comments on this talk page entered recently by an editor who continues to snipe unpleasantly at other editors, and seems unable to let go of things that may or may not have happened in the past. I suggest we simply remove sniping attacks on other editors, which don't belong to this page, and don't enter into any discussion on them. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, interminable re-statement of the same issue again and again after it has received full discussion by collaborative editors on this talk page is WP:Tendentious editing.--Granitethighs 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You are violating guidelines by refactoring others comments Geronimo... Removal of text Removal of text. I have asked you previously to stop [7] I am asking you again not to do that.

You removed this information I have previously asked you to not refactor other editors comments on the talk page. This page archives itself. If you are at issue with a perceived problem seek conflict resolution or comment Geronimo.

You also removed this Please do not resume calling other edits tendentious repeatedly. This is a form of personal attack, and civility is of utmost importance on Wikipedia. Please no longer refactor the discussion page. Since you have done this several times now I have also asked you not to do this on your own discussion page [8]. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

References in lead

Apparently there is a consensus to not reference things in the lead. So I have removed the only one used currently [9]. skip sievert (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have a reference problem. How do I delete references. I deleted an unneeded sentence in the Carrying Capacity section. Now there is an error message at the bottom. AdenR (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You do need to source all direct quotes in the article. Thus I will restore the reference. Sunray (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be removing the quote and ref/note later. It is one version of someones opinion of sustainability and the article should not source only to one thing in the lead as to weight and definition or explanation of the term except maybe a dictionary definition. That solves the problem. The sentence and source are not needed in the lead anyway. Definitions from a single over-sourced element is not suggested either, as the article currently over-sources one thing in particular. skip sievert (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on content and not other contributors

Thank you. Removing the comments of those you are in dispute with is also probably not a good idea. I'll be watching so I expect everyone to be on their very best behavior! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. And I hope another 10 editors pile into this page and watch also. It seems inexplicable that there is so little general interest in this subject by the Wikipedia community. skip sievert (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I can assist in explaining the dearth of editors? Just checked in tonight to see if there is any improvement in the working environment of this page; I have contributed in the past and still believe this is one of the most important pages on Wikipedia, and that I have skills to contribute to the editing of it. But I did lose my cool a couple of times. Following a good break, and with a clear head, I am immediately convinced from looking at recent posts that the editing atmosphere here is unpleasant in the extreme and why anyone would want to deal with this sort of thing in their spare time is beyond me.

Will drop by in another couple of months and see if things have changed.--Travelplanner (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Some new editors are watching the page. So hopefully there will be an improvement going forward. When disputes get nasty it can be helpful to bring in some independent perspectives by getting a wp:3O, posting to the WP:Content Noticeboard or another relevant noticeboard where the disputed issue can be reviewed. Admins can also be asked to help make sure discussion is focused on article improvement and doesn't devolve into sniping. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Need to stop the edit warring

Can I suggest that those who are doing reverting of edits take their concerns to some sort of mediation, or to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read through the archives if you would like to have a fuller picture of what is going on. This is no edit war. There is an established consensus for the lead. This was the product of a great deal of collaborative work. One editor is going against consensus. A new one (?) seems to be getting involved as well. The regular editors of this page (me included) are well aware of Wikipedia dispute resolution processes and will follow them as necessary. Sunray (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, but there are no regular editors of this page. That is not how Wikipedia works. Consensus is a moving process that is living, not dead, and not under control of any team of sign-up groups on any article. If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. An editing team while allowed is outside of the normal editing practice, but guidelines allow it. However, it has no special rights of editing beyond the normal guideline idea, whether there is one or a million in that group. Wikipedia is not a democracy. In a sense a sign up team has controlled the article for editing their content the way they please in a sort of tag team aspect. That is a blunt appraisal, and if that sounds offensive I am sorry.

They do edit in tandem. That is a fact, as the page history demonstrates. The argument used for limited consensus by this team is said to be because of an attempt to make the article an F.A. contribution. This is questionable as the main editors working in that direction have been doing so for a very long time first proposal for that, and continue to maintain editorial control as to the article. I am not trying to be harsh with this comment, or create any more WikiDrama, but am trying to respond to the information above this post in a realistic way. skip sievert (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest edits

Aden

If you are going to edit on this page please make an attempt to get “up to speed” with its history. Each section has been worked by a team of collaborative editors. There are two peer reviews. The latest one states as follows:

The lead image caption does not really tie the image explicitly to the article, perhaps something like ‘’Sustainability can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, as seen in NASA’s Blue Marble composite images from 2001 (left) and 2002 (right).’’
Images also need alternate text for the visually impaired before going to WP:FAC – see WP:ALT
Captions that are not full sentences generally do not end with a period / full stop
Image captions in general need to do a better job of explaining the image and its relation the text. For example, there are seven labels on File:Sustainable development.svg, but the caption just says “The three pillars of sustainability.[3]’’ I think many people skimming an article still read the captions, so these need to do a better job of describing the image and its connection to the topic.

I do not have time to constantly adjust this sort of editing. It is safe to assume that editing the lead in any way will likely be controversial – please suggest changes on the “talk” page before wading in as the article has been under close review for over a year now. Granitethighs 05:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Skip

The Brundtland Definition is the nearest we have to a universally-accepted definition of sustainability. To delete it is, to my mind, not only destructive to the article but deliberately provocative – your views on the UN are well known. They are not the consensual views of the collaborative editors. You know the history of this lead and you know that the talk page is the best and most cooperative place to suggest changes. IMO you are being deliberately provocative. I have referred this to both Ohana, AL, and the Administrators' Noticeboard (as recommended by AL above). Granitethighs 05:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The change made by Skipsievert was contrary to long-established consensus on this page. I've reverted it. Sunray (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing on Wikipedia as long established consensus. There is the idea of a long stable article but that does not apply here as this article is in a rewrite mode.

The Brundtland definition is a pov. It is a conflict of interest for interested editors that have pushed the concept of the U.N. as the end all and be all in the article from top to bottom as demonstrated here an old edit that the team endorsed previously. This demonstrates explicitly that the team is biased against n.p.o.v. information. That goes against guidelines to present an overweighted view as though mainstream to the point of being unquestionable the right definition as to sourcing. Currently the article is still very much over weighted with U.N. material. Having that be the only ref/citation in the lead is a very bad idea. That is why I changed to a definition of sustainability that is from a dictionary and is neutral and verifiable and a good reliable source as to meaning ordinary dictionary definition of sustainability... no baggage of pov or conflicts of interest.

I see the same editor reverts any and all that contradict the exclusive definition of U.N. Sustainable development also here, which is not good. The definition of Sustainable development is not a definition of Sustainability either. By focusing on U.N. material so forcefully through out the article a conflict of interest to that information as regards the sign up editing team seems rather apparent. That then works to the detriment of n.p.o.v. as to presentation and also ruins creative presentation that is creatively done at a certain point. If any were to count literally the U.N. sourcing on the article page it would surprise. A bias of the team toward that sourcing is not good. A team also has no special rights as to editing. One or a million is moot as a consensus is not really gotten when a team edits in tandem as to conflicts of interest, or overweighted sentiment of information regarding some thing. skip sievert (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You have raised all this before. Other editors of this page, the reliable source noticeboard, and the latest peer review do not agree with you. Please drop this now. Sunray (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Skip uses a good point. The "definition" is of Sustainable development. REAL definitions need to be applied or else you can rename the article sustainable development. The lead paragraph already does a good job of this. Other reliable n.p.o.v sources should be used.

Granite

Thanks for the tips. I think the picture is fine. I do however, think your suggestion is too much. The caption “Earth” or "World" should suffice. That solves the relation to the text without making things difficult.AdenR (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead reorganizing

I have taken some time to rewrite the first 2 and a half paragraphs in the lead. Seeing how parts of it were structured poorly which could be contributing to the bickering. Here is my revision.

“Sustainability, by definition, is the ability to sustain. It mainly serves as a description of Earth systems’ ability to sustain life. In biological terms, it can be defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. Long-lived healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems.

Earth and its biogeochemical cycles that redistribute water, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon have sustained life for millions of years. However, changes in the balance of these natural cycles are causing negative impacts on biological systems, humans included. Although changes occur naturally, mounting scientific evidence is showing humanity as an accelerator of these changes. Evidence, which has prompted scientists around the world to give an urgent warning to humanity. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ucs-statement.txt

Efforts to live sustainable can take many forms from reorganizing living conditions (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), reappraising economic sectors (green building, sustainable agriculture), or work practices (sustainable architecture), using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy), to adjustments in individual lifestyles.”

- I have changed the meaning to the real dictionary term. Hope this won’t be a problem.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sustainability

AdenR (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your willingness to discuss this before changing the version in the article. That shows respect for the work of others. The first= thing that strikes me is that it is usually not good practice to use a word to define itself (e.g., "sustainability is the ability to sustain"). I will provide more comments on your proposed version when I've had a chance to read it more closely. Sunray (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is not good practice to use a word to define itself. However, because of the words generality and constant "tweeks", using its own easily understandable words(sustain and ability) to describe itself should be fine. AdenR (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The version by AdenR is an improvement though it needs structural tweaks I would say it is more direct in general. The beauty of actual guideline editing is that a community of people can tweak and twist and turn something in a positive way, which is very effective at improving an article. Also defining the term is not difficult, and should not be idiosyncratic to some groups pov as that is not neutral pov and conflicted. There a basic definition of the word and it is in order for use, and not a definition by some commercial group, such as a political organization. This definition or any dictionary does the job here also..

I suggest the article needs a major overhaul as to basic direction and tone for neutral point of view and also to cut back extreme length. For starters it does not make sense to define sustainability as sustainable development. That is glaring mistake in the lead, and can be removed. skip sievert (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead and changes

Start

Sustainability is the capacity to endure through time. It can be defined in biological terms as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. In ecology, the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=80366&dict=CALD Dictionary definition of sustainability Retrieved September-25-09

The word 'sustainability' has become a wide-ranging term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, from a local to a global scale and over various time periods. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. Invisible chemical cycles redistribute water, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon through the world's living and non-living systems, and have sustained life for millions of years. As the earth’s human population has increased, natural ecosystems have declined and changes in the balance of natural cycles has had a negative impact on both humans and other living systems.

Scientific evidence shows that humanity is not living in a sustainable manner. Efforts to live more sustainably can take many forms from reorganizing living conditions (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), reappraising economic sectors (green building, sustainable agriculture), or work practices (sustainable architecture), using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy), to adjustments in individual lifestyles. End.

I am open to further constructive tweaking as to language or tone or points. Here is the edit previous to this one [10] The most basic thing was changing the definition from the sustainable development definition and tweaking a sentence for clarity. - skip sievert (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have also started to copy edit the article for neutral point of view and also to remove unrelated tangent material like the multiple definition and commentary about Sustainable development, which is a different subject to this article and the two should not intertwine except for the obvious overlapping ways which I have left as to citing.

I would now like to challenge other editors to keep a lid on side comments about extraneous things and get in and edit creatively the article for brevity and creative presentation, and neutrality. This could and can be fun. I think. skip sievert (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Skip, I quite like most of this lead - but I have strong reservations. As you know, many hours were spent as a collaborative editing team discussing the lead. There was not universal agreement - in such a situation one person cannot override the others - a consensus has to be formed. There was a consensus that the lead was satisfactory. This situation has not changed. If we proceed then we proceed by consensus. "I am open to further constructive tweaking as to language or tone or points" sounds very generous but I am sorry - if consensus thinks your changes are not an improvement then your changes will not be accepted - that is the way consensus works: it is a way of ensuring that one person does not always override others. Much of the above suggestion for the lead I find OK. The consensus on the UN as I recall was that, as an encyclopaedic article, it must reflect current thinking and influences - you were not part of the consensus on this and to assume you were, and that your view should prevail is not acceptable. I need time to consider what you have done. My first reaction is that the editing is in process and the lead was accepted by all editors except you ... so there is no need at this stage for any change. However, I take on board that editing is continuous and that finalisation of the editing in this review is taking time. Specifically: a) to endure in time is a tautology b)the Brundtland definition did emerge from the arena of sustainable development - you are right there - but it has been taken over as a universal definition of sustainability in general - in the absence of agreement on any other definition: it should stay, and it should be in the lead as agreed by consensus. I need more time to consider other points but two things: firstly, I do not accept that there really is any need to alter the lead (but will obviously be willing to consider good faith efforts if others feel there is a need to do so); secondly, I most certainly do not accept the edits of someone who assumes leadership for an article when that person has a long history of not abiding by consensus. The "sign-up team" as you call it is a group of people who made a commitment to work together to a common goal. It is significant that you refused to join this group - thereby indicating your unwillingness to work collaboratively with others. The subsequent history of editing on this article has strongly confirmed your unwillingness to work with a team. You have constantly demanded your own way - frequently against clear consensus, even after matters have been taken to other WP courts. I do not think it is good for either the article or you if you are allowed to ride roughshod over the good work that has been done here already. I would be interested in other editors views. Granitethighs 00:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Granite

I do agree with skips lead changes. It makes sense. He has also defended it with good reason. The only thing I see from your defense in keeping the previous version is that It was agreed as satisfactory by consensus a while ago and therefore no changes can be made, And it is universally accepted(Which is an opinion). These arguments are flimsy compared with the fact that this article is about Sustainability not sustainable development, and it makes the article contradict itself with the definition section. Therefore I have to back Skips current revision of the lead. Also, I have already shown that I think the lead needs more work. Which nullifies the consensus argument.AdenR (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to any and all that are interested, there is a new project page for sustainability issues/articles, and it needs participants and ideas for projects here. Anyone interested in signing onto this project is appreciated. skip sievert (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Granitethighs raises some important points, in my opinion. There is no need to tinker with the lead right now. Rather, we need to focus on reducing the article's size—something that all editors have agreed on. The history and definition sections have been condensed. Another section that needs some trimming is "Ecological dimension." Given the disagreements that have occurred, I think that all major changes should be worked out on the talk page (and subpages) before the article is changed. We need to ensure that the editing of this article is much more collaborative and consensus-based. Please discuss major changes on the talk page and get consensus before changing the article. Sunray (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed changes. Also so called tinkering with the lead is just normal collaborative editing. There is no directive as to guidelines for operating from the framework of a special group of editors.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, if larger issues can not resolve themselves. The team of Sunray and G.T. have now reverted the article in an ownership way consistently over time and in concert. That is not called for. Please cease and desist. This pattern is not good for the article. New people and old are trying to improve the article. I am discussing troubling edits, in reasonable terms. If the behaviour of a user remains troublesome, use the dispute resolution process. This is a particularly bad edit and series of edits that start here and going over a series of edits four or so edits long.

An attempt at neutral pov is reverted Sunray reverts back to original research and seeks to introduce a pov-Here neutral definition is taken out by sourcing a definition to a different subject sustainable growth, and the dictionary definition removed. This steers the article to a political conflict of interest in the lead.

The guidance for citations in the lead may be found here. The statement is very general and is well-documented in the article. And, BTW, your dictionary definition does not support the statement made in any case. Sunray (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

- Wrong. It is a definition for another thing given by a political group. Also the definition given does support almost exactly the term sustainability in context... definition of sustainability. This has been gone over before and other people have come to the same conclusion besides myself that have edited collaboratively on the article page. By reinstating this edit definition which has been discussed and rejected recently, [11] you put in a political pov and took out the neutral presentation of an ordinary definition of a word. That is not good. There has been a marked problem in over-sourcing political pov in the article.

Editors please comment. I do believe Sunray's changes should be reverted because they do not improve the information. I could cite other examples. It is noted that Sunray reverted each and every edit done by someone other than himself. The ownership aspects of a team or person here can not take precedence over guidelines. skip sievert (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We spent a great deal of time working on the lead and getting consensus. I have asked for changes to be discussed and agreed to here. I do not think that is unreasonable given that the policy says: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making". If you are unable to work collaboratively, perhaps you should edit elsewhere. Sunray (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a voluntary. Your time is not a measurement that can defend an action. Edit quality and guidelines is the measurement. If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. There are ownership issues currently with yourself and one other editor. Collaborative editing is not the criteria of yourself or a group outside of normal guidelines. Consensus is a living thing. I suggest that you revert the changes you made and start to edit collaboratively. Also do not tell myself or others to edit elsewhere. Again this is an ownership issue that you have repeated many times. skip sievert (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Skip, if you are not prepared to edit collaboratively then you are simply trying to impose your pov on others. Non-collaborative ad hoc editing is a recipe for edit warring that diminishes Wikipedia as both an enjoyable communal activity and valuable source of information. After such extensive collaborative work on the lead (not surprising considering its importance) and after reaching consensus, to make several key changes without discussion is extremely provocative. TP has ceased to edit this article stating you as the reason. Frankly, your actions make me want to edit elsewhere, all that keeps me active on this article is that I do not want to see a potentially good article rapidly deteriorate.Granitethighs 01:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is very troubling. Sunray and GT seem to be taking control of this article and are trying to control what other editors can edit and how.

Proof

Sunray wrote "There is no need to tinker with the lead right now. Rather, we need to focus on reducing the article's size—something that all editors have agreed on". GT has also gave these same reasons in his reverts.

This seems like an attempt to focus other editors contribution to the article. Which I don't think is wikipedia's policy. They are using these reasons as the only defense for any changes they don't agree with. Which is not good collaborative editing.

Example

Sunray has reverted many edits by skip, but I will focus on one for now [12] . By the looks of it, skips version is a very reasonable. It is short and to the point without needless extra writing. Sunrays reason for the revert was because it was a "major change" and needed to be discussed. This is not true.

I suggest Sunray undo all of the reverts he has done. They are unreasonable.AdenR (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What is unreasonable about them? Please elaborate. I'm not sure why you are jumping in to defend Skip. Is this more "tandem editing?" If it is, you will be treated as one voice. Sunray (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"One Voice"? What is that supposed to mean? I don't see how you're assumption of guilt on me has anything to do with editing the article. This needs to stop. I have not been guilty of anything, I have NOTHING to do with skip. I came to help edit this article because I saw how lengthy and repetitive it was. If this continues further, I will start to take it as a personal attack bordering on harassment. Please stop.

I have given my reasons why the Bruntland commission definition needs deletion. I'm not defending anyone. I'm defending the edits. Why include this in the lead and then continue to add additional writing contradicting it. Also, this is overlapping material from sustainable development.

Sunray, can you please elaborate why you defend keeping it? Instead of constantly repeating that it has been agreed by consensus a while ago. Give Real reasons besides this, please.AdenR (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, please do not assume so much as in accusatory Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks that are similar to taunting and baiting another editor. An editor may have been driven previously from the article by the team of which you seem to be a spokesperson. Are you the spokesperson of the team? It is not a good idea to try and frighten off the newbies by opening strange investigations which the team did previously and which went around in circles and was dismissed [13] or doing divisive things also previously by restructuring page comments and so forth is not suggested again. This or the repetition of negative points done previously is not going to help as to why we are here Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia.

Also accusing people repeatedly on the talk page of tandem editing when you are in an organized team that does tandem edit by design (and call it consensus) is not suggested and really a waste of time to call people things like "That editor is a..."sockpuppet" "meatpuppet" or other such things Wikipedia:Assume bad faith is not a good idea. You have done that though. It is puzzling to me why this lame edit conflict is taking place. It may be time to accept that the teams efforts is not improving the article by being an exclusive arbiter as to judgment of good or bad and reverter of all that do not agree with previous pov of the team. Thanks. The article really needs a big make over as to many issues. I propose that be done in the next couple of weeks. skip sievert (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I have also signed up on the sustainability task force just now. Thanks.AdenR (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We all have a fairly individualistic modes of English expression. I think I could recognise just a few sentences from Sunray, TP or Nick when they did not have their signatures after the sentence. Skip I know because he uses a kind of broken English. Nothing wrong with that but the sense is often slightly difficult to discern exactly. For example Wikipedia is a voluntary. Your time is not a measurement that can defend an action. This is fairly characteristic of Skips writing. This is not a criticism: he gets the meaning across which is all that matters on the talk page. He also uses his own idioms. For example, very few people use the expression "as to" but Skip uses it a lot. It can be seen in much of the historical archived talk pages as well as on this page. It seems very surprising to me that Aden writes in such a similar style. Of course this is all probably pure coincidence ... Granitethighs 07:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As the SPI found, they do edit in tandem. There is no reason why a relatively new user would invariably side with Skip while ignoring the perspective of other editors. WP:SOCK states: "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." Sunray (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, you are currently Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing different aspects of Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks making personal remarks, and judgments that are not connected to Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. An editing team does not and will not control the article now or in the future whether a sign up Talk:Sustainability#Sign-up that edits in tandem, as a kind of project, or some other group that decides they have the right of ownership of the article. The non stop negative commentary on the talk/discussion page you are doing is getting old, and I suggest

Shortcut

WP:WORLD

Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox. Editors can remember that their egos are not on the line while they are here at Wikipedia. Please remember that the majority of the editors are human and are prone to mistakes, errors, flared-up emotions and stress. Editors should remember that the goal is encyclopedic information and should attempt to set aside their egos while they are here at Wikipedia, and that includes everyone. Now, lets get on with a positive communication all and rewrite this article which is in dire shape, and needs new people with new thoughts and ideas as to the direction thereof. skip sievert (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for reformatting and restructuring the article

A rewrite of this article for clarity and focus and neutral presentation has become an issue and is suggested. N.p.o.v. is to be stressed, and information that is not so much directly related to the subject, should be left off. Over weighting political perspectives has been an issue with the current version which needs changing to neutral sourcing and phrasing.

Mostly the article is good now but there are glaring problems in certain areas such as over-sourcing to political viewpoints and intro original research connected in the formatting. While the old editing team is welcome to participate, it in no way will determine content out side of ordinary Wikipedia guidelines as to consensus, verifiable sources, neutral point of view ...etc. - While the old editing Sustainability#Sign-up team, has done good work... their efforts at good article status and eventual f.a. article status appreciated also, the actual writing and focus and sourcing of the article need to change. I hope this is taken in good spirit. Comments please below - skip sievert (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There already is a sign-up at the top of the page for editors to join in improving this article. We are currently (if the disruptive commentary on this page dies down, that is) re-writing sections of the article in summary style. Please let's get on with this. Sunray (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you now understand Sunray that a special team can not work outside of Wikipedia guidelines. I have reverted your edit that was against normal recent consensus and put back what is agreed on by the new consensus. Please leave this information and try to improve new information rather than reverting to old consensus which no longer is being used. G.T. I would like to encourage you to edit cooperatively now and creatively with new people. Thanks. - skip sievert (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that have any relevance to the issues just brought up? As said the team on the article no longer controls the article and they will not control the article in the future as to ownership outside of the normal established guidelines as has been the case in the past. Apparently the posts above yours did not make an impression. So be it. Just do not expect the team to any longer control this article outside of normal guidelines. I hope that is clear. I hoped for a better response. Suggestion to other editors as to making positive contributions to an actual sanctioned by guidelines way to get involved... please sign up here for participation in general sustainability discussion and issues Sustainability task force. skip sievert (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Skip, The article has been undergoing a major rewrite and restructure for nearly 1 year now, it is quite a comprehensive and time-consuming task, particularly for those of us who have other activities to attend to in our lives outside of Wikipedia, we are essentially volenteering our time, knowledge, writing skills, etc. This process is ongoing and I think requesting a restructure/rewrite at this stage show a slight misunderstanding of what is currently happening with this article. Nick carson (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

More discussion on lead and changes

This is the new lead area as agreed on by the current consensus. The dictionary definition has been added back in as to avoid political meanings from any groups. Also a new ref/note has been added this one which shows about the idea that mankind is living in a not sustainable way Union of concerned scientists statement

Start

Sustainability is the capacity to endure through time. It can be defined in biological terms as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. In ecology, the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. Dictionary definition of sustainability Retrieved September-25-09

The word 'sustainability' has become a wide-ranging term that can be applied to many facets of life on Earth, from a local to a global scale and over various time periods. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. Invisible chemical cycles redistribute water, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon through the world's living and non-living systems, and have sustained life for millions of years. As the earth’s human population has increased, natural ecosystems have declined and changes in the balance of natural cycles has had a negative impact on both humans and other living systems.

Scientific evidence shows that humanity is not living in a sustainable manner.Statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved September-27-09 Efforts to live more sustainably can take many forms from reorganizing living conditions (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), reappraising economic sectors (green building, sustainable agriculture), or work practices (sustainable architecture), using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy), to adjustments in individual lifestyles. End

Discuss and comment below please. - skip sievert (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is better than the previous one. But, "Through time" is redundant. I suggest changing it to "ability to sustain". I seriously doubt people would have a hard time understanding that. It would also stop the constant lead sentence changes... hopefully. Also, this sentence(In ecology, the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time.) is just a repeat of the previous one. Unless I'm missing something here. I also suggest rephrasing (The word 'sustainability' has become a wide-ranging term that can be applied to many facets of life on Earth, from a local to a global scale and over various time periods.) to (It serves as a description of earth systems' ability to sustain life) and moving it as the second sentence. Such as...

Start

Sustainability is the ability to sustain. It serves as a description of earth systems' ability to sustain life. It can be defined in biological terms as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity over time. Dictionary definition of sustainability Retrieved September-25-09

Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. Invisible chemical cycles redistribute water, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon through the world's living and non-living systems, and have sustained life for millions of years. As the earth’s human population has increased, natural ecosystems have declined and changes in the balance of natural cycles has had a negative impact on both humans and other living systems.

Scientific evidence shows that humanity is not living in a sustainable manner.Statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved September-27-09 Efforts to live more sustainably can take many forms from reorganizing living conditions (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), reappraising economic sectors (green building, sustainable agriculture), or work practices (sustainable architecture), using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy), to adjustments in individual lifestyles. End

I like this version because it addresses the different aspects of sustainability. The ability of humans to sustain themselves. And the processes and systems that sustain biological systems. Tell me what you guys think? AdenR (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you would side with Skip. Please bear in mind that there is a consensus on the wording of the lead section. It was worked out over a considerable amount of time and involved several editors. Skip never agreed with it. However, until there is a new consensus on this page, it should not be changed. Please stop with the reverts. Sunray (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You reverted the edit Sunray, not the other user. You removed the citation references. You are in disagreement currently only. Wikipedia is pretty existential. Edits from months ago do not qualify as consensus, especially when their value is doubted by others. It has already been decided that the article is now in a rewrite. You have reverted any edit that disagrees with some made up criteria which is not a guideline. I have asked you multiple times to not do that. Wikipedia benefits from interactive editing. Articles are improved that way. skip sievert (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep the edit yes. I also agree with the change in the first sentence by AdenR. At this point I think it is safe to say that Sunray will not be cooperating with consensus editing on the sustainability page due to whatever issues and suggest his edit be reverted to my version given on the talk page and that is then modified to reflect AdenR's first sentence comment, which I agree with. Sunray if behavior of ownership of the article continues then other measures seem appropriate. This is not cooperative editing as your revert was done. I invite G.T. to edit cooperatively without any baggage now from prior discussions or editing aspects. skip sievert (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I always edit cooperatively. In my view there is currently a cooperative consensus concerning the Lead. However, nothing on Wikipedia is set in stone so if a new consensus is established on this talk page agreeing that "improvements" have been made then I will certainly be cooperative. In the meantime I do not regard current suggestions as "improvements" and, in view of the recent history of this page, I think direct editing of the Lead without discussion here is uncivil at best but more like edit warring. Incidentally, amazing though you might think it, I am keen for the article to be as good as possible. I do not disagree with changes out of sheer bloody-mindedness. --Granitethighs 22:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that as soon as editing directly becomes contentious then issues should be discussed on the talk page. Neither Skip nor Aden have shown any inclination to do this. If you wish to take this matter further Skip I would be very pleased to get another view.--Granitethighs 22:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Unfortunate then. You yourself can not make these judgments ^ above, about conduct, though if you feel that way dispute resolution is the key. I have put all changes on the talk page for discussion so what you are saying above does not exactly make sense, and yes they have been discussed by those willing to discuss. Sadly the article improvement is being held up now for no particular reason than citing consensus from several months ago... and that is not how Wikipedia works Wikipedia:Editing policy. I was hoping G.T. that you would get editing cooperatively without resorting to consensus from months ago, that is now not thought appropriate, and putting past differences aside could be done in the present. skip sievert (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You or Aden make changes in the article, then mention what you have done on the talk page. That is not seeking consensus.--Granitethighs 23:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's great to see things at last starting to come right here. I have had an epiphany, and come to realize that Skip is always right, always, without exception. Once you realize that, life with Skip becomes very easy. I notice, Sunray, you didn't support my proposal above to confine Skip's comments to content issues. Of course you are right. We all need guidelines, and who better to point them out, again and again, and again and again, than Skip. Skip himself has formed his serendipitous alliance with a clone of himself, as GT pointed out above. So we now have the doubly formidable Skip/Aden. GT, you seem to have not quite had your epiphany yet. This talk page is not about the content of the article. Skip/Aden will look after that. But you have a important role correcting the grammar of Skip/Aden, which as you pointed out, can be a little remiss. For myself, I am content that the article is now in such safe hands, so I make my final bow. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge you have never edited the article and have only come here to violate talk page guidelines by making personal attacks and taunting and baiting other editors, like your statement above Geronomo ^. - skip sievert (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that after such a comprehensive and well-considered rewrite, certain editors are making ill-considered changes that are not discussed to prior on the talk page. There is no excuse for this, all material that could be considered sub par for inclusion in the article by consensus must be subject to discussion to achieve consensus on it's inclusion or lack there of prior to inclusion in the article. Nick carson (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo reminds us that we all need to stick to content. Nick and GT underscore the need to discuss changes on the talk page. Would all editors please heed this advice? Sunray (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I also cite my support for comments by Granitethighs, Sunray and Geronimo. Nick carson (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Hope you can stick around. We need help in getting this back on track. Sunray (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Really hoping to stay away from this article and do something enjoyable with the very little spare time I have, but watching an article this important, and which has been the subject of so much work by people I respect, slip backwards feels like betrayal.

I have said for some time that what is lacking here - and in Wikipedia in general - is any external judge of quality. The rewrite of the lead is a perfect example. Skip/Aden says that the sentence "Sustainability is the capacity to endure" needs to be replaced to "avoid political meanings from any groups" (the sentence is political how, exactly??) and suggests "Sustainability is the ability to sustain" is an improvement because "I seriously doubt people would have a hard time understanding that." Indeed not. "Custard pie is pie made with custard" is also easy to understand. That doesn't make it good encyclopedic writing. And having Skip/Aden agree with Aden/Skip doesn't make it consensus (as I've suggested before, if you want to be treated as separate people, try thinking and acting separately).

I am absolutely certain that the original lead sentence has value, changing "endure" to "endure through time" is a Tautology (rhetoric), and saying "Sustainability is the ability to sustain" is a tautological tautology. So the change is for the worse. But the important question is, whose assessment of quality has weight here? It seems that "proof by repeated assertion" wins every time, and having the most hours available to spend repeating themself makes Skip/Aden the expert on sustainability.

Without any respect for real-world expertise in sustainability, and with no agreement as to how to judge quality, it's inevitable that most edits will be for the worse. That is certainly the case with the recent spate of edits.

I note that on other articles, expertise is respected and things that have been decided, stay decided so people can use their time productively. On this page we have an editor/s who has/have demonstrated many times an inability to work in this way. So a reasonable substitute would be to post changes on the talk page and leave a reasonable time for discussion before changing the main article. And in respect for everyone who's worked on the article, the precautionary principle or "first do no harm" should apply.--Travelplanner (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TP (and Nick above) for these comments, and for keeping the quality of the article firmly in view.--Granitethighs 11:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

TP, I do agree with your assessment of the lead sentence. BUT, Their is no reason to come off so strong and include attacks as others have done. I merely suggested my opinions on the matter. Also, I shouldn't be attacked and included in this argument. I have been cooperative in all my edits. I have given full reasons to defend them. The only edit out of consent of the team was the blue marble image . After the edit, I still discussed it. I am now asking you guys nicely to stop these accusations/tauntings. I don't know skip in any way. PLEASE stop. AdenR (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

TP's comments are obviously carefully thought out. She expresses a serious concern about the editing of this page and (given the problems we have experienced), underscores the need to agree on changes here. AdenR you have not yet shown an identity distinct from Skip. We will judge you by your actions. If you demonstrate individuality, we will treat you accordingly. Sunray (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. I think it is safe to say that the sign up team is speaking with one voice and can be considered as one 'vote' though Wikipedia does not use voting, and is not a democracy. Though the Sign up team attempted to make the article f.a. or then g.a. it is the opinion of others that this has not gone well, and that the article does not look good and also needs a new attempt at redoing. So it is in a new rewrite. Most of the article is good but there are glaring things that need redoing. Right now consensus calls for the last Sunray revert to be undone. In this sense it is also noted that the team which speaks in one voice, have pretty much turned the discussion page into a defense of old consensus which is in dispute.

A reminder that the team is no longer in ownership of the article and other editors are now forging ahead to make improvements. Any more problems concerning that can be referred to dispute resolution, but it would be a pity if just constructive editing and discussion are not enough to resolve things on the discussion page. Since the team reinforces or wants to reinforce old consensus and does not respond to new consensus, most of these problems as to editing have arisen, in my opinion. Sunray reverts any changes as the leader of the sign up team which operates outside of guidelines of Wikipedia. Since the sign up group acts in concert they will now be reverted if they are not involved with others that are attempting to improve the article, and as a special interest group or people connected that have formed a club or what ever you want to call it they have no special rights or consideration outside of the normal way that Wikipedia guidelines operate. I hope this is understandable.

Some basic issues have been brought up. Using a definition for sustainable development by the U.N. to define sustainability is not suggested and no further comment on that is needed to revert what is supporting a wrong definition the team has insisted on in old consensus in the article and then reverting repeatedly to this wrong definition and citing consensus repeatedly as the reason. That is a problem. Also using a basic dictionary definition as contrasted with a political groups definition of Sustainable development is a problem as to neutral point of view, and this will again be reverted. Those issues have not been addressed by the sign up team which defends their edits as being consensus. So, since the sign up team acts with one voice and in essential edits acts in tandem, they, as said will now be reverted, when a more general consensus of people that are acting according to Wikipedia guidelines edit the article.

Its a pity that such contentious aspects have been exerted in this article, but 3 or 4 people acting together and sharing similar pov can not control an article just because of numbers if their information is not correct or they just insist on a certain pov. It is noted that this has been a long standing problem of over sourcing political groups in the past to the point of comic absurdity as in this edit which is an example of the team pov which is not a neutral pov and has not been one. Again Sunray reverts for the team as in that edit. Example that the team is involved or was involved with the U.N. this is pretty overt and another user sourced a book written by themselves and formerly given as links twice on the article sustainability to mainly U.N. topics. It is noted also that discussion has often reverted to blatant attack and taunting and baiting others that disagree and edit civilly on the article and discussion page. So. Fair warning in a positive way I hope that the team will now be considered not a consensus if they use the argument of consensus from months ago. If the team edits in tandem as they have they will be considered one group with one view and therefore will be reverted if that view is not defended according to guidelines. skip sievert (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of words Skip. If you mean:

the lead sentence can stay as it is
you still have a problem with including the Brundtland definition in the lead

then that is something we can discuss.

BUT we need to also respect the topic and respect real-world expertise. Working for the UN, writing a book about sustainability, these are achievements that deserve respect and add to people's ability to contribute to an encyclopedia. You use them as accusations of bias, this is totally inappropriate.--Travelplanner (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We're going round in circles - but, once again, a few points:

As TP and others have demonstrated, the idea that Skip/Aden are engaging in "constructive editing" is a matter of opinion - it seems just the reverse to me
Geronimo, TP, Sunray, Nick and GT have all expressed concerns about current editing of Aden/Skip - the idea that the people listed make up some sort of collusion against the valuable editing of Skip/Aden is obvious nonsense
The idea that Aden/Skip are "forging ahead" with the editing is equally ridiculous
The editing process continues - I see no "problems" as Skip seems to infer - this seems to be Skips take on things
Removing the Brundtland definition is simply a provocative act. It is a minority directly imposing its view on the majority without discussion.
"Wikipedia is not a democracy" - ah, now I understand - everyone should defer to Skip's views, why didn't I catch on before?
The constant derogatory reference to "sign-up group", "club", "special interest group" for a collaborative editing team trying to improve the article is both uncivil and tedious. Who is doing the baiting and taunting Skip?

Granitethighs 21:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proper development of the article seems to be being impeded by multiple editors working in tandem. Issues being brought up are not being discussed. The article is using a definition for sustainable development. That is not reasonable. A dictionary definition is reasonable, not a political pov shared by the sign up team. Also the above missive is not civil and does not adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements. skip sievert (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Skip. I think we get your point. Sunray (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Brundtland definition in lead

Ok there are reasonable points of view on both sides of the above question. I will attempt to summarise them:

Reasons not to include

the definition was originally developed as referring to sustainable development, which is and remains a separate thing.
it was written at a time when the task of meeting the (then) needs of the (then) current generation fell within the carrying of the earth. Both population and per capita consumption have since incresed so this is no longer the case. If future generations must use fewer resources than the current generation, then how is this consistent with "meeting their needs"?
Adding the quote to the lead while having contradiction later on doesn't make sense.
It may make more sense to open the definition section with this quote since it is the most widely used definition?

Reasons to include

Although originally written to describe sustainable development, the definition is widely used to describe sustainability in general, and is often rejigged to describe eg. sustainable agriculture ("agriculture that meets the needs of the present...etc)
There are many other definitions of sustainability but none that has been used so widely for so long.
The work of the Brundtland commission is widely respected and is part of mainstream thought - (too mainstream for some editors' personal views but people don't access an encyclopedia to find out the personal views of individuals)

Other reasons

These reasons need work and thought before they really count either for or against:

A dictionary definition is better (which dictionary, why better?) (some editors think better because neutral, but then again, anyone who wants a dictionary definition would surely be looking in a dictionary??

The Brundtland Commission was set up under the auspices of the UN - this is irrelevant, the quality of their work and the weight accorded to it in mainstream published sources is the issue, not who funded that work.

I suggest that we look at the above lists, expand and improve them, and then make the decision on that basis, as to whether to keep the Brundtland defintion in the lead.

Can I also keep a running list of things that have been agreed. So far I have one item on that list:

The first sentence of the lead is "Sustainability is the capacity to endure".

Cheers --Travelplanner (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Something to ponder...WP:Consensus, is never a vote, ever. A single editor "should" be able to gather consensus for something through citing policy. As you say and others have pointed out, it is not a definition of sustainability, far from it, so making the article say it is, does not work as to good information or factual information. That is plain I think. A dictionary definition as given, in the lead of the 'word'/sustainability' itself, may be the best course, to get the idea across of what it is (without baggage), and the dictionary definition carries no political pov which adds problems as to neutral pov presentation, that pointed out many times as a recurring problem throughout the article by over sourcing to one political group. Also, the dictionary definition actually sources the information in a direct way, contrary to another editors thought that it did not. That is shown by example in the definition ala the text in the article. Here is the new edit given those aspects here

Thanks. Suggestion to team or group editing members. Small tweaks no doubt are preferable, and constructive group editing, proceeds more simply that way, and consensus builds on itself also that way. skip sievert (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring Travelplanner's attempt to discuss this matter. Instead, you raise the same points you have raised soooo many times on this page. Then you proceed to try to reinsert your changes into the article. I've reverted those changes for now. Would you please engage with other editors who are willing to discuss things with you and attempt to get consensus for your changes before reverting again? As Granitethighs has said, consensus is the only way to deal with differences of opinion in editing. For the sake of bringing some peace to this page, please respond to TP. Sunray (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are confusing. He did respond to TP. He gave REASONS not to include the quote and use a real definition. AdenR (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very broad topic. My concerns and additions are listed below.

"the quality of their work and the weight accorded to it in mainstream published sources is the issue, not who funded that work"

Scientific information either from the U.N. or other groups is NOT the problem right now.

"A dictionary definition is better (which dictionary, why better?)"

Why Not? A dictionarys job is to define terms/words. Not interpret them.

Reasons not to include

the quote was originally developed as referring to sustainable development, which is and remains a separate thing.
it was written at a time when the task of meeting the (then) needs of the (then) current generation fell within the carrying of the earth. Both population and per capita consumption have since incresed so this is no longer the case. If future generations must use fewer resources than the current generation, then how is this consistent with "meeting their needs"?
A group doesn't own a word, which is what the quote is eluding to. (I think Aden has a point here - the lead should open up a range of possibilities, and it's immediately followed by a definition section TP)
A simple dictionary term already does the job of neutrally defining it.(disagree see below TP)
Adding the quote to the lead while having contradiction later on doesn't make sense. (I think this is a fair point, but sort of goes with the point two above TP)

These arguments outweigh reasons for inclusion.

Regards.AdenR (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded that the points you have raised in any way justify the removal of the Brundtland quote and its replacement by a dictionary definition. Brundtland's definition is by far the most commonly used definition of sustainability. To not include it would be unencyclopedic. It is important to inform the reader about the topic and to omit that definition would be to fail in our task. The next section goes on to include some of the criticisms of Brundtland, so its treatment conforms to WP:NPOV. Sunray (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for engaging in discussion - Aden please note that waiting a few hours before transferring your suggested change to the main page is not really fair on those of us who can't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. Adding the valid points and changes from the above, I get:

Reasons not to include

the definition was originally developed as referring to sustainable development, which is and remains a separate thing.
it was written at a time when the task of meeting the (then) needs of the (then) current generation fell within the carrying of the earth. Both population and per capita consumption have since incresed so this is no longer the case. If future generations must use fewer resources than the current generation, then how is this consistent with "meeting their needs"?
Adding the quote to the lead while having contradiction later on doesn't make sense (Aden).
It may make more sense to open the definition section with this quote? (TP)

Reasons to include

Although originally written to describe sustainable development, the definition is widely used to describe sustainability in general, and is often rejigged to describe eg. sustainable agriculture ("agriculture that meets the needs of the present...etc)
There are many other definitions of sustainability but none that has been used so widely for so long.
The work of the Brundtland commission is widely respected and is part of mainstream thought - (too mainstream for some editors' personal views but people don't access an encyclopedia to find out the personal views of individuals)
The Brundtland definition is so widely used that it would be unencyclopedic not to include it (Sun) (somewhere...not necessarily in the lead...TP)

Other reasons

These reasons need work and thought before they really count either for or against:

A dictionary definition is better (which dictionary, why better?) (AdenR: better because neutral) (TP: anyone who wants a dictionary definition would surely be looking in a dictionary??)

The Brundtland Commission was set up under the auspices of the UN - this is irrelevant, the quality of their work and the weight accorded to it in mainstream published sources is the issue, not who funded that work.

--Travelplanner (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Thanks to both of you for engaging in discussion - Aden please note that waiting a few hours before transferring your suggested change to the main page is not really fair on those of us who can't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia."

Yes, well I'm sorry about that. I let things get the best of me. You guys have to understand that including the quote in the lead while at the same time describing its various interpretations in the definition is distracting. Also, I suggest the quote or sentence be transferred to the definition section. Seeing how it describes it's(sustainability) various interpretations. I think this is very reasonable. Having a dictionary term in the lead IS important. This is of course an encyclopedia, which no doubt discusses this subject at great length, but considering its generality a dictionary term in the lead is valuable.AdenR (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for editing decisions

Noted again also something to ponder...WP:Consensus, is never a vote, ever. A single editor "should" be able to gather consensus for something through citing policy. As you say and others have pointed out, it is not a definition of sustainability, so can be reverted, by anyone at any time. It is a definition of sustainable development. That is a different thing. Sunray a team with you as leader is no longer relevant given the long history of pointless reverts, uncivil commentary, and disruption of Wikipedia to make points by your fellow active editors outside of Wikpedia guidelines and which edits in tandem. If you have a problem with that then seek conflict resolution. Your previous behavior and the others in the team have been carefully preserved and I doubt your actions will be looked on favorably. That is my opinion.

The team does not own the article. You reverted basic changes in direct conflict and stated several multiple times, with a very direct attitude, that no one can touch the article without permission from you, or your team, which is connected to your interpretation, of what consensus is. I suggest you stop reverting agreed on consensus edits now. And will restate that an organized editing team which edits as a block or tandem edits is not going to control the article anymore. Sunray and others may choose to work as a group and establish processes for their editing, but they may not take ownership of an article and dictate processes to others outside of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. skip sievert (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is also noted that an Admin. editor Ohana just gave Travelplanner rollback rights on articles. This seems like an obvious conflict as they are in the team here together and also the fact that there is a major difference of opinion going on that will probably be affected by giving user Travelplanner easier revert use... 19:50, 29 September 2009 OhanaUnited (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Travelplanner from (none) to Rollbackers ‎ (Trustworthy user) end from here [14]. The timing of this seems way wrong. Ohana is part of the editing team here. skip sievert (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You go on about ownership rather than discuss article content. You repeat baseless accusations about the other editors of this page and you thus violate talkpage guidelines.

The current version of the lead was worked out by several editors and you had abundant input to that. It has been peer reviewed, and if we can get on with editing of the rest of the article, it will be presented for a good article review. Therefore, changes should be by consensus. For the nth time you are requested to stick to content and work on getting consensus for any changes. You have contributed nothing to the discussion initiated by Travelplanner. BTW, I fail to see how the granting of rollback rights to another editor has anything to do with you. Please try to stick to article content. Sunray (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, a reminder that WP:V trumps all and if need be, also a reminder that WP:Wikilawyer activity is not going to work for the team anymore about maintaining the teams edits because the team speaks in one voice for the most part and the edits done by the team have no special value outside of normal guidelines and policy --> Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Your comment that the issues have not been discussed was refuted previously. So. Going in elaborate circles in a Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing way is apparent from the discourse you are doing. Is that clear? Circular arguments are not really arguments about the issue of the wrong definition anymore and that edit in the lead can be reverted by anyone as it is not accurate to describe Sustainable development definition as sustainability.

Also, the political interpretation of sustainability as to definition is not appropriate and a pov. made worse previously as the ONLY sourced thing in the lead. The dictionary definition is accurate as pointed out. This is basic. No argument as to consensus .. and conjuring consensus from months ago is not only pointless it is disruptive editing you are doing now by reverting using that rationale. Is that clear? - Noted also... please do not say that making improvements by other editors who follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies is an impediment to good article review. If you want to edit the article do so. However by limiting your activity recently to the single purpose of maintaining a certain version outside of general consensus you are displaying ownership rights, which you or the editing team does not have. - skip sievert (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, can people please stop editing the first sentence of the lead? I honestly thought we'd reached an agreement on this one sentence after how many discussions of alternatives. If you honestly believe that after all this time you've come up with something better, the talk page would be the place to unveil it. Regarding the Brundtland definition, I'm less convinced that we've got it right, see above for a summary of suggestions to date. Cheers --Travelplanner (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC). PS Skip, perhaps I've been given rollback rights because I am a trustworthy user???

Hello, I think it is better..."endure" just didn't seem right. A rock can "Endure". So I put maintain seeing how action is needed for something to be maintained. It is also used in the following sentence which supports it. Whether it be capacity or ability to maintain. I think it's the best word of choice. AdenR (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Aden/Skip: The lead sentence has been discussed at great length. Skip has always objected to the word "endure." However, that was the phrasing that was agreed to after much discussion. Time to move on. Sunray (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunray. Please avoid annoying ploys while commenting on this page such as the use that yourself and Granitethighs employ by calling another editor by two names. Its not funny. Its not clever. That is a part of a behavioral pattern of incivility and disruptive and unacceptable and and connected to a series of egregious personal attacks on the page made by the team, of the pattern by the team on this discussion page. Baiting or taunting other editors is a super example of assuming bad faith. There are so many examples of this method by the team of editors that formerly controlled the article that it is almost a poster boy for those issues. Consensus changes. The team does not own the page. I hope that is clear. Recently only one editor in the team has attempted good faith editing discussion and changes as to discussion. That would be T.P. who is discussing content now and sources in the lead. Bravo (: - skip sievert (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The minimum a new editor could do is read the discussion that produced the current Lead here. From what has recently been said and done on the Lead I suggest Aden has not read the discussion and that Skip clearly has his own agenda. One important point made early on in the discussion was that sustainability has many meanings - the idea of just grabbing a dictionary definition is not as simple as it sounds. All this was discussed at length as we gradually drew towards a consensus (minus Skip needless to say). Granitethighs 00:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus from several months ago has no weight if it can not be defended logically in the present. Reasons for the revert have not been addressed. Keeping one certain copy because a team of people editing together outside of the normal process decides they like it and speaks in one voice is not a good enough reason. Sorry but that is not how Wikipedia works. A good verifiable source that is neutral in pov is preferable over a political definition with associated conflicts of pov. A well known dictionary is a reliable source. Citing a conflict of interest pov from a political group is not a good definition, especially since this definition pertains to a different subject, that being sustainable development... so the point is not made by G.T. above as to its value in the lead. That seems pretty clear. The team G.T. does not have special ownership of the article outside of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which make interesting and suggested reading. Since this article is in a re write it is hoped and desired that all parties actively participate constructively. Most of the article is good but there are basic areas that need copy editing and work. skip sievert (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead discussion aspects part two

The current version of the lead has had endured added back in. It also has gone back to the dictionary definition to avoid baggage of political pov coflicted aspects and not gone back to the mis definition of sustainable development previously. It also has a link to this Union of Concerned Scientist which demonstrates the claim scientifically that humans are about to undergo catastrophic events unless sustainability issues are addressed. That information was given a while ago from a very disparate group of scientists from around the world and thus is very n.p.o.v. as to it pov. skip sievert (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Good points. This material does a good job of replacing what the U.N. quote was trying to accomplish in the lead and increases its neutrality. I have a really hard time understanding the reasons for keeping the U.N. quote/definition in the lead while 3 or more editors have supported removing it. Here are my updated reasons.

Reasons not to include U.N. quote/definition

the definition was originally developed as referring to sustainable development, which is and remains a separate thing.
it was written at a time when the task of meeting the (then) needs of the (then) current generation fell within the carrying of the earth. Both population and per capita consumption have since incresed so this is no longer the case. If future generations must use fewer resources than the current generation, then how is this consistent with "meeting their needs"?
Adding the quote to lead while saying it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations is distracting and confusing. This can easily be solved by A.) Removing and replacing it with skips suggestion B.) Transfer it to the definition section or C.) Transfer and Replace. (Aden)
A group doesn't own a word, which is what the quote is eluding to.(Aden)
A well known dictionary is a more reliable source for defining the term.(Aden)(skip)(TP Disagrees)
Union of Concerned Scientist Does a good job of replacing what the U.N. quote was trying to accomplish in a neutral way.(Skip)(Aden)

Reasons to include

Although originally written to describe sustainable development, the definition is widely used to describe sustainability in general, and is often rejigged to describe eg. sustainable agriculture ("agriculture that meets the needs of the present...etc)(Aden: this is an opinion. this subject is too broad to have an organization own the term)
There are many other definitions of sustainability but none that has been used so widely for so long. (Aden: no there isn't, just different ideas and interpretations to achieve it. Also this is the same as the one above)
The work of the Brundtland commission is widely respected and is part of mainstream thought(Aden: this is the same as the previous one above)
The Brundtland definition is so widely used that it would be unencyclopedic not to include it (Sun) (TP:somewhere...not necessarily in the lead.)(Aden: This is the same as above, just worded differently)

TP, please do not include a "other reasons" section next time. Reasons should be for or against only. Also, If you are for it please do not include reasons against it as in this one (It may make more sense to open the definition section with this quote? (TP)) You misinterpreted my point. I don't want the quote to open the definition section. I'd rather not have it included at all as it is for sustainable developement. However, transfering it to the definition section(NOT Opening the section) is a good middle ground. AdenR (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot follow who is claiming what in the above. I would be happy for the Brundtland definition to head the definition section. I have never been especially keen on it, but its wide use and general acceptance demands that an encyclopaedic account give it prominence. Issues of whether it is a "good" or "accurate" definition and indeed who produced it are irrelevant Aden (in regard to its inclusion that is). It is in an encyclopaedia because it has had such a major influence on thinking about the subject of sustainability. Its origin in an arena of sustainable development is also of minor consequence - it is not evident in the definition itself anyway.

You can not follow it? The Brundtland definition can ONLY be used to define sustainable growth. That is because that is what it was designed to do. It is not a definition of sustainability. We have a definition of sustainable now that is accurate here. G.T. it may have had a major influence on you, but that is not the issue here. The dictionary definition carries more weight because it is neutral point of view, and carries no political baggage, a recurring issue in the past on the article of over weighting political perspective. The U.N. definition is not listed in the encyclopedia, or any encyclopedia I am aware of as to the definition of sustainable. So it is a non starter to use it to define sustainable. Again this has been gone over, and circuitous logic as to why it is good is no longer appreciated as it seems opinion based. skip sievert (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Other concerns

I've realised that in all the recent excitement and "edit warring" the Lead has now undergone several changes from its original "consensus" form that IMO detract from its quality. I will discuss these later, do not have time at present.
The meaning of consensus and its importance, indeed necessity, for collaborative editing is absolutely clear to me. Rants about "WP not being a democracy", "ownership" of article by an editing team etc are simply the grumbles of someone not getting their own way and should be treated as such. All parties have at least agreed to abide by WP guidelines and consensus is the only way when the going gets rough.
To seek FA status for the article the collaborative editing team was editing in an orderly way (rather than dipping into any part of the article at any time). Each section was worked through at a time on a separate page until consensus was reached - at which point the section was put up in real time. My own view is that this collective cooperation has produced something to be proud of. Of course, editing in this way is not compulsory and collaborative editing can be stalled by other editors who introduce random editing of "consensus" sections etc. I think that Skip and Aden have done a clever job of distracting a collaborative team of editors from their main task.Granitethighs 00:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

- Comment. We are not edit warring, or at least I am not. Sunray has been mass reverting the article without making improvements or collaborative editing with others outside of the sign up team and just arguing about the teams edit being consensus, no matter what. That is not going to work anymore. T.P. has engaged in actual conversation about changes. G.T. has not, and is now calling another editor ranting. Little regard is going to be allowed for the team now because of a pattern of uncivil behavior which is not yet changed. Ranting accusations? I have documented it. It is a pity but circular arguments about consensus of months old edits, and now F.A. again which is not an issue, Sunray just spoke of G.A. as a possibility, and that is fine, are no longer part of any contention. I hope that is clear G.T., the term collaborative editing team by G.T. above? That is fine, but you have no special right of ownership on the article whether there is one of 100. skip sievert (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going away for a week which is not good timing. I agree with GT, the process we had in place worked and created a process and structure within which the article improved over time. Currently most of the changes being made are, in my view, for the worse - this is in part because it's an unstructured process applied to a large and complex article, and in part because there is no noncontentious way to judge or even discuss quality, so small differences of opinion spiral into edit wars.

No, they do not. There are guidelines and policy. skip sievert (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I too am concerned at new content in the lead such as the words "and a UN report" which have popped into what was once a strong and clear sentence and considerably weakened it. So replacing the current lead with the last consensus version, and creating a subpage for further developments, makes sense. Similarly including Brundtland in the Definition sentence sounds like it may be a noncontentious change, but it requires changing two sections so developing a draft in the talk pages would be wise.

Having your own team project criteria is fine, but that in no way impedes people not interested in a special project on Wikipedia that is outside of the normal editing practice. skip sievert (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally, PLEASE can we try to stick to the task??? Looking back through these talk pages, there seem to be 100 words about WP protocol, accusations and counteraccusations of breach of this or that WP guideline, for every word about sustainability. Some time spent thinking about process is worthwhile but we have the balance all wrong. I'm here because I know a lot about sustainability, and I respect what others know, but most of the time I spend here is wasted because the discussion isn't about sustainability at all. --Travelplanner (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is entirely voluntary. No one is telling you to be here or not. That is your choice. We are sticking to task but also informing that the task is no longer decided by a group with its own pov or what ever, that wants to have editorial control on the article. I hope that is clear. I'm here because I know a lot about sustainability end quote. That may well be. Others may also. That is NOT an issue. Collaborative editing is an issue on the page and the best way to accomplish that is the give and take of collaborative editing in a constructive way. I know that all here desire a good outcome. The article is fairly good. It has a few issues. Control of the article does not belong to anyone here. Policy and guidelines and creative and thoughtful presentation, without conflicts of interests, and neutral point of view with reliable sources and proper weight. Those are the issues. Zero tolerance also to attacks on editors. I hope that is clear. skip sievert (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please confine comments to content issues (part three?)

It was not my intention to comment again on the antics of Sievert. However he has subjected my talk page to flurries of what appear to be attacks and veiled threats. He doesn't like my recent reverts of his tendentious edits, where he defies the endless feedback he has received (above, and above, and above), and the agreement by other editors to edit by consensus. He want me to step aside so he can continue doing it his way. Sievert complains that I do not currently make constructive edits to the sustainability article. Of course not, I said that above. I am waiting until Sievert's disruptive behaviour is resolved, and the environment becomes collegial. In the meantime, I edit other sustainability articles. Editors on WikiProject Economics are suffering the same calamity with Sievert: [15] [16] [17]. In the meantime Sievert, kindly stop adding bullying attempts at intimidation to my talk page, and please do try and confine your comments here to content issues instead of these endless attacks on other editors. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Geronimo20 on this one. We must confine comments to content issues. Nick carson (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because of comments like the above referring to someone named Siever?-, this is the basic reason how it is that Geronomo is being reverted for disruption to put it mildly, also he just reverts the main page without any actual editing of it or collaborative editing there or here on the discussion page. Also Geronomo your edit above says I am attacking you with a Ninja Turtle attack!... Huh? this that was not my edit. Sorry.

Noted again ALL the personal attacks made by Geronomo on this page are documented and if himself or someone else has any dispute resolutions things they want to do, they may. In the mean time because the editing team has advocated in one voice again in of Geronimo and his ideas, it is no surprise that the sign up team is no longer much of a serious factor, though I encourage them or any one to follow policy and guidelines as to editing on Wikipedia.

Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. It goes without saying on Wikipedia that teams of people whether there are 100 in a team or one have no special rights as to editing articles.

Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be. Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a "mute spectator." Be bold and drop your opinion there. skip sievert (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo, I only see your comments as disruptive. You have not discussed any changes or edited in any way, so far as I know. So skip is putting up a great points on how this article can and should be edited. He has done it in a non confrontational way. I hope other editors start to leave their past history behind and edit constructively. Also, I thank TP for being the only one editing constructively. I have already edited a few things. If you have a problem or a reason for it to be changed please discuss it with me. I would like any feedback. AdenR (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To make changes to the Lead please discuss here first and obtain consensus. Granitethighs 00:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion was made G.T. and changes were called for, and discussed above. It is pointless for you to introduce again an edit with the wrong definition in it as to the subject. Is that not pretty obvious? This has been discussed now over and over. Please stop reintroducing old or outdated information into the article by citing consensus. That is not going to work. By reintroducing an old edit and labeling other editors as 'edit warriors' in your edit summary, here, you are repeating a pattern of not really cooperating on this article as to constructive editing in real time with others. Consensus is something you can look up in connection to this Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. It is not connected to a static interpretation of some edit done months previously, or by a special team or sign up group of people that have NO special rights on article editing beyond the normal one. Your cooperation would be much appreciated as to stopping making reverts for the sake of old edits that new editors no longer support. Please read the article above as suggested (about guidelines and policy), for more information. Also on this article WikiDrama is to be avoided in particular because of past things connected with the sign up team which are very well documented. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Show me where there was a consensus of editorial opinion for the recent changes to the lead. Thanks. Granitethighs 01:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Consensus is not a weapon. It is not uncommon to come across Wikipedians who think that Wikipedia is a democracy. However, they misunderstand Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy does not forbid an editor from making edits that go against some consensus that's been arrived at by other editors. A editor may make an edit go against the consensus of other editors any time he wishes. So, when an editor tells you not to make an edit that goes against the "consensus" that he's a part of, inform him that that's not good enough.

What is the reason for that group of which he is a part to disagree with your edit? Just the fact that he and a few other editors have an agreement amongst themselves (like in your sign up team), on what's best for the article is not good enough reason to refrain from changing their edits. No editor is bound to any consensus of other editors.

Moreover, not even is any member of that consensus bound to it. Of course you should try to work to gain a consensus with other editors on the talk page in order to create a good and stable article, however always bear in mind that when you do eventually arrive at a consensus, there is no policy that forbids anyone from coming along and disagreeing with the consensus that you're part of and making edits accordingly. Thank you. As suggested previously please check into this Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. While the sign up team has done a good job in many respects it is now time to move on and let others also overview and copy edit and make Wikipedia do what it is supposed to do. skip sievert (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All you are saying above is that your view has merit and the views of others do not (rationalised in talk about WP policies etc or a competing bloc of editors). Good try. This article is high quality through collaborative editing. You have explicitly chosen not to take that path. Your later comments above indicate you realize the absurdity of constantly standing defiantly against everyone around you. You say "of course you should try to work to gain a consensus with other editors on the talk page in order to create a good and stable article". Spot on. The idea is to persuade by discussion then make your change in the article - everyone happy. Making the change before agreement pre-empts discussion. If people disagree then the change has to be reverted - and an edit war follows. Yes, you can do this, WP permits all sorts of things, no-one is obliged to be cooperative. But try working with people rather than against them. Which brings us full circle. You did not answer my question- show me where there was agreement among current editors that recent changes by yourself and Aden should be accepted. You cannot - because there was no such agreement - and without that agreement, by inserting your edits in the Lead you are simply overriding the views of both past and present editors. Many people unhappy. Not good. Thanks. Granitethighs 05:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have explained what consensus is and still refer you to the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. That is about the gist of it. Also the example as said several times now of using a definition to sustainable development by a political group is not to be confused with an actual dictionary definition (that carries no baggage) with an actual definition of the subject... sustainable or sustainability. I hope that is clear.

Note to AdenR. I have returned the edit previously as agreed. I did add back G.T's endure aspect in the first sentence, which you and I have previously removed. Not so much because I think it appropriate but as a compromise to get the cooperative editing aspects going here better... the sentence is now Sustainability is the ability to endure or maintain over time. This probably is ok in the sense that it is not really wrong information and mostly sounds a little flowery but still works as a descriptive, and with the online definition also, though if this becomes an issue later we could go with the strict dictionary definition.

Also a general note that the entire article needs copy editing. Example of one copy edit just made for neutral pov presentation here It is very important to give information without giving an introductory o.r. or syn. viewpoint to any information that is given. Thanks. - skip sievert (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up skip. It does help cooperative editing rather than just reverting and changing. AdenR (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons. I think this is what skip was getting at. I'm still somewhat new. So I thank Skip for his excessive links. Anyways, so far GT and TP have suggested its removal in the lead. (TP...maybe in the definition section)(GT...wasn't keen on it) which shows that you guys are having doubts about this. I will once again summarize the argument below.

Reasons not to include U.N. quote/definition(Aden)(Skip)

The definition is of sustainable development and can only be used to define sustainable growth.
It is not listed in the encyclopedia as to the definition of sustainable.
It was written at a time when the task of meeting the (then) needs of the (then) current generation fell within the carrying of the earth. Both population and per capita consumption have since increased so this is no longer the case. If future generations must use fewer resources than the current generation, then how is this consistent with "meeting their needs"?
Adding the quote to lead while saying it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations is distracting and confusing.
A well known dictionary is a more reliable source for defining the term.
Union of Concerned Scientist Does a good job of replacing what the U.N. quote was trying to accomplish in a neutral way.

Reasons to include

Although originally written to describe sustainable development, the definition is widely used to describe sustainability in general, and is often rejigged to describe eg. sustainable agriculture ("agriculture that meets the needs of the present...etc).
The work of the Brundtland commission is widely respected and is part of mainstream thought so it would be unencyclopedic not to include it.

This is what I have so far. This definition is also referenced in the history section, which means it is not completely excluded from the article. These reasons and what I have written should be good enough to exclude it in the lead. Reasons outweigh the reasons for inclusion by a large amount. AdenR (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair assessment, and for those reasons the lead has changed to an ordinary definition of the word. Neutral point of view is of utmost importance, and though the Brundtland commission is a reliable source it is not a source that defines the word and it does carry too much baggage as a political pov in the lead as the only sourced issue or thing previously. It is not a definition for the thing at issue either. As said by another editor, it also is mentioned at least once in other areas of the article.

It is also noted that Geronimo showed up here to make a series of personal attacks above previously... all of which have been collected and collated if the need arises later in some sort of dispute resolution on the page, and this editor consistently, and for no reason at least given here beyond the stale one of consensus which is not an issue on the particular edit, reverted the serious work that has gone into making the article better. This is a problem now. Here is the last revert which is a continuation of some of the same problems this article has suffered from here. How it is that this person is doing this for what reasons is unknown, but citing consensus as has been pointed out, without being involved beyond the noted way already, is not really constructive in any way. skip sievert (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Brundtland Definition and "endure"

My understanding of views concerning the Brundtland definition (BD), and the lead sentence, is as follows:

Collaborative editing team

Less than a year ago a team of collaborative editors, after much discussion covering all of the points currently being raised, agreed on the present lead which included the BD. Yes, present views are most important and consensus can change, but this past history is also important - especially as there has only been a change of ?2 editors since this time.

Current views

Editors Skipsievert and AdenR would like change to these two items.
AL has been non-committal but discouraged edit warring
GT sees no real need for change. To read the BD as a statement of political bias is extreme to say the least. Sustainability has many senses - to imply a simple and uncontroversial Dictionary definition can be "slotted in" is to display ignorance of the topic. A long discussion of Dictionary definitions and their ramifications is available in the Lead archives. If more more people show concern about BD, then GT would be happy with it in the Definition section.
SR has expressed the view that there is no need for change.
Geronimo has constantly stated that a consensus view is the best way forward
Nick has agreed with Geronimo, GT, TP and SR
TP has stated, somewhat unenthusiastically, that she would accept the BD in the Definition section of the article.

Where to from here? In my view until we have input from a greater range of editors, peer reviewers etc the situation is this:

- both the present and past consensus supports no change - this also applies to discussion about the word "endure".

Additional editorial views, and especially new editors, are always welcome. Now lets get on with the rest of the work needed on the article. Granitethighs 02:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read guidelines and policy as suggested multiple times. The article is not owned and is going to be copy edited and improved. The team as presented, because of previous personal attacks... all documented, are no longer in control of the article... and never really where. Attempts to revert positive changes to the article citing a weapon... consensus in the hands of editors like Geronimo who has only name called and reverted the article, are not going to fly. Thanks. - skip sievert (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read the guidelines many times; your assumptions are incorrect. The article has never ever been owned or controlled, nor has anyone claimed this (except yourself Skip). Yes, we certainly hope and assume that it will be copy-edited and improved. In the meantime both the present and past consensus supports no change to the items currently under discussion. Thanks. Granitethighs 05:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just read through this talk page, and a bit in the archives. Skip and Aden seem to share essentially the same position and personality. This is a little strange.

Skip does also tend to get into arguments. Personally, I've seen disagreements involving him (some of which I have participated in, unfortunately) at WP:ECON, Adam Smith, Paul Krugman, Wage slavery, 2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence‎, Money, History of money, Representative money, Technocracy movement and Technocracy Incorporated.

I was watching this page for a little while before, but stopped, as it seemed to be in good hands. I think I'll put this page on my watch list again. LK (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that GT's initial comment above in this section is true, I do agree with Geronimo, GT, TP and SR. I would also aprove of a definition that goes along the lines of "the ability to sustain", as I have also advocated from the beginning. Thanks LK, your observations and contributions are welcomed. Nick carson (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome LK - good to have another voice here. Sorry, could you repeat your edit move of the portals as I mistakenly put it back where it was. Granitethighs 11:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing

Outdent. L.K. if you have come here as did Geronomo to trash talk people on the discussion page, that is noted now. It is also noted that you have been following around this editor and making personal attacks... kind of like the one you just made above. If dispute resolution aspects are started it is noted that the sign up team and friends, have had all the personal attacks and extraneous commentary they have made collated and that information is ready for any inquiry.

Pity it has come to that but it is repeated again that a sign up team that operates outside of Wikipedia normal editing procedure, no matter how many in that team or their associated friends, can not control the editing of an article by using consensus as a weapon instead of an editing tool. I hope that is clear. Also to mis characterize other editors as connected to each other, is a pattern the team has done in the past, and also another attacking comment. At some point it is hoped that neutral pov editors will come onto the discussion page. skip sievert (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is a way of finding a way forward when there are divergent views. I am sorry you perceive this personally as a "weapon" used against you - but this is understandable when you are part of a minority view and you feel sure your views are correct. But you are not the only person with a view here: and other views must be taken into account. I am also sincerely sorry that you have difficulty in making friends on Wikipedia: it must severely restrict the goals you are able to achieve on Wikipedia. Granitethighs 23:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I am not part of a minority view. Voting does not take place as to consensus or numbers. Patience and logic usually prevail. The issue remains that the subject is not defined by 'sustainable development and a political pov is not warranted as to definition in the lead. The team edits as a unit and apparently their friends invited in to do reverts also. Making statements like I am also sincerely sorry that you have difficulty in making friends on Wikipedia... etc.etc. end quote Granitethighs... Well, that is another not cute or clever attack. Not funny. One of many. The discussion page is crammed full of them. The sign up team if that is what you still refer to yourselves, has just about zero credibility. The record shows personal attack instead of engagement, and defense of old edits called consensus instead of active interactive editing to make the article better. skip sievert (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You are, in fact, a minority view (see section on BD and Endure above)
Patience, logic, rational discussion and consensus will prevail (not the convictions of a single individual determined to override all others)
“meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” You have not demonstrated satisfactorily through logic and rational discussion that this is a "political statement" and "political pov". Hence logic, rationality and a long discussion followed by consensus ... are currently against you
It is a pity that you do not actually support "interactive" editing - the situation here with this time-wasting extended debate is just one of many similar situations that LK has observed: there is a pattern. This was the point of my remarks which were not intended to give offence - I saw them as a statement of fact with the intention of conveying to you a means by which you could more effectively achieve your goals, namely by "collaborative" and "interactive" editing rather than "confrontational" editing (by "confrontational" I mean, for example, making changes and revertions to "agreed" text either without or before any discussion, and the current negative edit warring). Anyway, I apologise for my remarks, as they clearly did offend.

Granitethighs 01:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Dysfunctional archiving

MiszaBot (talk | contribs) has also gone dysfunctional, and is only pretending to archive this page. For example, here MiszaBot I removes two threads and says it is archiving them to Archive 24 (should have been Archive 25). In fact, they were not archived anywhere. The earlier attempts at archiving seem to have misfired also. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Global goals

The area below in the article presently, is a very large area to have in the article that is sourced to one book, and implies too much direction as to goals in the article, from one source. This area is really large. Could it be removed or redone with multiple sources implying other sources of goals instead of just one books pov? Also should a goals area even be in the article as that is leading possibly

Start At the global level a number of key goals have been isolated:

Intergenerational equity - providing future generations with the same environmental potential as presently exists
Decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation - managing economic growth to be less resource intensive and less polluting
Integration of all pillars - integrating environmental, social and economic sectors when developing sustainability policies
Ensuring environmental adaptability and resilience - maintaining and enhancing the adaptive capacity of the environmental system
Preventing irreversible long-term damage to ecosystems and human health
Ensuring distributional equity - avoiding unfair or high environmental costs on vulnerable populations
Accepting global responsibility - assuming responsibility for environmental effects that occur outside areas of jurisdiction
Education and grassroots involvement - people and communities investigating problems and developing new solutions Stanners, D., et al. (2007). "Frameworks for Policy Integration Indicators, for Sustainable Development, and for Evaluating Complex Scientific Evidence." EEA GEAR-SD framework in Hak, T. et al. Sustainability indicators, SCOPE 67. London: Island Press, p. 156. ISBN 1597261319. End of Section to be redone or removed. It is noted also that a simple link without repeating this information could provide this information without spreading it over the page, as now. - skip sievert (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good spot to improve the article. My thoughts on it so far is that it could be moved towards the end of the article. It doesn't seem to fit well where it's at right now. Also, it helps address how muddled up the article seems, in terms of organization. I do see a lot of repeated information. One group says this and the article says the same thing somewhere else. It is annoying when you read it. As far as your assessment on the section implying too much as to goals in the article, I think is true as well. This is an encyclopedia and the article should be an objective view on this subject. Stating these as "global goals" puts personal views on the table. Simply stating facts on issues can imply what goals should be needed. AdenR (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

At present I would prefer to spend my time editing without distraction, towards a peer review for GA status. Yes, this is in a section on principles and concepts and its presence here could be questioned. It was included here because each of the individual points (principles) is a critical part of global sustainability. It is an excellent synthesis – and, remember, we cannot create our own “new synthesis”. I would like to get on with other editing on the page at the moment but my temporary suggestion would be to simply alter the title to “Global principles” or to move it to the “Transition” section although this latter action would need carefully bedding in and the agreement of other editors. It has also been criticized for being a “list”. However, turning it into continuous text would remove its directness. See what other editors think. However, at present I would prefer to spend my time editing, without distraction, towards a peer review for GA status. IMO there are more important things to be done. Granitethighs 22:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now, removing section would make sense. It is too much information to be sourced with one book only, and the book may be notable but that is a lot of information to give a free pass to as judgment of what is 'Global Principles' or not. Wikipedia is not a set of peoples opinions of the subject according to their lists in a book which may be in contention also as to notability. Probably better removing it as to truth of subject interpretation giving, therefore not really good. skip sievert (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand this incoherent burbling. What on earth is he saying? It does not pass muster as even a minimal attempt at reason or logic. Suggest we leave the topic altogether, or seek the views of other editors. Granitethighs 01:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors reverts

Why are their editors reverting that are NOT taking on discussion on the talk page? So far only 3 editors have talked about the article with a mild attempt by GT without good reasons. Please, if you disagree about the changes then discuss. Also, I would like to point why editors would Thank another editor for attacks on two editors who have discussed issues in this article and edit constructively. This is very disappointing. I don't want to stir up anything else for now. but reverts by editors who do NOT participate in discussion should be reverted. AdenR (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

One is Geronimo who just reverts everything, and the other is Lawrence Khwoo who has been a recent disruptive editor here as a post above shows, as in personal attacks on a user. L.K. is involved in some drama or other in economics articles and recently has shadowed my edits as in Wiki-stalking in my opinion, and like you say has not even discussed the edits, only claimed consensus parroting some others. Sunrays comment below is more of the same. Probably better mostly to ignore the old sign up team at this point, as they are not editing constructively and have ownership issues that are obvious, and pretty much bait and taunt rather than discuss. It is noted that Travelplanner went to Geronimos discussion page to ask him to come back and make more of the same edits. It looks like Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing by members of the team defending year old edits and now L.K. adding to that. That is my opinion. Be careful if you revert the article, there is a three revert rule in 24 hours. That means that if you undo an edit three times in 24 hours, they will have you blocked. that is a heads up you should know if you do not as a new editor. That is the guideline. skip sievert (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been no consensus on any changes. Therefore, I, for one, would like to leave the article as it was when peer reviewed. We need a stable article to submit for the GA assessment. Sunray (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Stable is no reason to leave in obvious mistakes, and the article is not stable and has not been for some time, since the team stopped editing constructively outside of its own small circle as to reverting any and everyone who is not in accord with a wrong definition of the subject, and a misleading connection as to definition to a political pov. skip sievert (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Sunray.

One short comment to Aden. Aden, you are relatively new to Wikipedia. After joining in April this year and making minor edits on the "Price System", "Technocracy", "Third Way" and a few other economic articles you moved straight on to the Sustainability article and have spent much of your editing time on this article devoted to the Lead. Can I suggest that where articles clearly need development or where they have not been edited for a long time and you feel you can help then the Wikipedia advice to "be bold etc." is very appropriate. However, where articles are well developed (say B standard or above) or there are several editors actively working on the article then boldly making reverts and mass changes is confrontational. Why? Because it assumes that what is there has not been thought through. It assumes that you think you know better than those working on the article and it might be obliterating in one go, something that has been discussed at length. In this sort of situation it is best to suggest your changes, with the reasons why you think they are appropriate, on the talk page. Other editors can then discuss the reasons and, if they seem sound, then they are incorporated. This avoids someone taking offence to direct changes, reverting your changes and starting an edit war. This is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline - just a matter of politeness and consideration. In summary: discuss first, then change the article if it is OK with other editors - not the other way round. Granitethighs 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it not policy or guideline it is also your personal opinion that carries zero weight as to how to edit articles... and this statement It assumes that you think you know better than those working on the article and it might be obliterating in one go, something that has been discussed at length. end quote Granitethighs... is nothing more than harassment of a newby. Wikipedia is not a battleground or place for you to instruct outside of the normal guidelines and policy. skip sievert (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am asking Aden to be considerate, that is all. You are clearly a lost cause as instanced by your "welcome" attack on "newbies" Geronimo and LK. Granitethighs 00:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You are asking an editor to be considerate??, while telling an editor they are a clearly a lost cause. Nasty. I guess I can not argue against that kind of logic... just note it down, as another personal attack by the sign up team, since they never contradict one another in the regard of Geronomo or yourself or Sunray's personal attacks on the discussion page. Again the sign up team has zero credibility as civil participants outside of their group and hangers ons. Also noted that the edit in question is a wrong definition, to a overly used political pov. Not good for the article. Also noted the other editor is a new editor to Wikipedia, the two you mentioned are not. skip sievert (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of me shouldn't even be a discussed matter, but it is, and I don't know why. I still don't understand your question if it is about me being more considerate. I have edited an discussed. NO one other than GT, Skip, Tp, and I have done this. You and TP have not given me and skip solid reasoning or evidence to keep things the same. Also, You both have been somewhat doubtful in keeping some edits. You can of course change your mind any time BUT, Since your reasons did not convince me, I stand by the new edits. Also, Wikipedia changes article all the time. If someone from a year from now came and started posing the same critiques, are you still gonna give them the same treatment as me? AdenR (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Aden, I am asking you to discuss potential changes on this page before making them in the article itself. This is not a Wikipedia rule but I think it is a reasonable request. Granitethighs 01:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is a wikipedia rule not to reintroduce edits that you know is against consensus. Doing so is edit warring and is against policy. Given the extensive discussion on this page, and the opinion of everyone here (except for Skip and Aden) that the lead should not be changed, and especially after Skip's change was just reverted, reintroducing the change again is edit warring. LK (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is double talk in context to what is being discussed L.K. and has no value as an evaluation of the current edits on the page. Opinions on putting up the wrong definition to the article topic do not count for much here either. Also opinions about leaving a political non neutral pov as to the only sourcing in the lead are not worth much either, and a reminder that polls or voting are not used in Wikipedia, and have no actual value and that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. There may be one hundred people against an edit improvement for neutral presentation, but they do not count if they can not come up with reasons that make sense.

I have never edit warred on the page, but editors such as yourself L.K. that have been doing that without discussion (reverting) are alerted hereby to the fact that disruptive editing the page or trying to maintain edits by a discredited sign up team that operates outside of guidelines or policy, is not going to be tolerated, and eventually, through simply pointing out the obvious fact, that a wrong definition is given to a political pov, that is not neutral and could, and should, and can be reverted to a dictionary definition that does not carry baggage is the best course. skip sievert (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The guideline you are missing, SS, is gaming the system. There now, you can use that from now on. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure why you are here Geronimo though you were lobbied to come here from a team member TravelPlanner here You do not involve yourself in discussion of editing or issues related to editing the page. Just revert in tandem with a couple of others, without discussion. That is rather pointless. When people assume bad faith on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Assume bad faith it is a pity. You should consider reading this Wikipedia:Words of wisdom. Using nasty communications on the talk page will have consequences. You have repeated that behavior now over and over. Not good. If you read some of the basics here, it will probably help Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I hope. As to the edit... it is a definition of something and that something is not sustainability so it is a non-starter to use it. Blinding citing consensus will not work on that, and consensus is not voting something wrong to be left in an article because a sign up group wants it there. Also it is the only link/note in the lead and as such, should not define the term to a political pov. I hope that is clear. You might also read this one Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines as to how to edit/make commentary on discussion pages Geronimo :).- skip sievert (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Brundtland definition BD is far and away the most frequently quoted and best-known definition (in both technical and popular literature) of both sustainability and sustainable development - an Encyclopaedia account would be incomplete if it were omitted - this has been rationally discussed at length several times and agreed to several times by editors on this page
The complexities of defining sustainability are discussed at length in the article section on "Definition".
Insofar as a simple definition can be provided, the opening sentence is essentially a dictionary definition (bearing in mind there are at least 5 senses of sustainability given in good dictionaries)
Asserting that the BD is a political statement is a pov expressed again and again and again by Skipsievert (and occasionally Aden) and not supported by other editors. Repeated restatement is simply Tendentious Editing
Consensus is not set in stone - it can change over time - but challenging consensus on a weekly or even daily basis over the same point again and again when there has been minimum change of editors is extremely disruptive, time-wasting and blatant Tendentious Editing
IMO reading the archives of this page indicates a team of editors working in good faith (none of them met or knew one-another prior to editing this page which has improved immensely) being subjected to a long-time and experienced disruptive editor. Geronimo makes a good point - Skipsievert is skilled at Wikipedia editing tactics gaming the system. The bottom line is Wikipedia and editors trying to improve this article are the poorer for his input; most now have diminished interest and the article IMO is deteriorating under his influence.
I have no more time for sterile disputes

Granitethighs 23:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Brundtland definition BD is far and away the most frequently quoted and best-known definition (in both technical and popular literature) of both sustainability and sustainable development - an Encyclopaedia account would be incomplete if it were omitted - this has been rationally discussed at length several times and agreed to several times by editors on this page. End quote.

Wikipedia is not done by voting. If a source is a political pov and not neutral and does not actually source the thing given like a real dictionary does, then it does not work.

The complexities of defining sustainability are discussed at length in the article section on "Definition". End quote.

It is not complex. The dictionary definition does a good job simply and without baggage here.

Insofar as a simple definition can be provided, the opening sentence is essentially a dictionary definition (bearing in mind there are at least 5 senses of sustainability given in good dictionaries) End quote.

A good definition is provided simply by a dictionary and the one used does a good job. It is not an unusual word that defies normal meaning.

Asserting that the BD is a political statement is a pov expressed again and again and again by Skipsievert (and occasionally Aden) and not supported by other editors. Repeated restatement is simply WP:Tendentious editing

Probably not a good idea to throw the word Tendentious around like that. The U.N. is a political group. It is a reliable source. It has been over used extensively in the article which can be proven with diffs. The definition in question, that the sign up team wants to use, is a sourced one to a political group and it is contested also, as to actually being a sourcing to the word in question, and actually sources the concept of Sustainable development .. a different thing. A lot of logical reasons have been used by others as to not using a political pov as the only sourced ref/note in the lead.

Consensus is not set in stone - it can change over time - but challenging consensus on a weekly or even daily basis over the same point again and again when there has been minimum change of editors is extremely disruptive, time-wasting and blatant WP:Tendentious Editing

Your doing that again, and it is not a substitute for a good discourse. Wikipedia is existential, and non partisan, or controlled by any groups, sign up or other. If you do not want your edits to be further edited, used, etc. do NOT submit them. Also refer yourself to policy and guidelines instead of claiming a view that is not correct about consensus.

I won't respond to the last thing because it is more of the same. I suggest reading this Wikipedia:Words of wisdom and note that things like the above are not connected really to building the project here, and that making the article into a blog or forum site for a group is not going to happen when that group is making non neutral edits and highlighting a political pov as a definition of a word that is not even sourced to the word directly. I hope that is plain. skip sievert (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You fail to note Skip, that many of these WP links you include, such as Wikipedia:Words of wisdom, carry the tags: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Nick carson (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The page in question clearly states what it is. Please address issues brought up on the discussion. skip sievert (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of lead

"I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum; `but it isn't so, nohow.' `Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." - from Through the Looking Glass.[2]

As mentioned the definition of sustainability to a political group and using the definition of sustainable development by that group is not really going to work in the lead because it is biased toward a political pov. It is noted also that this is a recurring aspect or problem in this article and has been for some time with nearly comical oversourcing to a political group here in the past, as an example of the sign up teams conflict of interest apparently in this over sourcing. It has been suggested that a straight dictionary definition be used, and also some other information has been removed as to a science perspective of sustainability as to humans being threatened. There is an editor that is tandem editing with the team currently to revert. That is not good.

It has to be understood here that numbers... do not make accuracy or consensus is not a vote for an editing team and that, factual information is the value needed, and that if something is biased or politically defined to a non neutral pov it is going to be reverted. Do not remove the tag in the lead until people from outside the sign up editing team and or their partners in reverting have had a chance to review. Also please no longer use the good article submission for making a case for overt reverting the article against consensus. skip sievert (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

On what basis and with what justification are you asserting that you have the authority to implement such directives? If you are making suggestions then I doubly note them :] Nick carson (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is more information on editing on Wikipedia here. Please read discussions on the thing in question on the discussion page for more information, and look at the article history recently as to reverting information. skip sievert (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article is over sourcing to one political group. Suggestion of a straight dictionary definition and science perspectives presents a very good neutral perspective of this broad subject. Also, the ref/note/def. in question is not explicitly connected to sustainability, it is of sustainable development. After reviewing the edits and suggestions I think the sign up group do have a conflict of interest in over sourcing to a single group. They go against sensible NPOV edits as the ones already discussed and others Such as This blue image revert [18]. I revised it so it could read more neutrally without putting unneeded talk. It also sounds funny. I don't know the wiki term exactly but I think it reads like original research. Simply leaving it as "two views of Earth from space." is good neutral presentation...after all, we are talking about the sustainability of the Earth system. Not just its biospheres.

Also, I would like other editors who consistently edit without discussion to discuss their edits on the talk page. Only 4 editors have done this. If not, your edits will be reverted.AdenR (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is noted that User:Geronimo20 who has not contributed to the article except as to reverting... is now putting pictures on the discussion page, apparently because he thinks he is interacting here by doing that. Placing taunting and baiting pictures on this page is not really smart, clever, or anything. Cease and desist. Two pictures to many now that violate simple policy or guidelines of civility and discussion page interaction. skip sievert (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As Lawrence notes, below, all editing of the article has ceased. That is because of tendentious commentary on this page and edits against consensus on the part of Skip/AdenR. I am delighted that Geronimo and Lawrence have joined the discussion. The more editors we have, the more likely we will be able to re-group and recommence productive editing, IMO. Sunray (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You removed a tag which is not a good idea, and did not give an accurate edit summary of that here, and that is similar to other disruptive reverts on the article by the sign up team and now a couple of other people that have trailed to this article for other reasons than constructive editing it seems, like name calling.

If the neutrality of the content is in question, please look at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute and discuss, instead of stripping a tag off. Not true as to anyones ability to edit the article constructively. The article is being edited and no one is stopping anyone from editing the article. Also, do not call other editors tendentious, that are not.

You are not addressing issues raised... just calling names. You are delighted that Geronimo is putting baiting and taunting pictures on the talk page?? and L.K. is making tandem team reverts?.. without discussion? Not good. The sign up team, because of un-neutral presentation of information in the article currently and also a glaring trail of personal attacks and commentary no longer controls this article. I hope that is clear. skip sievert (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Geronimo20, as well as myself, identify as exopedians which means that we would rather build WP by editing article than carry out endless discussion on talk pages. If an editor follows policy and guidelines to build WP then very little discussion needs to take place. As an aside, I don't agree with the use of images to make pointed comments. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words your point of Geronimo20 being this, exopedians is not taken, as he resorts to personal attacks by putting up demeaning pictures on the talk page, and reverts neutral point of view edits in the lead. - skip sievert (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not analysed any of the edit warring on the article itself. I will not be doing any editing on the page until editing has stabilised. As for the pictures on the talk page, while I do not agree with it, it is not a direct personal attack and it is aimed at more than one editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Skip, over 60% of Geronimo's edits are in articles so his exopedian claim is well warranted. As an editor with 67% of edits in articles myself, I like to think I am a so called "exopedian", but that shouldn't detract from the importance of talk pages to resolve issues and partake in discussion, these things are essential in collaborative contributions on WP. Thanks for the wise imagery Geronimo. Nick carson (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wise imagery?? Not funny, cute, or clever, Nick Carson, and overtly disruptive, to encourage people breaking talk page guidelines. skip sievert (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Unfortunately, looking at the recent history of this page, there seems to have been much time and effort spent on the talk page itself, but not so much on the article. It appears that all viewpoints have been adequately stated and represented, and the arguments are just a rehashing of old positions. I suggest that we concentrate on editing the page, and revert any changes against consensus. I've taken it as personal policy to ignore comment page trolls and personal attacks, and I believe that's a good policy to hold to. LK (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is disruptive here. You are trailing editors now pointedly and are in violation of very basic policy on discussion page discussion such as how to title a section read please. You have tandem edited with others. Consensus is not a special interest group. It is existential. I may call to have you topic banned in the future from articles where you make personal attacks. You are not following guidelines with even the basics like titles in discussion. Stirring animosity on discussion pages is a no no. I hope that is clear. skip sievert (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lawrence. It is time to end the rehashing and disruptions and get back to work. Sunray (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you agree with his comment then you agree it is ok to call people trolls on the discussion page. Not good. It is noted that you have engaged in that behavior also, and I can provide the diffs. Address the issues please. Encouraging disruptive editing especially as the discussion page guidelines says not to do it... again. Also you violated the one edit revert on the article that you formerly were under here skip sievert (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I must say, I support both Sunray and LK's comments. Nick carson (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine, and not a surprise as the sign up editing team answers these questions in concert. It is noted then that you support, if you agree with his comment, then you agree it is ok to call people trolls on the discussion page. Not good. Address the issues please. Encouraging disruptive editing especially as the discussion page guidelines says not to do it is pointless. skip sievert (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Issues from peer review still to be addressed

Images also need alternate text for the visually impaired before going to WP:FAC - see WP:ALT

Fixed LK (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a good way forward is to list issues from the peer reviews that still haven't been addressed. I noticed one off-hand. Please add more if you notice any. We can then tag them as done when they have been addressed. LK (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for steering this back to editing. GT had started on alt text, but it needs more sustained work. And yes, there are still a couple of other issues still outstanding from the last peer review. Sunray (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing the article Sunray and LK. I think GT so far has done a pretty good job but still needs work. His work on the Blue image specifically. I read and appreciate the link LK. As of now I suggest we change the text of the image to "Two views of earth from space left(2001) right(2002) Earth has sustained life forms roughly 3.8 billion years ago." That seems appropriate and provides good information on sustainability. AdenR (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed all the alt texts. It would be great if someone could go through all the issues raised in the peer reviews and list the still unresolved items. LK (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing you do NOT want to do is come to an article (trailing another editor), and start off by editing controversially, reverting changes over and over and removing tags, and not discussing how it is that you are doing that. Right now the article is fairly decent but by coming to an article and taking sides against normal neutral point of view guidelines, this is not helping the first lead section at all. Removing a tag and calling that consensus is not good L.K. and so far I note that you are a disruptive editor on this page by removing that tag and reverting neutral information in favor of the former editing teams edits which have been shown in discourse to, in some places not be neutral as to a political pov. I hope that is clear.

A first step towards avoiding misunderstandings like this is to keep in mind that at its core this project is not about truth, it's about verifiability, and keeping the narrative voice of any article wholly neutral. Let the sources speak for themselves. Readers are often much smarter than some editors think. Weak sources or wrong definitions, even when handled with overt Pov, tend to play out as weak sources. Undue weight such as the U.N. definition of Sustainable development for a definition of Sustainability... and this type of editing will drive readers off the text either way, as will most any narrowly polemic Pov. skip sievert (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work on the alt texts, many thanks LK--Travelplanner (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks LK. AdenR, I think the current caption will do fine, the Earth hasn't sustained life as currently, we are living unsustainably. Cheers. Nick carson (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statement does not make the slightest of sense. The Earth has in FACT sustained life for billions of years. There is scientific evidence supporting this. Now understand the word LIFEItalic text means biological organisms, ecosystems, etc. humans included. Also, living unsustainable is a prediction. If the team does not support a more sensible edit as the one I suggested...It further proves the the teams personal P.O.V. is in conflict. The fragility of the biosphere and importance of sustainability can be understood more clearly when we see the Earth from space How so? I can understand if it is for climate research, but that is too specific and "importance of sustainability" shouldn't even be mentioned. The importance of sustainability comes from many places not just climate research. A completely neutral suggestion made by myself shouldn't be a big deal. cheers. AdenR (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Population and consumption

Geronimo

You are being disruptive on this article. How is sensible copy edits such as this [19] edit warring? You have also neglected to discuss why you disagree. Also, if you are serious about improving the article why delete the banner? Having other editors come by and inspect and give their two cents is how Wikipedia works. I'm sure of that. So Please, since you have not discussed anything on this article and put false claims on your reverts, please stop, they are not helping the article or the way its edited.AdenR (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the diff above to follow this conversation. Aden raises several points, one of which is worth replying to; whether the revert was in fact an improvement. Like the rest of this article, the paragraph has been discussed at length before, and the aim was make clear that:

Many people in non-industrialised countries and emerging economies (far from all, but certainly the dominant political factions in almost all such countries) aspire to standards of consumption more like those of "western" countries.
Levels of consumption (per capita) in most developing countries do not currently exceed what could be supported through renewable resources but "western" levels of consumption clearly do.

Also any issue of quality needs to consider the overall quality of writing and making statements that are true to the sources (or adding other reliable sources).

On this basis, the revert wasn’t overall an improvement. It seriously muddies point 2. However both versions suffer from poor writing (too many words, there is a difference between a country and an economy, also both are inanimate so can neither “aspire” nor “work”).

There’s also the issue of repetition. Under “Economic dimension” there is the following text:

At present the average per capita consumption of people in the developing world is sustainable but population numbers are increasing and individuals are aspiring to high consumption Western lifestyles. The developed world population is only increasing slightly but consumption levels are unsustainable.

(I added citations to this text at one point but they have been removed)

The context being a section on population, I think that all that’s needed is:

The combination of population increase in the developing world and unsustainable consumption levels in the developed world poses a stark challenge to sustainability.^[1]

If others agree that this is an improvement I will put it up.--Travelplanner (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TP - definitely an improvement. Granitethighs 11:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Go Travelplanner! --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your edit. I had similar concerns when I saw AdenR's edit, but didn't have time to try to fix it. LK (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with it. I'll put it up. AdenR (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Global goals area

This section is sourced or looks like an endorsement of a pov which is not good. It is not up to Wikipedia to present one version of global goals that is sourced to one book only, and a question is raised as to the general notability of sourcing this much information to one source. I think it should be removed or source in some other way and presented differently.

At the global level a number of key goals have been isolated:

Intergenerational equity - providing future generations with the same environmental potential as presently exists
Decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation - managing economic growth to be less resource intensive and less polluting
Integration of all pillars - integrating environmental, social and economic sectors when developing sustainability policies
Ensuring environmental adaptability and resilience - maintaining and enhancing the adaptive capacity of the environmental system
Preventing irreversible long-term damage to ecosystems and human health
Ensuring distributional equity - avoiding unfair or high environmental costs on vulnerable populations
Accepting global responsibility - assuming responsibility for environmental effects that occur outside areas of jurisdiction
Education and grassroots involvement - people and communities investigating problems and developing new solutions Stanners, D., et al. (2007). "Frameworks for Policy Integration Indicators, for Sustainable Development, and for Evaluating Complex Scientific Evidence." EEA GEAR-SD framework in Hak, T. et al. Sustainability indicators, SCOPE 67. London: Island Press, p. 156. ISBN 1597261319. End area -

Rewritten to this

Global issues - Note name change from Global goals... which is not neutral presentation

Some issues which translate to an overview of sustainability in regard to the earth. Intergenerational equity - providing future generations with the same environmental potential as presently exists, decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation, and managing economic growth to be less resource intensive and less polluting. Ensuring environmental adaptability and resilience and maintaining and enhancing the adaptive capacity of the environmental system. Education and grassroots involvement becomes more common as people and communities investigating problems and developing new solutions to coexist with the environment Stanners, D., et al. (2007). "Frameworks for Policy Integration Indicators, for Sustainable Development, and for Evaluating Complex Scientific Evidence." EEA GEAR-SD framework in Hak, T. et al. Sustainability indicators, SCOPE 67. London: Island Press, p. 156. ISBN 1597261319. End - skip sievert (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "global goals" isn't a neutral presentation. Something like what skip has suggested can be used and improved upon. Maybe for now we could at least change 'At the global level a number of key goals have been isolated:' to something along the line of 'Some issues which translate to an overview of sustainability in regard to the earth are:'. This still sounds a bit funny but it is an improvement on neutrality and presentation. This suggestion is for those of you who wish to keep it as a list. I think its good in written form. Other suggestions?AdenR (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have adjusted the wording to better reflect what is intended by this list. IMO each of the factors in the list now has widespread global support. I can provide references for this assertion but do not want to overload the article with more literature if it can be avoided. TP or Sunray could possibly massage the list into continuous prose if this is considered an improvement - or perhaps more in line with WP guidelines. I do not think Skip/Aden have the verbal skills to do this adequately - as instanced by the proposed opening sentence. Some issues which translate to an overview of sustainability in regard to the earth. They seem to have an amazingly similar (and unfortunate) form of expression. Also to treat general statements like those in this list as a "political statement" or "political pov" is, IMO ridiculous. Please could other editors express a view on this. Granitethighs 23:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be more civil GT and reread my comment above more closely. Your personal views seem to be obstructing the neutrality of the article. Your recent edit on this section reads like original research. At the global level there are now several widely-accepted key principles that must underpin future global sustainability policy. Where is the verifiability to support this statement. This kind of talk underpins the issues of presentation and neutrality currently being discussed. AdenR (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.. to say the least. Your opinion here is not valued as to your personal attacks and hectoring commentary, and... your opinions of others writing ability in general is another hectoring attack. In other words, your opinion is not notable, desired, or clever or thoughtful as to put downs. Reliable sources are notable. Original research, that you believe G.T., to be or have widespread global support does not count... like sourcing to some book which is not even available in a file to view for a whole section that contains un-sourced claims? Whew... not good at all. If you want to be taken seriously here also, you should cut the personal put-downs. There is ZERO excuse for this kind of editing any where on Wikipedia. skip sievert (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The proposals by Skipsievert/AdenR seem not to offer anything of value to the article. Unless and until they begin editing cooperatively with other editors on this page, we will get nowhere. Their constant claims of political POV have been aired here many times and no one else agrees. They have been asked many times to stop the disruption. Sunray (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think GT was being uncivil at all. I must say I agree with Sunray, the proposed section isn't really a useful addition to the article's existing subject matter. Nick carson (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The rewrite was not an improvement, I fail to see how the revised version was "more neutral" in any objective sense. So I support GT's reverts and tweaks.--Travelplanner (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the sign up editing team speaks in one voice and also reverts as one entity, it is noted that they suffer also from tandem editing syndrome, as to endorsing conflicted political pov's in their editing. Your voice is always one voice so you will be reverted as one entity. It also is noted that as a sign up team you are not following neutral pov as to policy and guidelines. The article page proves that especially the current pov definition to a political group in the lead. Also noted no attempt is being made for good article status, and the article is not a candidate for featured article status either, so please do not bring that up anymore unless you submit the article and get feedback as to that.

It is also obvious that the strange section that was rewritten for neutral presentation and turned into not a list, but the beginning of basic ideas and information, is better than what was there. So, two against one as they say, though that is not a vote, just following guidelines anyway for neutral presentation, something the editing sign up team has not done.

The edit will be back again, because it is more clear. Sourcing an entire section and the section above, to that one also, to a book, that is not available, to even look at in a file or link is not good. It is tempting rather, to get rid of both of those sections as original research mostly and the way the section title is, also is not neutral point of view. Sorry but a team of editors that is a sign up team that operates outside of guidelines is NOT going to control this article. If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. I hope that is clear.

Here is the slightly modified section Please do not return the list edit of the other. This section needs more information now and not being just sourced to a book that is not able to connect to on the web, or even information sited about the book. More information is needed that is cited/sourced there.

Global issues

Some issues that translate to an overview of sustainability in regard to human interaction with the environment are Intergenerational equity - providing future generations with the same environmental potential as presently exists, decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation, and managing economic growth to be less resource intensive and less polluting. Ensuring environmental adaptability and resilience and maintaining and enhancing the adaptive capacity of the environmental system. Education and grassroots involvement becomes more common as people and communities investigating problems and developing new solutions to coexist with the environment^[2] End - skip sievert (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(Can you please resign this or whatever skip. I looks like some people messed around with this. It looks like I wrote everything above)AdenR (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Page was broken for a while. skip sievert (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the rewrite is a lot better. It's unfortunate the other editors didn't understand the problem of neutrality in the beginning sentence. The flow does need some work though. Maybe changing the beginning sentence to "Some overviews..." AdenR (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a better-written version, if we want to switch to paragraph style. I'm not convinced that we need to do that, as having a bulleted list provides a break from the wilderness of prose-style text. As far as the neutrality of the opening sentence, (i.e., the one introducing the bullets) goes, we can make it more neutral by referring to the source in the opening sentence. For example: "A number of key goals have been isolated at the global level (see, for example, Stanners, D., et al. (2007):" I suggest we keep the bulleted list with this addition. Sunray (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea to keep the bullet version. Revert to the last version the team reverted as an article improvement. It makes zero sense to source an entire section on a book that is not even available to check, as to finding an excerpted copy online or segments of the text somewhere. Is it even a notable book? Switching to the other version is a must. An entire section sourced to mono is not good for the article and it is way too much of a pov of sourcing for that many ideas and concepts. skip sievert (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please confine discussion to this page

Further wisdom by Sievert, about happenings on this page, continue to appear on my talk page. That's a shame, because these discourses belong here, and not on my talk page. They achieve nothing there, unfortunately, since they are wasted on me. It might be a better use of your time, Sievert, to add your further clarifications here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You have put demeaning pictures on the discussion page and made lots of negative personal remarks, here on the discussion page. In that sense I believe you are not a contributor here and only have been a disruptive annoying person. You have not added any contribution what so ever to the article, except to revert on the invitation of team members here as your talk page indicates, you were enlisted to edit here further. In other words I see no value in your being around here at all because of your track record. I am surprised no one blocked you from editing after your posting nasty pictures demeaning here on the talk page to other editors. I hope you understand that plainly. skip sievert (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So far you have not done anything constructive or discussed this article and assume control as in your reverts. It has also been noted above that your recent revert wasn't improving anything and disruptive. Talking to you directly helps solve problems which you are involved in. Therefore discussions on that subject should be dealt with on your talk page. That is what I think. Though I'm not sure about wiki policy on it. It would be nice if you could address issues of edits done on this article before you revert. So far you have been unwilling to do so along with other editors. Please do so. AdenR (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you (both) for pointing that out. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you do not think you are clever or cute or funny. You are not, and best case is that you stop being disruptive and stop editing for the sign up team. That clear? - skip sievert (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Skip, there is room for humour on WP and I think it's a stretch to suggest that Geronimo20 was being disruptive. In the meantime Skip, I think it's probably best to discuss issues concerning this article here on it's talk page. Nick carson (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo is being disruptive that is obvious by posting demeaning commentary and pictures on the discussion page, and nasty commentary about his opinion as to editors off of this site also. skip sievert (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Added "Sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere, meaning "to hold" (tenere) "up" (sus-). Etymologically speaking, sustainability is “the ability to be held up.” Questions of what we aim to hold up, and for how long, are open to discussion." Reverted, told to discuss. Most other pages about fundamental words like sustainability have etymology, even in the lead. Etymology in definition section seems uncontroversial, but let's discuss. Nickenge (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the origins and etymology of the term relate little to it's present meaning. Sustainability today is generally accepted to mean something along the lines of: an "ability" to "sustain" or "endure", etc. I would support inclusion of etymology in the lead if it was well worded :] Nick carson (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A genuine suggestion for which many thanks. But I don't think this is "a page about a word", and I suggest that in this particular instance the etymology doesn't provide useful insights into the topic as currently understood. Also many of us are keen to leave the lead alone as it's taken so long to get it to any sort of point of stability, and editing time is better spent on other parts of the article.--Travelplanner (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the Etymology given by Nickenge. Resistance to improving the article is a problem with this article, has been a problem, is an ongoing problem. I agree with adding that information (Etymological info), as it is informative and has value as to understanding the word, as does the dictionary definition which the team keeps removing in tandem reverting edits.

TravelPlanner, Wikipedia articles are not meant to be left alone when they can be improved, and this article has suffered from almost terminal ownership issues from around four people that edit in tandem outside of policy or guideline values. The lead, is not going to remain either, as is, because it is sourced to a conflicted definition to sustainable growth from a political group, that is also out of date as to its original meaning as others have pointed out. I hope you understand this reasoning. Also please do not tell other editors how and where their time is better spent. That does not fly.; All editors here are volunteers and do not have an agenda constructed by yourself or your fellow reverters of good information, that is sourced and creatively presented. skip sievert (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why abuse me (and others) Skip? And do you have a better reason for supporting the suggested change than "I like it"?--Travelplanner (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Weird charge T.p. guess abuse is an odd thing to accuse someone of. What do you mean by that?

Etymology does provide good things to the article.

I think a small sub-section on etymology would be appropriate in the history section. LK (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if it's in the lead, I just think we're remiss if we don't talk about what the word "sustain" means. Yes, Nick Carson, it is precisely the "ability to sustain" - what does the word sustain mean? "To hold up." I think that's relevant. Nickenge (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and will return that along with the neutral pov edit, and put the tag back on for discussion. skip sievert (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this on this page, Nickenge. We have had problems getting a stable article and it really helps to discuss and agree on changes. I think your etymology would be fine. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether it should go in the lead. I've looked at featured articles to see how etymologies are dealt with. I note that they aren't used all that much, which I suppose supports TP's comment, above. When they are used, they usually are included in the lead sentence, or in a section right after the lead. To my mind it would fit either in the "Definition" section or in "History." But I wouldn't object to it going into the lead. Other comments? Sunray (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That being the case, how is it that you just reverted it?? again, and how is it that you seem as team leader to make choices on the article as to what, where, etc.? It like many other edits, is being reverted over and over and only now because of really pushing the issue is it getting some attention. Not good. Gate keeping the article as in ownership, is so not good editing to improve articles. Do you edit any other article beside this one?

Sunray you also reverted the tag which indicated non neutral editing on the article as did your fellow sign up team members over and over. Not good. Please no longer edit this way. It is boorish because the article will not improve and time consuming also, as in wasteful of time in hoop jumping, which is not in accord with wiki standards... Your using consensus excuse ... most of which you yourself seem to be in charge of, is not good editing. Articles improve with people coming in and creatively getting involved. skip sievert (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get consensus on this. The addition Nickenge added was the following:

Sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere, meaning "to hold" (tenere) "up" (sus-). Etymologically speaking, sustainability is “the ability to be held up.” Questions of what we aim to hold up, and for how long, are open to discussion.

The last sentence strikes me as not being in Wikipedia style and I think we can safely omit it. I propose that we add the following statement to the beginning of the "Definition" section:

Sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere, meaning "to hold" (tenere) "up" (sus-). Sustainability is thus “the ability to be held up.”

Are there any concerns with adding this to the definition section? Sunray (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the last bit is non-essential. Thanks for introducing me to the Wikipedia process. (The "sus-" can be italicized as well):

Sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere, meaning "to hold" (tenere) "up" (sus-). Sustainability is thus “the ability to be held up.”

Any concerns?Nickenge (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes S.R., you are using consensus as a weapon instead of an editing tool having way too much say on the article. What about the tag that you and the team have taken off,.. citing consensus? Please replace the beginning of the lead back on that is written neutral pov. Also the .... questions pertaining to what is being 'held up' is a simple modification and the sentence slightly modified is fine or as is, and should or could have been on from the beginning. It is better with a little context. skip sievert (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with it and Skip doesn't seem to object to it so let's put it into a queue for when the article is unlocked. Sunray (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Who does what and where and how much

This toolserver tool gives info on who does what and where and how much. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Alan, I think many of us were aware of that tool but it's great awareness for those who aren't. It's a useful tool. Nick carson (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sustainability article

The most recent discussion about systematically improving this page suggested that we put up the key remaining points to address from the peer review. I confess I have lost track of what / where these are. Can someone else help by putting them up here?--Travelplanner (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mostly allowing the article to be edited by the general community would be the ticket for improvement now. That is the best method of article improvement as it is tried and true as to working. The article as is now is bloated in some pov ways because of noted conflicts of interest as to presentation, and reverting to those conflicts is a pattern.

The article currently is fairly good but persistent problems of neutral point of view as to presentation still exist,, and that is what needs work now. Having scores of discussions going on in sandbox places is fine, but the purpose of those is pretty much over. The article needs refining now directly on the discussion page here as to issues. skip sievert (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please help me with this talk page? I am missing sections. Such as the last three or so. I somewhat lost.

Likewise

On going edit war

I would like to remind everyone that continually pushing against consensus is edit warring and is against policy. Please obtain consensus before inserting any substantive change.

Also, the last couple of edits were made by an anonymous IP that inserted the an edit and left a comment similar to that by an editor in this dispute. I'ld like to ask the owner of that IP to please identify him/herself, so as to avoid any appearance of sock puppeting. Attempting to create the appearance that there is more than one editor involved when there is only one is against policy. LK (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not stir the pot of the article anymore L.K., and if the neutrality of the content is in question (and it is), please look at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute and discuss, instead of stripping a tag off, which you have done now several times... not good. Tags are meant to be left and discussed and by fractiously removing huge blocks of information in the article in mass reverts you are being disruptive to improving the article. The editing team is one voice here and if you continue to revert to that one voice which longer controls the article with the argument of consensus, you have not followed the discussion page or are taking their non neutral presentation stance about defining a word... the article name, to a political pov which is non neutral as it is sourced to a political group and the definition is to another concept... sustainable development. I hope that is clear. The only people edit warring as you call it here, are in violation of the very basic n.p.o.v. policy that underpins Wikipedia. If you are on the wrong side of that you and the team and what ever hangers on will be reverted, because that is how Wikipedia works. One hundred people that endorse a non neutral edit vs. one? One hundred get reverted if they are breaking policy and guidelines by editing something non neutrally. I have no idea who the i.p. is and unless you request a checker, it is not a good idea to throw around the concept of sock puppets either, as that was done multiple times in the past, by the sign up editing team here, that formerly operated outside of normal guidelines and process. skip sievert (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-group

In order to make positive progress this is my best attempt at a synthesis of where we are at:

The article is still aiming for FA status but this might be via GA; it has been peer-reviewed twice
Editors Skip and Aden, who to my knowledge have never ever disagreed with one-another, maintain that the article: a) is being controlled by a clique of editors b) has a strong political bias with the UN having undue prominence c) the Lead should not contain the Brundtland Definition which is a pov and expresses “sustainable development” not “sustainability” d) that the opening sentence is inappropriate and a simple dictionary definition is needed for sustainability e) that the caption to the Blue Marble image needs improvement
Other editors (TP, Sunray, Geronimo, LK, TP, Nick, GT) have all expressed opposition to or concern with the above views (most of which have been extensively discussed on many occasions); other editors have been invited on many occasions to join in the editing however it has been suggested that substantive edits being made to a twice peer-reviewed and heavily worked article are first discussed on the talk page and consensus obtained. The UN issue was taken to a Noticeboard and the article found acceptable: the UN content is not regarded as a problem by the vast majority of editors, and it was also found acceptable in the latest peer review. In spite of constant complaints from Skip and Aden this issue has surely been resolved for a long time.

The following interruptions were made in the middle of GT's comments, without any indication that his comments had been annexed, by SS. I have indented the interruptions and reduced their text size in compliance with the guidelines. --Geronimo20 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Interruption 1: Call it a clique, you call it the editing sign up team and they have new members as in editing with them for what ever reason... which apparently share the same non neutral presentation value and revert in concert which is not good Sign up team.

The article has not applied for either GA or FA status and you have been rewriting it now for over a year G.T. with S.R., much of that time assuming wrongly that you are the owners of the article... as this demonstrates. Who called for it to be rewritten then anyway, as you state?

The U.N. definition is not in dispute as a reliable source being the U.N., but should not be used in the lead because it is the ONLY definition to a term (sustainability) which is not a definition for the actual word. That is not neutral point of view then and thus violates the prime directive. The peer review did not critique that aspect as stated above, I doubt if they individually check obscure aspects of script and sourcing, and including that info. in the lead violates neutral presentation. Removing the tag as to that also because it is in contention, by other editors, is not suggested, but this has happened. If you read the tag it is meant to be left on and issues discussed. Ownership issues with the sign up team are a problem with this article, and have been a long standing problem. skip sievert (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Interruption 2: Also many editors have just given up editing this article (long ago), and this has been a pattern for a very long time because they are being reverted by a non neutral editing team, which has endorsed a political pov throughout the article and this can be easily proven with diffs that go back almost a year and a half now as this edit shows. In other words very stubborn ownership issues have made the article non neutral.... a very glaring example from a little bit ago of the comically over sourced U.N. material, that the team edited/reverted for keeping here. Pretty clear then what is happening here and been happening here. skip sievert (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo I have asked you previously not to refactor users comments on the page negatively as you are now doing again. All comments have been applied with a date and time... so your argument is moot... and since the page is confusing anyway please desist in making others q and a even more difficult. skip sievert (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not "refactored" your comments SS, merely reformated them. Stop reverting this formatting, you are returning to your violation of the guidelines. --Geronimo20 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In case you did not know this little star thing makes a different kind of mark on the page and it clear that a comment is being made on something in the text. Also in case you are doing this for other reasons that indicate you are trying to be annoying if the current gist of your interaction here indicates as so, it is also noted that all comments are dated with a time and a day and year. So stop refactoring the discussion page G. because it does not accomplish much and makes it hard for people to figure out what is going on. skip sievert (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now – these seem to be the major areas for improvement (i.e. areas generally accepted as needing work) as suggested by the Peer Review.

Refs need to be consistent and to present a minimum of information for each ref.
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed.
While a huge amount of work has gone into this, it is not anywhere near ready for WP:FAC from a MOS point of view. Most articles have the hardest time meeting WP:WIAFA criteria 1a (well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard). I think parts of this could be made more concise. The Definition section is one example. Making this more concise will not make it read better, it will also make it less huge and thus more inviting to the average reader.
AL has inserted a tab suggesting the abbreviation of the section on the “Environmental Dimension” – I am happy to have a go at this possibly with Sunray’s help.

Please add important things to this list that you think have been omitted bearing in mind that we are trying to proceed in an orderly way. We can then try and focus on article improvement rather than edit-warring. Granitethighs 04:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a bot that fixes refs? For example, for the internet refs, can a bot go out and verify it exists, grab the author, page name and organization name, and fill in the web cite template with those appropriate values? Seems like such a bot would be very useful, and so should exist. LK (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is RefBot, but it's not currently active. I'll clean up the refs tomorrow if I get time. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like us to work towards GA at this point. That gives us something immediate that can pull us together and should be not too difficult to achieve. Then before worrying about FA, I would like a discussion on how this article might relate to key supporting articles. I would like to see some work done on those supporting articles, and a commonality of tone and structure running across them, before we attempt FA. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, BUT there's been a lot of thought already on how to represent the logical relationships between supporting articles, and which supporting articles to prioritise for more work, but it is a difficult task and requires a structured approach. User:Alan Liefting began Wikipedia:WikiProject_Environment/Sustainability_task_force with more or less the same idea but only one person joined. --Travelplanner (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My impression of the "Definition" section is that it acts as a hurdle in the article. The writing is actually fine, it's the conceptual level that's hugely challenging. I like to picture a student looking for help with a school project as the "target reader" (not at all to imply that we should dumb the material down, but we need to be very structured so that expert material isn't put in places where novices have to struggle through it). My imagined student gives up on sustainability as a topic partway through the definition section. Before I can start improving it, I need some help defining what would be an improvement. I think the aim is to:

Make the section shorter
Make the section less conceptually challenging and move some of the more challenging material elsewhere (where? would anyone read a "Definitions of Sustainability" page??

The issues with Environmental Dimension are different; the material here is great but the suggestion was that some of it needs to be in other articles to keep this one manageable (reinforcing Geronimo's point above). I really think GT is the only person who could do this as there's a lot of subject expertise involved in doing it well.--Travelplanner (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

These all sound really good positive suggestions to me. TP, to my mind, did a great job of putting a difficult Lead into plain English. It would be great if you could try the same with the Definition section TP and I could try and make sure important bits dont get ignored. It is partly so complex because of the various academic debates about what sustainability is. I think it is this section that new editors almost always want to lock into ... assuming the article has got it all wrong and wanting to introduce their "take" on it. So it must reflect the divergence of opinions and approaches that is "sustainability" IMO. But please give it a try - I am happy to work on the Environmental Dimension. I really like the idea of creating a set of closely linking articles and would like to help out here provided it is not a permanent edit war - and am very happy with GA as a launching pad for these ideas. Granitethighs 12:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not complex. It is simple. It is not rocket science either, only a concept/word, and calling it It is partly so complex because of the various academic debates about what sustainability is. end quote G.T. is not a good approach. It is not overwhelming. It should not be written as confusing polemic or rhetoric. This is one fault with the lead, and sourcing the word sustainability to a political pov is not going to be done in the lead because that is not neutral presentation which is or can be the most basic guideline here, something lost here about that criteria? Also using the simple dictionary definition eliminates baggage and the history of the word is also a nice thing to have in the first section.

Suggestion to the old self described sign up team. Give it up. You did some good work, but now is the time to let normal practice make the article better. skip sievert (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As Sievert repeatedly states, it doesn't matter if there are one hundred editors who oppose his view, his view is the neutral one, and that is all that counts. As I mentioned earlier, Sievert is always right, always. That is the basic situation, and nothing is ever going to change that. Over the last five weeks, we have accumulated 300K of talk comments, mainly endlessly circling Sievert/Aden rants, attacks and resentment of academics. And then there is his tendentious edit warring on the article page. We cannot resolve this matter among ourselves, as he says, even if there are one hundred of us. So long as he has us hostage as his audience, this will never change. We could offer him his own topic page where he could rant all he likes. But then he would lose his audience, which is what this is really about. So it is getting to the stage where the only option is to open the matter to wider community scrutiny. I think we have all had the patience of Job. --Geronimo20 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Granitethighs' summary and with Geronimo20's additional comments. Sunray (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Taunting and baiting on talk pages is kind of pointless Geronimo. I have also already opened the matter up to wider community scrutiny, and I hope they show up and do something. Posting demeaning pictures or trying to screw up the size of the editing font. Or saying things like As Sievert repeatedly states, it doesn't matter if there are one hundred editors who oppose his view, his view is the neutral one, and that is all that counts... end Geronimo. That is not funny or clever or smart. I did not say that either so your giving a false testimony... not good. What I said was that an editing team and their hangers on, that edit in tandem a political pov, in a non neutral way, are not going to control the article with conflict of interest not neutral presentation like the simple example given. Sourcing a word to a political group as the only source in the lead, and that source also is to a different word... or compound word, that being sustainable development. That clear now? The very basis of Wikipedia depends on n.p.o.v. - It helps to have the right word defined then, if a definition of that word is given. Lets stick with the issues and not your comical but nasty personal remarks above. That has nothing to do with the subject, and really the above statements may have consequences if the wrong person passes by and notes you saying things like... because you are in really extreme violation of civility here skip sievert (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dysfunctional archiving (update)

I've disabled MiszaBot, which has been sulking over the last five weeks, and refusing to archive this page. It's been throwing the history away. Understandable and sensible really, given the standard of the material it's been expected to archive. Still, I recovered the missing history anyway, and put it in archive 26. Now perhaps we can move on. --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. We can resume archiving manually for awhile. Sunray (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving manually is probably not a good idea. That was done before and it fell to Sunray, the ostensible leader of the sign up team that formerly controlled the article, and that is not exaggeration. Better to fix the bot or reactivate it and not selectively archive as to a pov of a special interest group (the sign up team proved to be this redundantly previously). For the sake of equally in a neutral way, presenting what is going on in the discussion page then getting the auto archive going is a must. Too much selective piecemeal archiving otherwise by the self appointed archivers, and that is not going to reflect accurately the discussion page, or at least did not previously. skip sievert (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is better to fix the bot. AdenR (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving manually is fairly straightforward. There should be nothing selective about it. When the page reaches a certain size, one archives. All discussions should be kept in chronological order. If a discussion is not finished, it doesn't get archived (nor others after it). Nothing selective at all, if it is done right, IMO. Sunray (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe but that is not the way you did it previously so again better that a neutral pov bot does that and not yourself as noted before you were selective in your archiving duties which were self appointed when you wanted to archive and what you wanted to archive. The page history will confirm that as fact. skip sievert (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of this contention. Sunray (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. Just look at the page history. Its all there. skip sievert (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs please. Sunray (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop with that approach. The page history is public. When Allen started the bot it changed radically from you archiving it. skip sievert (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please withdraw the accusation or show us where I did not archive fairly and systematically according to the guidelines I've described. Sunray (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You left the sign up segment up for starters. I am not making any accusations either. Just stating it is better you are not the archivist because of issues of ownership and control on the article connected with your leadership of the sign up team. Let a neutral bot do it. So, drop the point as it is amounting to Wikihounding obscure points now. skip sievert (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have every confidence in you as archivist, Sunray. However, it is a good point, that information about the sign up team was inappropriately removed by the bot. Had I known it was there, I would have signed on myself. As a discussion point, I have reinstated the material at the top of this page. Is a sign on team still appropriate? Seems useful to me, even though constructive progress on the article has ground to a halt, due to the presence of an incorrigibly disruptive editor. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up. We need all the help we can get on this project. Because of the problem of the bot removing that info, I set up an infobox for team sign-up at the top of the page. However, as you note, people can easily miss that and I think that the way it is now is far better. Welcome to the team! Sunray (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparative sentence

One issue of the article is length. I suggested deletion of Unsustainable economic growth has been starkly compared to the malignant growth of a cancer because it eats away at the Earth's ecosystem services which are its life-support system. This is a problem because it introduces unfair comparisons. The readers can make their own comparisons. More over, the previous two sentences already lead the reader to understand the problem. Historically there has been a close correlation between economic growth and environmental degradation: as communities grow, so the environment declines. This trend is clearly demonstrated on graphs of human population numbers, economic growth, and environmental indicators. which is then followed by this...There is concern that, unless resource use is checked, modern global civilization will follow the path of ancient civilizations that collapsed through over exploitation of their resource base. It still has the same value than it had with the sentence. The sentence Therefore carries absolutely no value in this article even though it is sourced. I deleted it and was immediately reverted. The editing team seem to have trouble with basic neutral edits. Any objective person can see this. This should not be such a big deal or even discussed. This article is not on lock-down? is it? Any edits done are reverted for no good reason. AdenR (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As has been said many times, please get consensus for changes on the talk page before making them. We have been trying to get the article ready for GA Review, but have been set back by continual edit warring and grinding of particular points of view against consensus by Skipsievert/AdenR. You will need to earn credibility as an editor who brings useful contributions to the article. We know that Skipsievert does not like organismic metaphors. However, they sometimes help the reader to picture abstract concepts. To get an article beyond the ordinary and reach for FA status (the goal of many editors on this page) its prose must not only be of a professional standard, but "engaging, even brilliant."(preceded unsigned by Sunray)

That isn't good enough to defeat plain logic. Readers are smarter than you think. The sentence was NOT "brilliant" or "engaging". So you'll have trouble reaching FA status with that. AdenR (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, then, the challenge would be to make it brilliant, not to remove it. Sunray (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your still not making sense Sunray. Metaphor is not needed. You put FA status as a defense. That is not good enough. As far as I know there is no agreement to put this to a FA status. Also I think it is far from it as of now. You would also need to prove yourself as a N.P.O.V editor along with the team if you want arguments like that to be accepted. AdenR (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

S.R. Its not about your to my mind, it is about basic Wikipedia standards of policy and guidelines. It was not good to begin with as pointed out. There are glaring errors of judgment as to neutral editing on the article. Your removing tags and doing mass reverts is not helping Sunray, and this pattern goes back a long ways and you are very much Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing your points and have been. Not a nice editing style. Do you edit any other article? Major ownership issues by the sign up team and yourself and G.T. - Very provable.

No, it is not good enough, and the editing team can not make editors jump through hoops. Neutral presentation is the goal not operating outside of normal guidelines to conform to Sunrays version of how things should be on the article.

This is and has been a long standing problem on the article since about this time when G.T. and Sunray commenced tandem editing the article, and then some others joined a little later. Since that time period both of them in my view have pushed political nonsense in a way that is difficult to comprehend. That type of editing is problematic. They were then joined by an editor that according to his words used to volunteer or work for the U.N., and that added to the non neutral pov presentation to crazy proportion, as has been noted also here. I don't think I have ever seen any thing that over the top biased anywhere else on Wikipedia, yet they reverted for it over and over and finally I managed to whittle most of that out, but lots remain of that type of non neutral sourcing.

I can not say how it is they are doing this... I have scratched my head over it, and I do not know why they also resort to nonsense personal attacks instead of improving the article by opening it to others. Recent example the editing team removed the tag... put on to bring others here to examine things, and also reverted an edit about word history which I thought was very good as to further giving a history of the word and meaning. I probably should not speculate on the reasons for all the reverting and name calling but it may have something to do with this... Psychological projection, but I am not an expert... though humoring them on the discussion page does not work either. My approach is just to mention the very basis of this project is to make a neutral presentation. So far that has not worked on the sign up team or their recent hangers on that cite consensus, even after it is explained that consensus does not support a definition to another word... one that is the one being defined, and it is a really bad idea to source the entire article in the only lead ref/note in the first section that does not define the word and also goes to an outdated political point of view. I hope that illuminates things a little.

There were other really bad problems previously that are a little better now such as G.T. authoring a book and the team having it on the site though it was not notable, and just published. I think that one is over. It is noted that his editing activity started exactly when that book was published and I have the diffs to prove that he linked it all over to multiple articles in a conflict of interest type of way. That could happen because of his inexperience or wanting notability from Wiki... but that is not really how the system works here. Also he sent a copy of his book to the main members of the editing team... so they all knew what was going on. At that point I realized something was wrong here and that the sign up team was editing the article with ownership and not neutrally. I can give diffs of all that. Again extreme difficulty in editing with these issues. Recent example a stranger came and tried to introduce an edit and was reverted... the word origin thing immediately here Sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere, meaning "to hold" (tenere) "up" (sus-). Etymologically speaking, sustainability is “the ability to be held up.” Questions of what we aim to hold up, and for how long, are open to discussion., along with reverting other recent things, and also taking off the tag again because it is tagged for not being neutral presentation, and the tag says right on it to not remove, because this is a way to bring others into a discussion here... that is the purpose of it. Part of the pattern of ownership here. Ugh... sorry about length, but new people probably need filling in on this history to understand what is now going on in the article. skip sievert (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Article length

The length of the article was (at my last check) 97kb - we have already done a good job of reduction. A very recent FA on Virus was 108kb. I think that as we continue with reduction, simplification and improved appeal, the article will reduce down nicely and automatically to a more digestible and acceptable size. Granitethighs 01:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The length AND organization of the article are still issues that need to be addressed. They go hand in hand. Other articles do not help explain how long other articles should or should not be. Although the article has a lot of good information it still needs major work. AdenR (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As previously discussed, i still intend to work on reducing the resource management section and will collaborate with others on that. Sunray (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of simply reducing the size of the article, the editors involved here might do better by splitting it into more than one article, thereby retaining much useful information. Information already removed might be recovered for inclusion in one or more new articles.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. We have discussed this and all agree that we should use summary style, creating subarticles and condensing sections in the main article. We've done that with the "History" section and next will be working on the "Resource Management" section. it works well so that this article becomes the overview article and those who are interested in particular subjects can get more by referring to the main article on any given topic. Sunray (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

References

I have made a first pass over the references. Generally, a good job had already been done on the basic formatting (was that you TP? Well done!). I cleaned up some missed multiple references to the same source and separated the books into a reference section of their own. Separating the books provides a reference library, makes it easy to see when pages and chapters are cited, and is concise when there are multiple references to the same book. As I worked through this, I started to wonder if it was worth it, since the article rarely references the same book twice. Anyway, it is done now, and this makes it much easier to see when relevant pages or chapters have not been cited. This is an area that needs more attention, since most of the book references do not cite pages or chapters. This is generally required for GA/FA. Can we leave this matter, for now, to the editors who are still here and originally made these entries, since they presumably have access to the source books, and hopefully know where to find what needs to be found.

There are also other areas that would be easiest for the originating editor to tidy. These are the references to the "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment", and, less importantly, to the IPCC sources. Is someone in a position to tidy these and give explicit references and links where needed. If not, I'll do it later, as forensic donkey work. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all that hack work Geronimo - it now looks a lot tidier and easy to manage. 'Fraid I'm the main culprit for most of this stuff and I will try to rectify the missing information this weekend and early next week - I'll also start to copy-edit the section tagged for simplifying. Granitethighs 09:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents concerning behaviour on this page. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Main image caption

Just browsing through after following a link on the Economics Wikiproject. I haven't read the article at all, but the caption of the main image sort of struck me as POV. "The fragility of the biosphere and importance of sustainability can be understood more clearly when we see the Earth from space." Statements that look like opinion presented as fact: Biosphere is fragile (using what measure), Sustainability is important (to what degree), and that such importance can be understood more clearly when we see the Earth from space (ummm ok if you say so). Let me say that I neither agree nor disagree... I know little about Sustainability. Just a passing comment from someone looking at it with virgin eyes, but I would recommend something more descriptive regarding the field of Sustainability on these global biological systems. Morphh ^(talk) 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Morphh. I do agree with you about the caption. A suggestion of mine in the past was to rewrite it to Earth has sustained life for roughly 3.8 billion years. Blue Marble NASA composite images: 2001 (left), 2002 (right).]] It relates to sustainability very well and gives good information on the earths biological system as a whole. What do you think about my suggestion? AdenR (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion in my opinion is better, and more encyclopedic in presentation A.R-. It is noted that citing consensus in reverting information is not suggested when content is being improved. It is hoped other active editors review this article as to general presentation of information which is disputed as to several major things. skip sievert (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that is unfortunate. Some editors here have reverted using consensus as a weapon without even chiming in on whether it is good or not. So far only the original writer of this caption disagrees. Everyone else seem to ignore the matter, even skip until now, thanks. What does the team have to say? What do you guys think? is this good or not?AdenR (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Morphh. I agree that there is a POV inherent in the statement. The lead (and by extension the picture) is supposed to sum up the article. So there should be evidence within the article to support the statement. I think that the evidence is, there to support the statement. However, it may be a good idea to re-word it to a more neutral tone. The problem is this: FA articles (something we are shooting for) are required to have "alt text." Alt text requires that images be summarized in the caption so that blind people can get an idea of what the image shows. Care to have a go at a re-write of the caption? Sunray (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion does not make sense Sunray. How can you re-word a POV statement into a more neutral tone? We are not trying to trick people into thinking a statement that is inherently POV is neutral because it has a neutral tone. That doesn't make sense. Also, the FA excuse is ridiculous. Why not change the caption to a neutral edit like the one I suggested and THEN work on making it acceptable for an FA status? It seems you are skipping steps. Also, this article is not that good As some new editors have pointed out. So saying there is a project to move it to an FA status is confusing. Also, I think GA goes before FA and this article is not even at that point either. AdenR (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The wording was changed by GT in response to the peer reviewer's comments. And yes, as the statement at the top of the page makes very clear, we are going for a GAN before FA. However, ultimately we have to meet the FA standard. Your proposed re-wording failed to address the requirements for alt text. So please draft something that meets that requirement and let's take a look at it. Sunray (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I still don't understand your point. I'm technically challenged on Wikipedia. I already read the link and I still don't understand the alt text point you are trying to make. Isn't "two opposite views of earth from space" the alt text? GT's work is bad and has been noted by 4 editors including yourself. I think that is enough to change the caption to my suggestion. Why doesn't my suggestion meet the requirements? Please elaborate. I really don't know why.AdenR (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yours is the better edit A.R. and Sunray as the leader or ostensible leader of the sign up team can not put up obstacles of hoop jumping as to improving the article, and then make arguments in circles as to how and why and criteria of his own making outside of basic policy. Ownership issues by the sign up team have prevented creative participation of outsiders editing on the article. Policy and guidelines allow for open editing of articles. Something that is not happening on the Sustainability page, and has not happened for a long time. skip sievert (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Better? How is it better. It doesn't meet the alt text requirements. So let's work towards a version that does. Please keep comments to content, not the contributor. Sunray (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, Alt text is something separate from the caption. The alt text describes the picture to someone that can not see - it is indicated by the "alt=" prefix. The caption describes how the picture relates to the content. In the current article, the alt text is "Two views of the Earth from space.", while the caption is "The fragility of the biosphere and importance of sustainability can be understood more clearly when we see the Earth from space." If the caption were to describe it to a blind person.. it would sort of be a stick in the eye (sorry for the pun) as it states "when we see the Earth". ;-) Morphh ^(talk) 2:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I haven't worked on alt text (obviously). So, what do you think of AdenR's description as an alternative? If folks prefer it, I wouldn't object, although I have to say that I do think that GT's caption better captures the essence of the article. Sunray (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight Sunray. You were putting arguments agianst what I suggested without even know what you were talking about? And you were doing it to a newcomer(me) who was trying to understand your argument. And NOW you are saying you won't object to it if others agree? Also, you say GT's caption "better captures the essence of the article" after recently stating "there is a POV inherent in the statement". What?? I guess I can discount your arguments agianst it as of now since they fall in favor of GT's caption after it was just pointed out that is was a POV. Make up your mind sunray.AdenR (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's true I don't always follow your words closely. Simple reason: You don't stick to content and often personalize your remarks. By sticking to content, you may improve your readability (and credibility). Sunray (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Your still not making sense Sunray. How am I not sticking to content? I'm trying to reason with you over my suggestion. I'm still not sure if you are for or against keeping the original which is proven to be a POV. I do not personalize my comments like you do....Such as constantly referencing me as skip. Which I have asked you politely to please stop. Also, you stated "I don't follow your words closely" because you have a personal opinion of me. How is this going to help the article or have any relevancy to the article? Why bring that up? Can you stick to the article and ignore your own Personal Opinions?AdenR (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a caption: "The importance of achieving sustainability becomes more apparent when viewing the Earth from space." LK (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey LK, I followed one of your links to this article and left a comment on the caption yesterday (see above). I like your version better than the current caption, but it still seems like an opinion about sustainability and what someone can see looking at the earth. I know little about the topic, but when I look at the earth from space I see a planet that has lasted 4.5 billion years and our existence as infinitesimal to earth and its long term sustainability of life. It would seem more appropriate to describe the scope and effort of Sustainability. It just sounds WP:WEASEL - I'm important.. see my big blue marble. Describe why it is important, not that it is important. Perhaps something like "Achieving sustainability will effect ... life on earth". I don't know... just giving my first impression. Morphh ^(talk) 13:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For the caption don't assume that sustainability needs to be achieved, the image caption is not an advertisement, we don't need to sell the article to the reader and we definitely don't need to sell the importance of achieving sustainability, this is not NPOV and more importantly it makes that caption harder to write. A simple statement about what sustainability is or maybe a comment to the effect that the Earth contains limited resources would seem to be appropriate and can probably get across about the same idea. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Skip, and Voiceofreason. Skips version is very impartial and we can work on it from their. Now I think anything would be better than the current caption. So, since it is being discussed I suggest we leave it as skips version "Two views of earth from space" for now and work on it. Also, I think it is important to take neutrality seriously other than selling the article like Sunray and GT have done.

I still don't see a problem with my suggested caption. Just putting it out their again. This subject is about earths capacity to sustain and it has sustained life for billions of years. That is pretty good. Maybe adding something like that to the lead as well.AdenR (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Morphh and VOR makes good points. I would like to suggest this as a caption: "Achieving sustainability will enable the Earth to continue supporting human life as we know it." I think that explains what sustainability is, and why it is important, and it doesn't make any POV statements. --LK (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is an excellent discussion with much less sidetracking and personal remarks. Morph introduced the current thread and suggested that we find "something more descriptive regarding the field of Sustainability on these global biological systems." The concern expressed by Morphh and Voiceofreason is that the current description may not meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. GT comments (below) that: "if it is to be changed I think the change should be an improvement... Our peer reviewer said that captions should be inviting and broadly explanatory of the context they are illustrating." Voiceofreason suggests: "Don't assume that sustainability needs to be achieved."

The current caption reads:

The fragility of the biosphere and importance of sustainability can be understood more clearly when we see the Earth from space.

In the course of the discussion, editors have come up with the following alternatives:

Earth has sustained life for roughly 3.8 billion years.
Achieving sustainability will effect life on earth
Achieving sustainability will enable the Earth to continue supporting human life as we know it.
Two views of the Earth from space.

Perhaps we could chose from the original and the four suggested alternatives. Central to the choice seems to me whether sustainability needs to be achieved.

My view is that, since this encyclopedia is by humans and for humans, the answer to Voice's suggestion should be: We do need to sustain life on the planet, for ourselves, our children, and all sentient beings. It is our duty and the article tells why. Therefore my first choice is the existing caption and my second would be alternative # 3. Sunray (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

LK's revision (#3) sounds fine to me. Morphh ^(talk) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for constructively talking about this sunray. I do think that number 2 and 3 don't address the issues Voice has brought up. Even after reading sunrays answer to it. Sustainability can also be applied to systems that do not affect or have human involvement. Such as protecting or sustaining small biological system that is unimportant to human survival. I choose (#1) as a result of my reason.AdenR (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(#1) would also work. Again, I don't know much about the article content to say if it is a good caption for the subject matter. I'm just saying that it removes the pov issues I discussed. Morphh ^(talk) 12:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with #1 is that it doesn't address the issue of why sustainability is currently an important issue. I'm putting up #3, as its apparent that we all think it's an improvement to the caption currently there. But since I'm biased, as I'm the one who wrote #3, please feel free to revert me. LK (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

lead

I have added some ^{[citation needed]} tags to the article lead. There are some very strong statements made here that are not backed-up by sources. Strong statements must always be backed by strong sources. I have also noticed this article uses a lot of UN sources; which makes sense since the UN publishes a lot of information on this and related subjects; however, a word of caution, the UN is a political organization, even its more scientific committees and programs tend to have a very strong political component, as such, articles published by the UN tend to be somewhat biased by whatever opinion is popular on the world stage at the time and articles also tend to be purpose written to support whatever viewpoint they are "studying". The UN does also publish lots of very good information as well, and I look forward to contributing to this article in the future. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have tried repeatedly to no avail to copy edit the article in a neutral presentation way. These copy edits are all reverted by a sign up team on the article that call their reverts consensus. The lead area in particular is not given neutral presentation as the very word sustainability is sourced to a political definition by the U.N. which actually is not even a source to the actual word given but an older definition to the concept of Sustainable growth or development. The copy edit I have done is a good alternative to the current lead, if you care to use that. It is a dictionary definition of the word, which has no baggage, and also a statement by a science group as to the threat of coming un-sustainability... but I hope it will not be reverted again in favor of what you are noting Voiceofreason01. I truly wish other editors would scrutinize this article in regard to n.p.o.v. as you have, and edit according to guidelines and policy in that regard.

I consider this version of the lead below that was reverted from the article to be in line more with neutral point of view as to definition and sourcing. I also note that the tagging of this article is repeatedly taken off, citing consensus. Not good as other people are deprived then of knowing that there are n.p.o.v. issues on the page that are very marked. skip sievert (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Start

Two views of the Earth from space. 2001 (left), 2002 (right)

Sustainability is the ability to endure or maintain over time. It can be defined in biological terms as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity over time. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=80366&dict=CALD Dictionary definition of sustainability Retrieved September-25-09

The word 'sustainability' has become a wide-ranging term that can be applied to many facets of life on Earth, from a local to a global scale and over various time periods. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. Invisible chemical cycles redistribute water, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon through the world's living and non-living systems, and have sustained life for millions of years. As the earth’s human population has increased, natural ecosystems have declined and changes in the balance of natural cycles has had a negative impact on both humans and other living systems.

Scientific evidence shows that humanity is not living in a sustainable manner. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ucs-statement.txt Statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved September-27-09 Efforts to live more sustainably can take many forms from reorganizing living conditions (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), reappraising economic sectors (green building, sustainable agriculture), or work practices (sustainable architecture), using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy), to adjustments in individual lifestyles. End - I have de-formatted the links in this so that they can be viewed on this discussion page. skip sievert (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Skip, would you be willing to reduce the size of your posts. I'm not referring only to the one above, but generally. I find it hard to pick through all those words to get your main point(s). Sunray (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Voice of reason: Thank you for your comments. The article has had a couple of peer reviews in the past year and I understood from the comments of the reviewer and the WP:LEAD guideline, that the lead does not need citations, since it is a summary of the article body text. I may be mistaken, but will double check with one of the peer reviewers. We can certainly add citations if they are deemed necessary. Sunray (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead is meant to be a summary of what is in the article and a brief overview of the subject, it is true that these things do not need citations, per the guidelines in WP:LEAD. The issue here is that the lead goes beyond being a brief overview and summary and makes several very strong claims. These do need to be sourced, and if we were following WP:LEAD to the letter, these claims should not be included in the lead at all. Personally I think the lead has some POV issues and I like the old one posted above by skip sievert better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason01 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your not responding to the issue of the only sourced thing in the lead being non neutral and a political pov. A wrong definition of Sustainability to Sustainable development or growth by a political group the U.N. which is also outdated is now in the lead as a citation. You have also removed a good link to a non partisan group Union of concerned scientists... that carries no baggage as to making a point this. Also a definition of the plain word Sustainability by a dictionary is preferred as again a neutral presentation unlike a U.N. political definition to the wrong word, this is plain and simple and n.p.o.v. here.

So your point above while making it sourcing the word to a political viewpoint definition currently, is unknown as to the lead. skip sievert (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Voice ... its always good to have a fresh view on the article.

I agree with Sunray re lead - we originally had citations but these were removed on the assumption that it was WP policy to exclude citations in the Lead which occur in the text. They can easily be put back if needed.
What is Skipsievert's point is in adding a revised Lead here? Sorry, IMO it is not acceptable as a replacement for the current Lead. I can detail reasons why this is so if that is necessary.
The UN has been discussed at length. V, Perhaps try trawling through archives for discussion ... but the debate went to a Noticeboard and was specifically dealt with in the last Peer Review. The conclusion of all editors Noticeboard and Peer Review was that it was OK, only Skipsievert has found it a problem. Having said that, my suggestion would be to discuss each case on its own merit. So could you be specific about those UN citations that you understand to be pov or politicised and could you also specify in what way you consider them to be politicised. That way we can all make an assessment.
I am not wedded to the caption that goes with the planets. However, if it is to be changed I think the change should be an improvement - current suggestions IMO are not an improvement. Our peer reviewer said that captions should be inviting and broadly explanatory of the context they are illustrating. This seemed a reasonable request and we adjusted several captions accordingly. I'm not suggesting we did a perfect job. Granitethighs 02:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not been through all the sources for this article in detail, my comment about the UN sources was a general one. I agree each citation needs to be evaluated on its own merits. My concern was that I saw a lot of UN citations and I have come across some other articles that rely heavily on questionable sources published by the UN. If the sources in the article have been discussed in peer review I'm sure that they are fine. I wanted to emphasize that generally articles from peer reviewed journals and research conducted by Universities and other research organizations tend to be stronger sources than those published by the UN. At first glance this article seems to do a good job of balancing sources. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that recent comments like this These do need to be sourced, and if we were following WP:LEAD to the letter, these claims should not be included in the lead at all. Personally I think the lead has some POV issues and I like the old one posted above by skip sievert better... end quote/comment added by Voiceofreason01. So... lets put that version up. It is neutral and gets all the previous ideas across in a creative way also.

The problem is not that the U.N. is not a reliable source. It is, but it is being used out of context in multiple ways through out the article and as has been pointed out... and was used improperly to dramatically ridiculous proportions previously by the sign up team here in the not so distant past here After a long going back and forth I managed to reduce some of the most blatant aspects of that. Not a fun exercise though. This has not been a good exercise as the sign up team seems to also be what is neutrally termed progressive liberal as to direction, and in other article areas such as the Transition section they also formerly endorsed a political pov, in my opinion as non neutral way. Another editor finally removed that.

Since the sign up team appears to not be concerned about the non neutral presentation in the lead, it is time to put in the lead I have suggested which is impartial... and defined to a dictionary... carries no baggage as to political weighting, etc. Neutral presentation is paramount. Some (sign up team) may choose to work as a group and establish processes for their editing, but they may not take ownership of an article and dictate processes to others outside of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. skip sievert (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have restored the what is now considered to be a neutral sourced reffed lead with the tag also that was formerly removed... not good to remove tags, as the tag says on it, for reasons also given, and also gone back to just the description under the picture, which does not hold any baggage or pov either... this Two views of the Earth from space. I prefer this simple caption, but that is something that can be discussed. Here is the change [20]

Note also that the editing teams defense of the lead is not really viable. It did contain lots of un-sourced statements as facts, it also defined the word sustainability to a statement by a political group, which actually was a statement by that group as to defining the concept of sustainable growth or development, neither of which is connected with a literal definition of the word sustainability. skip sievert (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, Skipsievert, take a deep breath and slow down buddy. You're all over the place here. I barely even know where to begin.

You seem to be assuming bad faith on the part of the other editors, which I do not think is the case and is contrary to [[WP:AGF |Wikipedia policy]
There is not and was not consensus to make major changes to the lead, as far as I can tell you and I are the only editors here that like the lead you submitted is better than the existing one and I certainly did not suggest that the lead be replaced. Especially not without the consensus of the other editors who have been working on this page for many months.
unilateral action is not the best way to build the encyclopedia.
The type of behavior you have just shown is exactly the type of behavior that resulted in the discussion on the administrators noticboard, a discussion that seems to be headed toward a lengthy topic ban for you.
There is an essay here called "Beware of the Tigers" about another editor on another article in a similar situation that I think may apply. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. And, I find your comment insulting. You, I, and AdenR made three people. The team is one group that is not possible to deal with as far as n.p.o.v. font color=red>as to sourcing as has been shown repeatedly. They have effectively controlled the article for a long time. I am a neutral point of view editor that pays attention to sourcing. Not truth giving. So, I don't think your tiger comment was clever or meaningful or really anything much but a continuation of what this page is usually like as to a mess in general. skip sievert (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I do see your comments insulting V. Such as refering only 2 people have agreed to skips lead. But this is obviously an honest mistake. Sunray changed the talk page which doesn't help anything and made things confusing. So Sunray, please do not do this next time. Leave sections and archiving alone, it has already lead to confusion.

Also, If you(Voiceofreason) thought skip was going a bit too far it wouldn't hurt to just ask him to slow it down instead of adding commentary that is unneeded. Skip brings up good points as to ownership of the team. You can't even change a single sentence without them citing consensus. I got plenty of examples. I was reverted for switching "community and political structures" to "humanity" over here. I was reverted for deleting a sentence that added no value to the article and introduced comical comparisons of cancer here. I was Even reverted for doing an edit that that WAS agreed by consensus Here and reverted here. I thought that was especially funny, but I will fix it again. Now, this is from my own experience and I'm pretty sure Skip has more to add along with others. These actions were happening all the while the team did edits similar to this. So it is obvious that somethings are not right here. Call it what you will. Cheers.

Also, I would like to add that I do agree we should take it slow but also take neutrality very seriously. The strong claims made in the lead is not good. So changing it to an impartial version and then improving upon it seems to be a very good Idea. AdenR (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am getting very tired of having the words sign up team bandied around as if it were an insult. For the record, I suggested on Nov 8 2008 as a way around interminable edit wars on this page that editors signed up to agree to edit collaboratively to improve the article. Skip briefly added his name to the list but soon removed it when it was pointed out that the commitment to edit collaboratively was just that. We have a problem with archiving on this talk page, there's no evidence that talk pages have been edited deliberately but most of these discussions are only available now as diffs, I can hunt these out if it's helpful. So, there's the background, that's what the sign up team is.

With regard to the lead, as pointed out by GT the statements are all linked to reliable published sources in the article, our understanding was that citing sources in the lead was unnecessary where this was the case. Easy to fix, if our understanding was incorrect. Skip and AdenR wish to rewrite the lead but their sources and reasoning are completely opaque to me and all the explanation they offer is that their version is "neutral as to POV". All I can see happening is that the quality of writing goes down. Sustainability is the capacity to endure. Sustainability is the ability to endure or maintain over time. One uses fewer words to convey more meaning - neither is any more neutral than the other. The other suggested edits just compound this pattern, and discussion is impossible because the members of the sign up team are never neutral and Skip/Aden always is.

You make a number of other points Voiceofreason and you have every right to ask these questions. I do not agree with all of your points but if civil discussion and collaborative editing were possible on this article, then I have no doubt that all your concerns could be addressed and the article improved as a consequence. Unfortunately unless the topic ban works out that is unlikely to happen.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See words I've marked in font color red above in this "Lead" discussion. The expression "as to" occurs three times (twice Skip, once Aden). It is used by very few people - it seems that Aden/Skip are similar in many ways. Granitethighs 11:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to state this clearly, so it might as well be me. No one who has followed this debacle would doubt for one moment that AdenR is Skipsievert's puppet. Skipsievert might control him through remote software from another IP, or, less likely, he might be a compliant boy/girl friend to whom Skipsievert posts the text he wants entered. Either way, Skipsievert/AdenR should be treated as one voice. And congratulations Voiceofreason01. You are now bloodied among those of us who have attempted to communicate with Skip/Aden. In the recent past, it was possible to continue attempts, such as yours above, for a year without any actual communication taking place. I fear this tradition may be coming to a close – but it is the way of the universe that all things change eventually. Skipsievert will appear shortly to further clarify matters, and explain that what I have just said is not clever and not funny. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Etiquette has to do with probably not making fake claims about socks ^ like the above. Both G.T. and Geronimo are claiming that AdenR and I are related. Not true. Never true. Not connected. Shown to not be true also here, and another example of Wikipedia:Assume bad faith that also obscures the point of the thread. Which is that the sign up team here does not approve of the neutral pov version of the lead which I did, and which was endorsed by two other editors as better but rejected as against consensus.

As a sign of good faith, I will "step back" from editing the article for at least a few weeks and stick to its talk page. skip sievert (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is very VERY sad. The some editors seem to be once again linking me to skip with the words "as to", it this a JOKE?? For once, I would like you guys to just think about this. Lets say that I am an editor which is completely separated from skip. I came here and offered my two cents on the article which where of course my own. I followed a few links from skips page cause it looked somewhat interesting. Then I was immediately attacked for being a sock puppet. Which happened pretty fast cause I didn't have time to even respond when the investigation occurred. How should I respond? I don't know what the hell I should say. It is REALLY weird that you guys are doing this. VERY strange. And now You are introducing "lame" reasons like ip addresses or bf/gf that can't be "to my mind" proved in any way. Cmon? Please stop. Unless you guys get more proof, keep your P.O.V's out of it and out of the talk page.AdenR (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Very few people use the term 'XXX is not good', and use the verb noted in the passive voice, i.e. 'it is noted', 'it has been noted'. You appear to be one of those who use those phrases. LK (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be a sign of good faith if Skipsievert ceased all claims against other editors. Yet, again, he brings up his POINT that his version of the lead is "neutral," thus implying that the consensus version is not, and accuses other editors of "assuming bad faith." Sooner or later, this sort of behavior has to stop.

As to Geronimo and GT's reference to puppetry. There is no doubt that the two of accounts edit in tandem. I cautioned AdenR, on this page,[21] and encouraged them to develop their own identity, separate from Skipsievert's. This hasn't happened. Therefore, AdenR can only be treated as Skipsievert's puppet.

However, all of this endless caviling and refusing to accept anything that anyone else says continues the pattern of disruptive editing that Skipsievert has established on this page. While I appreciate Skipsievert's sentiment about acting in good faith and stepping back, he has had endless chances to do just that over the past year. It hasn't happened. Not even today. Sunray (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No, That is not "going to fly" sunray. "It is noted" that you have a personal opinion of me. It is NOT proven. You or any other editor cannot and will not treat me with that behavior. I will not "go elsewhere" to prove my innocence. You prove otherwise if that is the case. AdenR (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with flying. I will respond to you according to your behavior. Sunray (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I will do the same. Because It has been shown Above that you "...don't follow your[my/aden] words closely" because of your personal opinion. That doesn't seem very constructive to me.AdenR (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, so I made some comments concerning what I thought were some relatively minor but important issues with the article. And there was some discussion of these points, but before anything meaningful could be said or done the conversation exploded into this, nearly 4000 words of irrelevent stupidity. This behavior is not limited to a single editor but it is apparent to me that skip sievert is the underlying cause. What the hell man? I agreed with you and you still ignored and brutalized my comments to further your own narrow point of view. And the result was that NOTHING GOT DONE. You didn't win, all you accomplished was wasting my and the other editors time. This is pathetic. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Population and consumption

Geronimo

You are being disruptive on this article. How is sensible copy edits such as this [22] edit warring? You have also neglected to discuss why you disagree. Also, if you are serious about improving the article why delete the banner? Having other editors come by and inspect and give their two cents is how Wikipedia works. I'm sure of that. So Please, since you have not discussed anything on this article and put false claims on your reverts, please stop, they are not helping the article or the way its edited.AdenR (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the diff above to follow this conversation. Aden raises several points, one of which is worth replying to; whether the revert was in fact an improvement. Like the rest of this article, the paragraph has been discussed at length before, and the aim was make clear that:

Many people in non-industrialised countries and emerging economies (far from all, but certainly the dominant political factions in almost all such countries) aspire to standards of consumption more like those of "western" countries.
Levels of consumption (per capita) in most developing countries do not currently exceed what could be supported through renewable resources but "western" levels of consumption clearly do.

Also any issue of quality needs to consider the overall quality of writing and making statements that are true to the sources (or adding other reliable sources).

On this basis, the revert wasn’t overall an improvement. It seriously muddies point 2. However both versions suffer from poor writing (too many words, there is a difference between a country and an economy, also both are inanimate so can neither “aspire” nor “work”).

There’s also the issue of repetition. Under “Economic dimension” there is the following text:

At present the average per capita consumption of people in the developing world is sustainable but population numbers are increasing and individuals are aspiring to high consumption Western lifestyles. The developed world population is only increasing slightly but consumption levels are unsustainable.

(I added citations to this text at one point but they have been removed)

The context being a section on population, I think that all that’s needed is:

The combination of population increase in the developing world and unsustainable consumption levels in the developed world poses a stark challenge to sustainability.^[3]

If others agree that this is an improvement I will put it up.--Travelplanner (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TP - definitely an improvement. Granitethighs 11:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Go Travelplanner! --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your edit. I had similar concerns when I saw AdenR's edit, but didn't have time to try to fix it. LK (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with it. I'll put it up. AdenR (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can SEE Geronimo20....The edit is agreed to by consensus for some time now. Please stop with this circus act. TP has Stated this sentence is all that is needed. The preceding sentence was already repeated and unneeded as TP pointed out. And you AGREED TO IT!!AdenR (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the actual questions Voiceofreason asked regarding POV, which were perfectly valid and sensible, have been completely lost and no progress made on addressing any of them? Do the words "incorrigiby disruptive" spring to mind? As I said VoR, addressing your points would be very helpful to the article, if it were possible to do so.--Travelplanner (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would TP. Unfortunately an edit that was agreed to by consensus is being reverted. That is being discussed right now. I would hope that people stick to the article. Whatever you have to say about VOR's questions can be put on another section. What does your comment have anything to do about what I brought up? Anyways, I will take it as a suggestion to stick to one thing at a time. It would be Much simpler and easier to state things in that way. Instead of being hubris. AdenR (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your credibility is, unfortunately, nearly nonexistent due to your close identification and tandem editing with Skipsievert. Continual editing against consensus will prevent you from being taken seriously, I'm afraid. Sunray (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes sunray, You have already expressed your opinion over and over and over again Sunray. Please Stick with the subject at hand and keep your POV's to yourself. This edit was agreed by consensus. Was it not? And I would like a straight answer that doesn't trail off into personal remarks, please.AdenR (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Voice of reason and Travelplanner. I would be happy of one of them would take the lead in this. Sunray (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Things to do once article is unlocked

Add the following statement about etymology (see Etymology, above) to the beginning of the "Definition " section: "Sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere, meaning "to hold" (tenere) "up" (sus-). Sustainability is thus “the ability to be held up.” Unsigned.

I agree. However, wouldn't this introduce some problems. Stating Sustainability is thus "the ability to be held up" while the lead repeats the same thing is a little strange. It is obviously important to state the definition in the lead. So I think Nickenges original edit can be used to replace the current lead. Such as...

Sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere, meaning "to hold" (tenere) "up" (sus-). Sustainability is thus “the ability to be held up.” Questions of what we aim to hold up, and for how long, are open to discussion. In ecology, the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time...

Or

Sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere, meaning "to hold" (tenere) "up" (sus-). Sustainability is thus “the ability to be held up. In ecology, the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time...

I like the former because it gives context. Also, this may solve GT's point below. AdenR (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Just out of interest I found this in an old discussion that we had on the "Definition" section - I was pointing out that in any good dictionary the word "Sustainability" has several meanings:

The word sustain is a verb for which the primary meaning is to maintain, endure or support as in Dictionary.com definition of sustain and it's derivatives and the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

It may refer to:

(intrans.) To endure, keep in being, or continue in a certain state.
(trans.) To maintain or keep in existence (something e.g. an object, action or process).
(trans.) To provide for or nourish (something).
(trans.) To experience, receive or suffer (something -an injury, etc.).
(trans.) To confirm, prove or corroborate (something , as in to sustain an objection' or a 'sustained argument'; in a court of law an objection is ruled as sustained or overruled).
(trans.) To support hold up, bear the weight of, or keep from falling (something).

I have added this old thread a) because it is salutary to think yet again about what we are doing in the article and what we have written, both in the Lead and the Definition sections (I think they are OK but ...) b) because although I think we can add the etymology we should omit the definition sentence suggested. As the word moves from the Latin to Old French, Old English, Middle English etc. so the meaning changes. To the point where what we are talking about in the article now is none of the above, except in a very general sense: we are talking about another sense of sustainability that only gathered momentum in the 1980s. At the risk of being repetitive could I suggest we replace the lead sentence "Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure" with the sentence "Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to maintain, endure or support." I have renewed this plea for several reasons - in remembrance of Skip's difficulty with the word "endure"; because it covers a wider range of meaning of sustainability than endure; and in the light of the definition given in the etymology above viz. "the ability to be held up" - I assume this is close to the "support" sense that appears in the list of dictionary senses of the word. This has already been discussed and turned down so I understand if there is no or little enthusiasm. I will abide by consensus! Granitethighs 01:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

3. I am happy with the talk page consensus being decided on a vote - as originally suggested. Are we all happy with the caption to the two Earths at the head of the article? Of the following I prefer b. As more "engaging" for the reader (as it were). What do others think? Would you like to script another suggestion?

a. Achieving sustainability will enable the Earth to continue supporting human life as we know it.

b. The fragility of the biosphere and importance of sustainability can be understood more clearly when we see the Earth from space.

c. Earth has sustained life for roughly 3.8 billion years.(Added by AdenR)

Granitethighs 02:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree with a. and b. with reasons voiceofreason, skip, morphh(b.) and myself have given. The two options still seem to be POV's. That is why I suggest C. or we could all work on scripting another suggestion. AdenR (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? It seems almost impossible to hold any reasonable discussion on this page. I started this section to try to pick up things for which previous discussion indicated a consensus. Now I find that we are again debating the lead, the caption, etc. Would editors please keep discussion on those subjects in the appropriate section? I will attempt to refactor this later. Right now I am signing off. Sunray (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking the same thing. But When I saw GT write all this stuff I couldn't help but put my thoughts and suggestions down. To be fair, you did name the article "things to do when the article is unlocked". 'Till next time AdenR (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever suits. What is meant to happen now - do we just wait? Granitethighs 07:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and in the mean time we should put in place plans about how to better deal with talk page disruptions. LK (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see what happened. Sorry about my outburst, I must have been in a low blood sugar condition. From the above, I get that there is no agreement to add the etymology statement. That is fine. On the other hand, Lawrence proposes discussing how to deal with talk page disruptions. I think that is very important. We began to discuss it above but got side-tracked. Let's re-start that discussion in a new section. Sunray (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. However, I do agree with the etymology edit. I clearly stated that. I merely suggested something that could be discussed after the edit. Also, I don't think we need to discuss behavior. If we all act like adults and leave personal comments and snide remarks out of the talk page, things should be fine. AdenR (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, Aden, is that there have been persistent violations of behavioral policies and guidelines and productive work on the article has come to a standstill. If one reads the talk page archives, it is very evident that this has been going on for over a year. If we don't get a handle on this now, further article improvements are doomed. This is a difficult, politically-charged topic and if we cannot get consensus on a stable version, the article will revert to its former state - a repository for drive-by commentary, without any coherent organization or sourcing. Sunray (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I change my mind. Lets go on with it.AdenR (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Improving talk page discussion

Could we, perhaps, create a list of groundrules and agree to stick to them? Each of us could suggest ways of keeping order. If there is discussion, it could occur in another section. Here are some proposed ones to get us started. Sunray (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Groundrules

Stick to content, not the contributor - This should be uncontroversial, since it is policy. Personal comments should be made on a User talk page. If made here, they can be removed by any editor, substituting the following template: (Personal comment removed per agreement on this talk page)
Keep posts short. - Long tendentious posts are disruptive. If folks wish to discuss or comment on something at length, editors may create a subpage for it with a short section here linking to it.
Listen to fellow editors, assuming good faith.
Abide by consensus. If you think a new consensus is needed, make your case for consideration by other editors, but do not continually raise the same point - such posts may be ignored.

Agreed. Granitethighs 21:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. --LK (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
OK --Travelplanner (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Sunray (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
agreed Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
agreed AdenR (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
A bit late, but I'm in. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Nick carson (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Wait, I think we already know the rules. Stating we can delete or move personal remarks etc. doesn't sound like a good idea. Plus the time would be better spent discussing the article. Instead of deleting attacks or whatever we can ask the editor to move it to another section. But lets hope it doesn't get to that. I think we can all stick to content if everyone doesn't assume too much and makes things clear as possible. AdenR (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The 'stick' of allowing anyone to remove personal remarks is there in hopes that this will cause no one to leave personal remarks. So, hopefully it will never be used, and so is not disruptive. Anyway, it already is policy that anyone can (should) remove personal attacks, so this is just a restatement of policy. I think it's more disruptive to leave personal attacks up than to remove them. LK (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from. Still, deleting it even if it is mild and interpreted the wrong way would introduce further problems. That is why we should not assume too much and be as clear as possible. Confusing statements and assumptions have happened in the past and contributed to disruptive behavior. I don't want to bring these up, however if you want me to I can give examples of what I mean. AdenR (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I agree.AdenR (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We should try to define short. How about 'around 500 words' as a guideline? I'm not suggesting that we start removing long posts, only that we suggest that posts be kept to around 500 words. LK (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about your suggestion or number two. I agreed at first but now I'm tittering. I don't think long posts are THAT disruptive so long as they follow rules one and 3. It is going a bit far to say it is disruptive. I think we can just agree to try and keep posts short. One would think long posts have to occur sometimes, especially if editors want to state their positions clearly. AdenR (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't think a 500 word limit is needed but on the other hand, editors should be aware, long posts tend to not get read carefully at all. Outcomes will be happier if one tries to keep things short and tidy, as in citing a source, then saying something pithy about how the article text might echo that source and blend in helpfully. Try to take things one at a time. Other than BLP worries and straight vandalism, "content emergencies" on en.Wikipedia are far and few between. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a limit is not needed. There needs to be some flexibility, depending on the subject. If others think posts are too long they can mention it. Sunray (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Mentioning it sound fine.AdenR (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a forth groundrule. I hadn't intended the list to be final until everyone had had a chance to comment, but people started agreeing with my tentative list (nice to be agreeing on things, though :) In any case, I think something about consensus needs to be included. We can discuss it further if necessary. Sunray (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have been thinking about this too. Is consensus 100%, more than 50%, etc? I don't know how consensus works exactly but if disagreements do occur maybe having an over 2/3's vote sounds fair. Again, not sure about this. I would like to have this discussed more. AdenR (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's my take on it: In consensus decision-making, the aim is "general agreement," i.e., "the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections." In Wikipedia, discussion usually continues until objections have been addressed adequately. It is particularly important to see that questions of policy are dealt with. In votes, often a super-majority is used. We have said (in the project sign-up at the top of the page) that we would use 2/3 as the decision rule for votes. In practice we rarely have voted, but in my experience 2/3, or more, is a good general guage of consensus. Sunray (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation.AdenR (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to discuss small edits. How would this work? Can we include something like "if you revert an edit you must talk a give reasons why you reverted on the talk page" To be considerate and start the discussion of disagreements. This may sound frivolous but I think it is important. AdenR (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest we follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Sunray (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't clear enough. I'm mainly talking about copy edits. Stuff that doesn't deal with content. I can understand if deleting sentences might be discussed but combining, rewording, etc. help with presentation and shouldn't be stagnated with proactive action as you suggest. AdenR (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting shouldn't get reverted, unless it contains grammatical errors. If it is reverted, the edit summary should explain why. Sunray (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

^ Cohen, J.E. (2006). "Human Population: The Next Half Century." In Kennedy D. (Ed.) "Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2006-7". London: Island Press, pp. 13–21. ISSN 15591158.
^ Stanners, D., et al. (2007). "Frameworks for Policy Integration Indicators, for Sustainable Development, and for Evaluating Complex Scientific Evidence." EEA GEAR-SD framework in Hak, T. et al. Sustainability indicators, SCOPE 67. London: Island Press, p. 156. ISBN 1597261319.
^ Cohen, J.E. (2006). "Human Population: The Next Half Century." In Kennedy D. (Ed.) "Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2006-7". London: Island Press, pp. 13–21. ISSN 15591158.

[1] Cohen, J.E. (2006). "Human Population: The Next Half Century." In Kennedy D. (Ed.) "Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2006-7". London: Island Press, pp. 13–21. ISSN 15591158.

[2] Stanners, D., et al. (2007). "Frameworks for Policy Integration Indicators, for Sustainable Development, and for Evaluating Complex Scientific Evidence." EEA GEAR-SD framework in Hak, T. et al. Sustainability indicators, SCOPE 67. London: Island Press, p. 156. ISBN 1597261319.

[3] Cohen, J.E. (2006). "Human Population: The Next Half Century." In Kennedy D. (Ed.) "Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2006-7". London: Island Press, pp. 13–21. ISSN 15591158.

[1]

[2]

[3]