Talk:Sustainability/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

The section on critique

I have some questions regarding the recent edits to the section on critique, User:Mkevlar? I felt the earlier version was possibly better because it was written as flowing text (prose), not as unconnected bullet points. At the very least, we do need an introductory sentence to explain what follows there as a bullet point list, I think. I think the first paragraph of the old version was pretty good? Also you seem to have removed the page numbers of the references, was that on purpose? The edit summary states "pruned paragraph as it contained conjecture, cleaned up formatting and references", where was there conjecture - everything had references? Here is the old version which I am referring to:

++++++ The concept of sustainable development has been criticized from different angles. While some see it as paradoxical and regard development as inherently unsustainable, others are sobered by the lack of progress which has been achieved so far. "Sustainability" also has a reputation as a buzzword.

According to Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of the first report to the Club of Rome, called "The Limits to Growth", many people deceive themselves by using the Brundtland definition of sustainability. This is because the needs of the present generation are actually not met today, and the economic activities to meet present needs will substantially diminish the options of future generations. Sustainability has also been described as an “exhausted roadmap” due to the fact that our consumer societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive.

Some scholars have even proclaimed the end of the concept of sustainability due to the realities of the Anthropocene: These realities include "unprecedented and irreversible rates of human induced biodiversity loss, exponential increases in per-capita resource consumption, and global climate change". Therefore, it might become impossible to pursue a goal of sustainability when faced with these complex, radical and dynamic issues.

The Rio Process was a huge leap forward: for the first time, the world agreed on a sustainability agenda. However, global consensus was facilitated by neglecting concrete goals and operational details.“ The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) now have concrete targets (unlike the results from the Rio Process) but no methods for sanctions. +++++++++

Compare with the new version:

+++++++ * The Limits to Growth: According to Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of the first report to the Club of Rome, called "The Limits to Growth", many people deceive themselves by using the Brundtland definition of sustainability. This is because the needs of the present generation are actually not met today, and the economic activities to meet present needs will substantially diminish the options of future generations. Sustainability has also been described as an “exhausted roadmap” due to the fact that our consumer societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive.

• Anthropocene: Some scholars have even proclaimed the end of the concept of sustainability due to the realities of the Anthropocene These realities include "unprecedented and irreversible rates of human induced biodiversity loss, exponential increases in per-capita resource consumption, and global climate change". Therefore, it might become impossible to pursue a goal of sustainability when faced with these complex, radical and dynamic issues.

• The Rio Protocol was a huge leap forward: for the first time, the world agreed on a sustainability agenda. However, a global consensus was facilitated by neglecting concrete goals and operational details. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) now have concrete targets (unlike the results from the Rio Process) but no methods for sanctions. +++++++++ EMsmile (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand the "prose" quality and as a recreational read that would be fine but the world of sustainability professionals is one of high stress and low value. Many readers of this article with a business background want to skim it and find the few gems they are looking for quickly; this audience are often the decision makers that shape the world. So lets make the content digestible for them too.

As for the bullet points, they clearly articulate sub-article headings which adds structured knowledge where they reader can drill deeper with a single click and that is something worth doing. Over time more Critiques and Criticisms will be added by others, so giving then a structured format will make for better clarity TheKevlar 10:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)

Well our target audience is the general public, not sustainability professionals in particular. So I think the text needs to be readable, understandable and flow well (and not be full or jargon). I agree that most readers have little time. For that reason, the lead is so important (the section before the table of content). It's supposed to be a summary of the article. About 600 words long. Many readers will not read further than the lead! Many Wikipedia articles have poorly written leads. Let's work on the lead of this article together? Also if you want to create a structure for the critique section then I recommend rather using sub-headings. This way, the sub-headings will also show up in the table of content. Shall we do that? I agree the critique section should be built up further over time, and it's good to have a structure for it. EMsmile (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed! The first 600 words are worth working on. If you sandbox them with a link here I will put the effort into helping out. Mkevlar (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox is too cumbersome, I suggest improving the lead "live", making it a good summary of the article. End result should be about 4 paragraphs or 600 words. Further guidance also here: WP:LEAD. If you have time, please give it a go (saving frequently and bringing up anything that needs to be discussed here on the talk page?). I think the first paragraph of the lead is pretty good though. EMsmile (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Criticisms

Collecting all criticisms into one place adds clarity. Not sure what standards WP has on this but it's where most STEM professionals look to find the conflicts.

• Buzzwords belongs here if you can find more than a soft criticism reference
• Policy greenwashing and loftiness could go here if someone wants to add them TheKevlar (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

We typically do not have a separate section for criticism/controversy (per WP:NOCRIT), but this article may be an exception where it could work. The critique doesn't fit in nicely into other sections, and I think the article is usually sufficiently stable to avoid the section becoming disproportionately long. Femke (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not clear on what you're saying, TheKevlar? You are suggesting to rename the current section from "critique" to "criticism"? I have no strong views on that. When we write about critique we need to be careful as it should be about the concept of sustainability, not about how humans live in general. E.g. The Limits to Growth is not a criticism of sustainability as a concept but more about the causes that have led to unsustainable practices. EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean with "soft criticism reference"? The two references that currently go with the buzzword statement are fine, aren't they? Do you want to find additional ones?EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "Policy greenwashing and loftiness" are similar things to the buzzword statement. Could also be added, with refs. We talk about greenwashing and eco-labelling already in the business section. I think it fits well there or should it be moved to "critique"? EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Reassessment of this article's Good Article status (March 2022)

Please note that I have listed this article for reassessment of its WP:GA status (which it got 11 years ago). I don't think in its current form it meets GA status and I think the label ought to be removed for now. We can later work towards regaining the GA status. Please see the discussion here. EMsmile (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, can you remove it User:EMsmile I don't know how and I do not not have the time to become politically involved in WikipediaTheKevlar 10:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 10:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)

@Mkevlar: while I won't deny there are political aspects to working on Wikipedia, it's unhelpful to think of it like that. One of our core pillars is WP:neutrality. That means giving weight to various opinions based on the proportion of WP:reliable sources. When you write well here, you'll often end up writing things you don't agree with personally.

P.s. Don't forget to sign your post with four tiles ~~~~ Femke (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Core pillars interesting choice of words because the discussion with EMsmile is the use of the word pillars and her enforcement of the word dimensions on most places. Your use of the word pillars coveys the same intent as pillars of sustainability a correction I have been asserting all along.

PS. I have been signing with 4 ~ but just discovered that the custom signature syntax has changed since I originally configured it years ago and that caused the signature to failing TheKevlar (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I had explained here my reasoning for not replacing "dimension" everywhere in the article with "pillar" (which is what TheKevlar had suggested): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability#%22Dimension%22_is_equally_common_as_%22pillar%22 If people disagree, then let's continue the discussion in that section and reach consensus. EMsmile (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sustainability

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

This article was listed as "good article" 11 years ago. Since then it has become rather poor in quality, with a lot of content added indiscriminately, some as part of student assignments. I am currently working on improving the article. I have done a lot of work in culling and re-arranging, always trying to seek consensus on the talk page. This is work in progress. I think it will take a long time to get back to good article status and I won't be able to achieve it on my own. Not many other editors seem to be involved/interested at the moment. Right now, the article is definitely not good article standard and I think the label of "good article" is very misleading. EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Since this reassessment was opened, the article has undergone significant work. @EMsmile: do you still think the article fails the GA criteria? If so, can you be more specific which of the criteria it fails. Femke (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel the reassessment needs doing either way as the new version of the article is very different from the previously assessed version. I also think it's not yet good enough to meet GA. Broadly speaking I think it still lacks content and a broader range of recent references. With regards to missing content, one way to consider this is to look at the Germany or French language version which both include some content that is not yet included in the English version. So that would refer to this criterion: "Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic"; Illustrations could also be improved in the sense that more should be added (although this is not easy). This one is also not well met: "all inline citations are from reliable sources,". EMsmile (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You will need to be even more specific.

• What citations are unreliable?
• At over 4,000 words, and with a wide set of subsection, I'm not too concerned about broadness. What main aspects are omitted? It's okay if some major facts are omitted (see Wikipedia:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article).

The content in the second half of the article is still quite weak. Sections on critique, barriers, pathways and responses from stakeholders need further fleshing out. EMsmile (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I find "responses from stakeholders" a weird title of a section. It's definitely not a must for a GA. What major aspects are missing from these sections? Fleshing out is still a bit vague. Femke (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The section "responses from stakeholders" will attempt to make it all more tangible & practical by describing how different sectors of society are attempting to strive for (more) sustainability. The title might not be ideal, I'd be happy for suggestions for a better title of this section. EMsmile (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think it currently fails 1a, as the two first sentences are not sufficiently simple for a broad audience. It feels like a definition that can be found in a difficult academic text, not in an encyclopedia. Many people will not know what public discourse or semantic means.

I agree with you. A lot of the language used in this article is highly academic. This needs readability improvements. The first two sentences of the lead are not too bad now, I would say (Sustainability is a broad policy concept in the global public sphere and is commonly considered to have three "dimensions" or "pillars": the environmental, economic and social dimension. A closely related and overlapping concept is that of sustainable development. UNESCO formulated a distinction as follows:). If people don't know what a public discourse(sphere is they could click on the wikilink? I think it's somewhat important to mention public discourse/sphere here but if not, we could also omit that).EMsmile (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Public sphere is equally difficult I believe, but more vague. The definition at Britannica is quite different. Is it only a policy concept? Or also an ethical concept? Femke (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Britannica definition is not very good on this topic, I would say. It's hard to check their facts as they don't supply references for their statements. This will be an example where Wikipedia is better (when the article is finished) than the Britannica page. The Britannica article doesn't put the 3 dimensions at the core of its definition and that's an omission, I would argue. I haven't seen it described as an ethical concept in any of the key publications. (putting this into google leads me to publications that focus on "environmental sustainability" and connect that with ethics). If someone finds "public sphere" difficult, doesn't it help that they can click through to the Wikipedia article on "public sphere"? But we could also omit it, I guess. EMsmile (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Clicking through is quite difficult, especially on mobile phone. I think more readers would just give up. I also doubt that sustainability is only a global thing. Femke (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've changed it (first sentence of the lead) now to: "Sustainability is a broad policy and ethical concept at the global, national and individual consumer level, and is commonly considered to have three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic and social dimension. It stresses intergenerational equity." What do you think? Britannica mentioned intergenerational ethics, so I felt inspired by that a bit. EMsmile (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: I've done a lot of work on this article in the last few months. I do think it's a lot better. But at the same time I don't think it should have GA status (neither should the version from October last year (see here) which was my starting point have had GA status). I won't necessarily have time to bring it back to GA status (I can try but can't promise anything). Therefore, I think this misleading quality label ought to be removed for now. EMsmile (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Notifications

On a second note, it seems like you've overlooked step 5 of the GAR instructions(?), as I don't see any notifications. That may explain the muted response to this GAR. Femke (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't do Step 5 yet, sorry (WP:GAR). I thought it gets listed automatically "somewhere" and "someone" would take notice. I am also not sure who these people should be: "Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, the nominator, and the reviewer." Major contributing editors I can look up in the revision history so that's easy (although they seem to have mostly moved on from Wikipedia), relevant WikiProjects I am not totally sure (suggestions?), nominator - is that myself?, and who is the reviewer? Do I have to find a reviewer manually? EMsmile (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A question about procedure: wouldn't a GA article that had 50% or more of its content completely changed/replaced automatically fit a nomination for GA review? I mean its content is very very different to its content when the review was done 11 years ago? EMsmile (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The nominator is the one who initially nominated this article for GA. Of the three people involved in the original review, only @Granitethighs is still somewhat active. I would chose the three most relevant WikiProjects on the talk page (environment, economics, globalization?). It does get listed, in the big list article alerts section of Wikiprojects, but that is usually not sufficiently visible.

And no, just having different content isn't enough for triggering a GAR. The instruction state you should only nominate if we believe it fails the GA criteria. We're not a WP:bureaucracy, so if the new content is better, it doesn't necessarily needs another review. Femke (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I've now notified WikiProject Climate Change, WikiProject Environment and WikiProject Globalization of this process. Also written on the talk page of sustainability again. Have taken a look at the people involved back in 2010 but like you also pointed out, only User:Granitethighs is still active (the other two have a label "retired" on their user pages since 2016). You have already pinged that user. I don't think WikiProject economics would fit. Can't think of any other WikiProjects for now but will keep thinking. EMsmile (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about keeping GA label

I got to this page via the notification posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment. As I say in my reply there that while "I'm open to examination of the article's GA status via reassessment, I disagree that the current GA status should be removed at once. I'd like to see more comments on that from members here, or from other people uninvolved in the topic."

To continue, I believe Femke's comments regarding the need for a Good Article Reassessment (GAR), in the currently hatted secttion just above are valid and I think the notification process for this reassessment is of importance, and so ask that the hat coding be removed. As a member of WP:Environment since 2015, I find the discussion of the article and the review process of interest, and at this point simply suggest the GA status be retained unless a substantial consensus to the contrary becomes evident. I thank all who have worked to improve the article. Jusdafax (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about improving the article

I'll try to delve further into the article, and list some point where I think the article is lacking. I expect it should be solvable within a reasonable time frame, but I'm now of the opinion the article does not meet the GA criteria

• Google NGram is cited, which feels too much like WP:OR. It also doesn't support the statemetn about popularity online as it's about books if I'm not mistaken.

Agreed, have removed the sentence. EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think the possible cultural and financial dimension could be included in the lede, which would help solve the issue that criticism gets too much attention.

Agreed, will work on it. I'd like the lead to be about 600 words in the end and a good summary of the article. EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

600 words is a bit on the long side (I prefer 400-500 words, which helps to get to a medium-difficult readability, simple would imply 50-100 words per paragraph). Either way, the only thing that needs fixing for GA is the balance. Femke (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added some content to the lead about the other two dimensions (so far, only the environmental dimension had been explained in the lead). I started out by copying key sentences from the main body to the lead. Over time, we can massage them into a flowing text that summarises the article well. Eventually we will also need a summary paragraph for the section on approaches (formerly called "responses by stakeholders").

• Overall, the article seems to rely a bit too much on quotes. I think this is a topic where quotes are not completely avoidable, but it should be within reason. A few places with excessive quoting:
  • According to the Western Australia Council of Social Services (WACOSS): "Social sustainability occurs when the formal and informal processes; systems; structures; and relationships actively support the capacity of current and future generations to create healthy and liveable communities. Socially sustainable communities are equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a good quality of life."[60][61]

Have shortened it to this but wasn't sure how to not put the last part of the sentence into quotation marks, unless I use some form of close paraphrasing: "Social sustainability is thought to lead to liveable communities which would be "equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a good quality of life""? EMsmile (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Others have pointed out that a "common agreement on the definition and operationalization of this concept is still missing"

I am not sure how to get around this quote. I could paraphrase with different wording but worry that it would be regarded as too close paraphrasing? EMsmile (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The advantage of paraphrasing is that you can avoid the jargon 'operationalization'. I don't really know what that means. Femke (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • In 1972, the UN held its first conference on environmental issues. -> too many quotes

I agree. I was working on some of those sections with content expert Christian Berg. He likes to add quotes because he feels they are more accurate than paraphrasing. I will see what to do about those quotes though. EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Your rewording EMsmile is closer to GA friendly. I find Australian academics sometimes overly jargon their sentences. Computer science if full of this. TheKevlar 06:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 06:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't understand what "The three dimensions are sometimes also referred to as "people, planet, and prosperity" as the preamble of the Agenda 2030 refers to it, adding peace and partnership in its preamble.[24]: 2  " means.

I have removed this sentence, it was a bit of WP:OR.EMsmile (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• About the Economic dimension (this is the only section I have some expertise..):
  • This approach is underlined in the following quote from a popular textbook on environmental economics: "Nobody who has seriously studied the issues believes that the economy's relationship to the natural environment can be left entirely to market forces -> the word popular seems OR.

I have replaced popular with well-known. That is a fact or would you say that is also too subjective? We just wanted to point out it's not just "any" textbook.EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Does the source support hte word well-known? I don't know the textbook, so I'd argue it's not a fact that can be put there without a source. Femke (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

If Femkemilene hasn't heard of the book, I could see deleting both "popular" and "well-known." (So I did. See what you think.)PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the book is in its 4th edition - this makes it likely it is fairly successful. But perhaps it's unusual to quote like this from a textbook. I'll check with Christian Berg if we can find a better quote that is perhaps attributable to a famous person. EMsmile (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you have a good solution now. Putting it in the paragraph works better than giving it prominence.PlanetCare (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• • The market-government dichotemy completely overlooks work by Elinor Ostrom, who has empirically shown self-organised governance is a third option.

This was very helpful. I disliked the assertion that people who value local resources need government intervention (I changed it to "participation") So I researched Elinor Ostrom's work and inserted a few sentences. See what you think: I'm not a content expert.PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

These are great additions. I've tried to improve this further in order to remove any bias which would say what we think is right or wrong. Surely the two approaches deserve to stand side by side as per WP:DUE? Unless we know for sure that one is wrong/outdated. The example from Elinor's work seems to only/mainly apply for communities in touch with nature / rural communities. Does her work also include examples of more urban-type societies? Are there any other opinions/approaches that we ought to add under this heading of "government participation/intervention" (or perhaps there's already a separate Wikipedia article on this that we need to link to).

EMsmile, you've improved it even further. Using Femkemilene's phrase "market-government dichotomy" there at the end might not be explained well enough for the average person.PlanetCare (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Remember, I'm not a reliable source myself :). When adding something not yet supported by the sources, can we agree to add a cn tag? I think disprove is too strong a word. THere are researchers out there unconvinced of her work. Furthermore, it seems to refer to the quote Nobody who has seriously studied the issues believes that the economy's relationship to the natural environment can be left entirely to market forces, rather than the first sentence Many people believe that without government action, natural resources will be over-exploited and destroyed in the long-term, which is what she set out to rebut (well, more precisely, she rebutted that it's a choice between the market and the national government, and that local governance is sometimes possible and better than the other two). Femke (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

EMsmile (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Have changed it to: "pointed out that the choice should not be limited to either the market or the national government, and that local governance can be a suitable third option." and used the same ref about Elinor's work that was already there. I think this is better? No need for a cn tag in this instance? EMsmile (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Pointed out is a WP:Words to watch (1b of GA criteria), and has a slightly non-neutral connotation still. It give credence to the idea. Described would be a more neutral word. Femke (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very good policy, thanks for the reminder. I have changed it now to "stated that" (was tossing up "said that" or "wrote that"). I felt that "described" didn't work so well here but don't feel strongly about it. EMsmile (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• • The text about externalities is written in Wikivoice. It's the majority framing, so this may be okay, but note that there is a lot of criticism of this frame / frame of government "intervention" (the word intervention implies that the government is external to the market, rather than shaping it). The word intervention can be replaced by the more neutral policy.

I added the "who pays for disposal of packaging" as an example to clarify what "externalities" are. I think the example is needed, and welcome other suggestions if there's a better way of explaining "externalities."PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I like your addition, makes it a lot clearer. EMsmile (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• • I'm a bit surprised to see Kate Raworth grouped under environmental economics. Are you aware not all economics applied to the environment is environmental economics. Environmental economics is the neoclassical (largest) branch of economics about the environment (simplified explation, but I don't think Kate Raworth is part of that. From having read her work, I think she's an ecological economist.

I've changed the section heading from "environmental economics" to "tools". That's better, I think? EMsmile (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• • "due to the fact that our consumer societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive" -> feels too much like it's said in Wikivoice, should be more clearly attributed

I completely agree. Citation needed, or is it just an exaggeration that doesn't belong in here at all?PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I have reworded this but the "self-destructive" wording is taken straight from the reference provided so I think it makes sense to keep it but to put it into quotation marks to show that it's an opinion. This reference was recommended by Christian Berg. I think it's a suitable ref for this kind of statement about criticism of sustainability. New sentence reads: "Another criticism is that the paradigm of sustainability is no longer suitable as a guide (or "road map") for transformation due to the fact that our societies are "socially and ecologically self-destructive consumer societies"." EMsmile (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• • The doughnut economics template used for Planet Earth as a whole, indicating errors in red. -> "errors" is the wrong word here.
• Prose nitpicking: The social dimension of sustainability is the least defined and least understood dimension (also called "pillar" or "aspect") of the three dimensions commonly used to characterize sustainability -> long sentence, no need to repeat that the point about pillars and aspects. Femke (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks, will change that now. EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, these are excellent points and will help us to eventually get back to GA status! Just one clarification question: when you say "is written in Wikivoice" then this is a good thing, right? We are supposed to write in Wikivoice or did I misunderstand? I checked here WP:Wikivoice, it's all about neutrality and how facts or opinions are presented. EMsmile (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we collect further opinions about its current GA status or can we conclude today that the current GA label should be removed straight away? I support removing it as I find it misleading to tell our readers that this article meets GA status. It might take us some weeks/months to bring it back to GA status. EMsmile (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Usually, we want to write as much as possible in our own voice (wikivoice). In the case a significant part of sources disagree with a framing, that's not quite possible. I doubt it's appropriate to use the words "government intervention" in Wikivoice here, as intervention has a mildly negative connotation, and is mostly used by neoclassical economists. Other economic traditions would not use it much. All traditions are fine with the more neutrally-worded 'policy'.

agreed about the "mildly negative" observation. How about "participation"?PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

An uninvolved editor will determine consensus here. When an article is actively worked on and not too far from GA quality, they likely won't close the discussion. I think we might as well 'save' the star here, rather than opening a second process later. Femke (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• The see also section is too long; see WP:See also. Generally, terms linked in the text should not be linked again in the see also section. Femke (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  I will clean it up. I will also cross reference to see if they are included in Index of sustainability articles and Outline of sustainability before deleting TheKevlar 06:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 06:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the extra terms from the See also list. I checked that they were in Index of sustainability articles and Outline of sustainability (some of them were not, so I added them). I wonder if it's a bit of a duplication to have Index of sustainability articles and Outline of sustainability and the template {{sustainability}} Do we need all three? Is anyone keeping them updated (I doubt it)? EMsmile (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about the first paragraph of the lead

I've changed the first sentence of the lead once more. Now it is "Sustainability is a normative concept that stresses intergenerational equity and is commonly considered to have three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic and social dimension." I am aware that the general public might not understand what a "normative concept" is. I have wikilinked it but is there a simpler way of saying it? Christian Berg pointed out to me that this is more about a normative concept than an ethical one. He also felt the intergenerational aspect was key and should be in the first sentence. Previously, the first two sentences were like this: Sustainability is a broad policy and ethical concept that is commonly considered to have three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic and social dimension. It stresses intergenerational equity. EMsmile (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I dont quite know what it means, so it's difficult to come up with alternative wording. I think it fails WP:EXPLAINLEAD. The source you gave to support this statement does not contain the words normative/norm. What part of the source support this new definition? That may give us clues how to reformulate. Femke (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on normativity is pretty good. It explains: "Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good, desirable, or permissible, and others as bad, undesirable, or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes." The Britannica article mentions normative like this (last sentence) "For their part, political analysts have focused on the ideological and normative implications of sustainability". The book by Christian Berg which is cited several times explains it in more detail, e.g. "sustainability is, obviously, a normative concept" on page 26. The book is behind a paywall (haven't checked how much of it is on Google books). I have the pdf file here so it's easy for me to look it up there. I think I can add the Berg reference to the end of the first sentence as it would be a source for the normative statement (?). I am not sure if the term "normative" needs further paraphrasing or if it's OK like this. Some terms readers might have to look up if needed, or not? Either way, it describes the character of sustainability more precisely than "global policy and ethical concept", I would say (?). EMsmile (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source, but please make sure you cite properly when you change text. I spend a lot of time checking citations, and too often they do not support new text you add. I still find the sentence extremely vague: it does not define sustainability, it just says it's a concept. Femke (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Yes, sustainability is vague and fuzzy. All the literature that I have read so far gives no simple definition of sustainability. Explaining that it's a normative concept is helpful, I think. I have searched more for good articles to cite about the aspect of "normative concept" and have added a paragraph accordingly in the main text now. I can send you the pdf file of the book of Christian Berg if you like so you can dive deeper into it. I also found this publication by Lisa Butler Harrington useful (I'll contact her too and encourage her to take a look at this Wikipedia article): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309619897_Sustainability_Theory_and_Conceptual_Considerations_A_Review_of_Key_Ideas_for_Sustainability_and_the_Rural_Context . EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Overall, I am not saying the first sentence of the lead is perfect as it is. But right now, I can't think of a better way to describe it. Looking at MOS:FIRST I think it's not too bad: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.". EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Ben Purvis just sent me this e-mail about not defining sustainability: "I think reference to sustainability as a buzzword covers the vagueness in meaning. Perhaps there is space in this section to also refer to the numerous unsuccessful attempts to develop a definitive definition of sustainability. Ramsey (2015) is a good reference here, who I see states in the abstract that sustainability is "vague and contested... but not meaningless". EMsmile (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delist The article is poorly organised, making it hard to read. It is a mess of headers, especially towards the end where single headers are given to short sentence concepts (like Buzzword, Financial sustainability, Individuals, Awards etc). Many of these should not exisit as headers while others should be expanded upon. This underlies the major issue with the article in that it struggles to present information coherently. I feel a lot of work is needed to get this up to Good Standard. Aircorn (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Hi User:Aircorn. I've done a bit of work on the headers in the meantime. I don't think they are "a mess" anymore. It's true that some sections are still a bit too short. I would not delete them though; they serve as reminders that more work is needed. For example, the section on "barriers" was rather short (I was still busy expanding it). I have expanded that section now. Overall, I don't find short sections overly problematic. At least this way, content can easily be accessed from the table of content. But if you have proposals for a better structure or for merging some sections together, please propose? What did you mean by "it struggles to present information coherently" and what would have to be done to improve on that? (note: I was the original proposer of delisting it; however, since having done more work on it I am contemplating putting in the extra mile to bring it back to GA standard - with the help of anyone who has time to comment and to suggest specific improvements). Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some of the headers were necessary. Their brevity points to broadness concerns, especially as you say, more work is needed. When I looked at it the article felt like one still being developed rather than one ready to run a GAN, let alone be saved as one. Still feel there are concepts that can be expanded on (like financial stability) and not sure buzzwords needs its own subheading. It really depends on what source there are and the pertinent information you can find.

As to structure I feel it can be better organised. I am not against overview as a heading, but would arrange it differently. Easier to just give an example of how I would do it [1]. By the same token I think there would be a better way to arrange the Three Pillars. When you get to sub-sub headings (visually it can make it hard to figure out which one is applying to which previous header) you might want to look to bump things up a bit. Not sure how to do that though so maybe what you have done is the best way.

I had another look over it and it has improved (thanks for your work). I understand it is a difficult concept but maybe some writing can be simplified. For example Originally, "sustainability" meant making only such use of natural, renewable resources that people could continue to rely on their yields in the long term. could be "Originally, "sustainability" meant only using natural or renewable resources that would continue to provide yield in the long term." That's not even a very technical one, just the first I saw.

It uses for example, eg, i.e a lot. This is often fine and necessary in an article like this, but sometimes it can be written better as it can sound quite casual. Also the examples could be expanded upon. For example e.g. the Māori of New Zealand under ancient cultures (which as a New Zealander is not how I would describe them - the culture is still very much current) does not actually provide an example of how they actually restricted the use of natural resources.

I have no doubt in your ability to bring it up to scratch, but I think in hindsight you would have been better just working on it without opening this GAR as it is not usually a good place to find willing editors to help or review unfortunately. I still think it would be better to delist it and then run a proper GAN when you feel it is ready, especially as this has already been open for nearly 5 months. Aircorn (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this is great feedback! I'll work on your suggestions today. My aim is to improve this article and to draw in other editors who could help with the reviewing. If you think this is easier to achieve with a WP:GAN than a WP:GAR then this is important feedback. I didn't realise the two processes were rather separate from each other. I am pinging Femkemilene as they were originally against delisting - what are your thoughts about it now? Continue with the delisting process or continue with improving and then trying for WP:GAN? I don't mind either way; whichever method carries the most promise to get a better article in the end. EMsmile (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

While GAN can be hit or miss I think it is more likely to give you better feedback than here. GAN works best I find when a well polished article is submitted and a reviewer can just focus on the final touchups or the little things we all invariably miss. Reviewing an article that needs a lot of work is always difficult as it is going to change quite a bit during the review so in effect needs multiple reviews. Aircorn (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all the specific comments that you raised, Aircorn. In particular I've changed the structure a bit. Rather than starting with the "old usage" and then shifting to "current usage", I have moved the old usage / history part to the very end of the article as I think it would detract from the main points (and makes it also less "academic" this way - coming straight to the point what sustainability is NOW). I've take out some of the "e.g." and reduced the number of times that I am using "for example". I'll also try to improve readability over time, using the Hemmingway App. EMsmile (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delist for being too academic. I gave up at the first sentence after clicking "normative concept" and still not understanding what "normative concept" means. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I've argued straight from the start that the article should be delisted (despite having done a ton of work on it myself in the last months). However, I find your statement a bit harsh, User:Chidgk1. Not knowing the meaning of "normative concept" should not be sufficient to say the article is not GA. OK, it's a term that is not used in every day practice. But it's not THAT difficult a word. I mean I could give plenty of articles that have a specific term in the first sentence that is not known by everyone. What if it said "ethical concept" and then someone saying "I don't know what ethical concept means?". Firstly, people can click through on "normative", it has a Wikilink. Secondly, they can read the rest of the article where "normative" is explained in several instances. If you want, we can include exactly that same information also in the first sentence. I hadn't done it so far as I didn't want the first sentence to be too long. But if you want, we can write it like this: "sustainability is a concept that provides a normative structure (describing what human society regards as good or desirable)" or "sustainability is a normative concept (this means sustainability is connected to "what we see as desirable")". Apart from this first sentence, please do point out what other content you find too academic. I am sure we can find alternative wording in most cases if we put our mind to it. Note I recently worked on the related article planetary boundaries. That one also suffered (and still does) from being quite academic. But it's usually not too hard to rework it. Usually it's easier to do if more people work on it, rather than just one person (it's hard to see the forest for the trees after a while when one works on an article mostly alone).EMsmile (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

EMsmile Sorry if that was harsh - I was in a bit of a rush so read and wrote quickly. This kind of broad concept article would be very difficult for me to edit I think, especially the first sentence and lead. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Readability and other aspects

I'll further explain why think the lead is significantly too difficult. We tend to overestimate how much other people know of things we care about. WP:ONEDOWN gives the tip how to deal with that bias, by writing for a group slightly younger than those that would typically study the topic. I think sustainability is typically covered when students are about 16 or 17, so we should aim to write for 15 years olds.

The first sentence has three words that this group would not understand:

• normative (which I consider a word even a typical graduate might not understand)
• intergenerational (maybe half of this group will be able to guess)
• Equity (less than half would know this)

I do not know enough about that topic to boldly give a new definition in the article. What about something like this:

Sustainability is a concept that describes how resources should be fairly divided between generations. It is commonly described as having three dimensions (or pillars): the environment, the economy and the social dimension.

The work should indicates that it is a normative process I believe. It can also be described more explicitly like: Sustainability is the ability to support a process continuously over time. As such, it deals with fairness between generations. It is commonly described as having three dimensions (or pillars): the environment, the economy and the social dimension. Sustainability is a normative concept, which means it is connected to "what we see as desirable"

Further in the lead there are some additional phrases that I believe need to be simplified:

• planetary boundaries (not sure if it needs to be included)
• eco-economic decoupling (the sentence immediately afterwards seems describes this without the jargon)
• externalities (again remember that a minority of economists rejects this concept, and another minority of economists believe externalities should be addressed by local governance, rather than governments)
• borne (I imagine the median age of people learning this word is about 18)
• sobered (difficult word. It also doesn't quite feel like it belongs in an encyclopedic article, a bit too subjective I guess, can't quite put my finger on it)

The difficulty of an article is not only about jargon, but also about the difficulty of the non-jargon text. A crude measure of this difficulty is a readability score, such as https://readabilityofwikipedia.com/check/sustainability. This tool gives the article readability of 28, which is comparable to scientific articles (!). Web content with an audience like this article is typically expected to have a readability score of around 60. My experience with trying to simplify climate change, is that this is very hard work (we managed to climb up five points), but the article got significantly better.

I'm okay with delisting now: I now think it requires quite a bit of work to make the prose clear, to rely less on quotes in the body of the article, and see if we can expand/merge the one sentence paragraphs. EMSmile, once you're happy with your work, it might be worthwhile to sign the article up to WP:GOCE.

I think the description of sustainability of the buzzword fits under the previous section title (unclear goals). Femke (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Femkemilene thanks for this detailed feedback. I think I have now been able to address many of the items you have listed (I've also explained in my edit summaries what I changed and how). I do feel that "normative concept" is key and needs to stay in the first sentence but I've tried to make it easier to understand. It is tempting to overly simplify sustainability but I would find it dangerous to only zone in on the environmental aspect which this kind of first sentence would do: "Sustainability is a concept that describes how resources should be fairly divided between generations". I am planning to work on readability improvements from here on as well (I like using the Hemmingway App for that). (by the way, I don't think that aiming for 15 year olds is suitable for this kind of topic. Yes, the buzzword of sustainability if used by any child, teenager, PR companies and so forth. But the actual concept of sustainability is a bit complex, therefore our target readership might be young adults (but age is anyway a bit irrelevant; I suppose education level is probably more important). But yes, if we can make it understandable to anyone, while still being scientifically correct, that would be ideal. EMsmile (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Moving the history to the end of the article makes the article even more difficult. The historical meaning is something that most people can understand. The modern meaning is a generalisation of that historical meaning, and is difficult to understand even if you have explained the historical meaning first.

I agree there are aspects of sustainability that are unsuitable for 15 year olds. Per WP:EXPLAINLEAD, this type of information is welcome to be added to the body of the article instead. I think aiming for a 17-year audience for the body (which an occasional phrase more suitable for undergraduates) would be reasonable. The fact remains that this article is read by wide audience. Disregarding what I estimate is around 30% of our readership would in my eyes constitute inadvertent discrimination based on education/age.

A small step in the right direction in terms of making it "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", but we need to go much further.

• You included the word goal in the first without removing the synonymous jargon of normative concept (which signals to our non-academic readers that they should shy away from this article). The first sentence is 31 words, which exceeds the 25 adviced maximum for the longest sentences is general texts.
• There is no definition of sustainability, only abstract associations.
• The notion of fairness between generations (which I believe is the core of the definition), has disappeared. Would this work as first sentence: Sustainability is a societal goal of fairness between generations?
• Planetary boundaries are still namedropped rather than put in context.
• You still have eco-economic decoupling (that adjective is usually dropped even in academic texts).

A further critique is "the realities of the Anthropocene" feels slightly POV: the anthropocene is a proposed geological epoch, not yet generally accepted.

One further option after this GAR is to list the article for WP:peer review once you've worked on it a bit more. Maybe ask a few of our pop-culture/sports editors to get a good feeling of how much simpler the article should be (you really have to ask for reviewers at peer review yourself, and people are more likely to say yes if you've done some reviewing yourself). Femke (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve done more work on this now, along the lines that you proposed. I’ve also used the Hemmingway App to give me some ideas for improving readability but haven’t found it too inspiring so far as all sentences are deemed as too difficult currently… So it’s not an easy fix. Some specific comments:

• I do agree with almost everything you said. However, you said again “There is no definition of sustainability, only abstract associations.”. I have addressed this criticism of yours already elsewhere on the talk page and also in the article itself: there is no hard and fast definition of sustainability. It is not up to us to invent one here now for this Wikipedia article if it doesn’t exist in the literature. All the key literature that I have used for this article stresses that there is no single definition of sustainability. It’s a normative concept, a utopian ideal etc.
• For the same reason, I don’t think this would be a suitable first sentence “Sustainability is a societal goal of fairness between generations”. This would not be backed up by references. The aspect of “future generations” or “notion of fairness” might well be important for the environmental sustainability but is of lesser importance for the economic and social dimensions which refer to the here and now. So I don’t think it’s required in the first sentence or in the lead (or is it more relevant for the article on sustainable development?)
• Also, the “history” section is in my opinion not crucial for understanding the concept. In fact, it is more distracting/confusing than anything because the usage of the term has changed a lot. Original usage was just about the environmental aspect; then the 3-pillars model was developed. So now it’s all different. For that reason, the historical meaning also does not need to be explained in the lead because it is not all that relevant to the current meaning. I felt that people who wanted to know could access it through the table of content, wherever it’s placed in the article. But I have moved it back towards the front now, albeit under a different heading to make it clearer that it’s about env sustainability only.
• Planetary boundaries is a key concept within env sust, so I thought it was worth mentioning it in the lead? It’s not name dropping, it’s pointing people to relevant sub-topics (?).
• I don’t understand what you meant with “You still have eco-economic decoupling (that adjective is usually dropped even in academic texts).”. I’ve taken it out of the lead now but still linked to the Wikipedia article called Eco-economic decoupling. Is there something wrong with that article’s title, should it be renamed?
• Regarding peer review that is a good idea. Are we at a stage now where the only main to-do remaining is to work on readability improvements? I think there might still be content missing here and there. I’ve already cited a lot from the book by Christian Berg which I’ve found excellent (sadly, behind a paywall). More could be added from his book or other important publications, especially in the last third of the Wikipedia article. EMsmile (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Time for closure?

The discussion has been open for quite some time. Despite large improvements, the article has some way to go still to meet the GA criteria. Femke (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think if EMsmile agrees one of us could probably close it. This would allow them to move on with improving it without the GAR hanging over it. Aircorn (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please. Please go ahead and close and delist, I am fine with that. I'll try to work on the other points raised over the coming days but I can't guarantee that I'll get it back to GA status all that quickly. So much better to delist at this stage. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a housekeeping edit: the article was delisted from GA status on 7 May 2022. EMsmile (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"Dimension" is equally common as "pillar"

Hi User:Mkevlar, sorry, but I have just reverted your edit where you changed the lead and also replaced "dimension" with pillar in each instance. I feel that your changes to the lead were not an improvement. That definition from the Oxford dictionary clearly only related to environmental sustainability. ("The current definition of sustainability in the Oxford Dictionary is “The property of being environmentally sustainable; the degree to which a process or enterprise is able to be maintained or continued while avoiding the long-term depletion of natural resources“). If the Oxford dictionary was always right and perfect, we could just copy from there each time and wouldn't need Wikipedia... Secondly, the term "dimension" is very commonly used in the literature. So there is no benefit in replacing it with pillar in each instance. EMsmile (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your reversion is unfounded. GOOGLE "three dimensions of sustainability" and the word "pillar" comes up in searches more often than "dimension". even the UN uses pillar. In Germany the more commonly use the word is dimension but for the rest of the world it is not. I will wait for others to weigh in before changing it back. Mkevlar (talk) 2:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 14:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at Google as well. When I put "pillars of sustainability" I get 476,730 results. When I put "dimensions of sustainability" I get 287,805 Results. So I would say that's pretty similar (but doesn't take into account which term is becoming more popular and which is becoming less popular over time). I think pillar is probably the older term, whereas dimension or aspect is probably the newer term. When I look at the ngram viewer in Google Books, then "dimensions of sustainability" is far higher than "pillars of sustainability", see here: Google Ngram Viewer here. Either way, I think the article makes it clear that several terms have been used and then picks one for consistency throughout the article. EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

As you mentioned the UN, they sometimes use pillar, sometimes dimension. On the website that mentioned it's pillar, yes. But in the UN declaration for the 17 SDGs in 2015 here they use dimension several times, pillar not once (example: "We are committed to achieving sustainable development in its three dimensions – economic, social and environmental – in a balanced and integrated manner." and "They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development. "). I rest my case. EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Using a 3rd metric Google Ngrams it becomes evident that pillars has become more commonly accepted in publications. So I propose a compromise: use both in the opening paragraph for definition and use pillars for the rest of the article. TheKevlar 14:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the difference with your Ngram is that you used "three pillars of sustainability". I think that gives a less accurate impression than just "pillars of sustainability" (without a number). Like the sustainability article explains, many scholars have talked about more dimensions of sustainability (not just 3), e.g. the cultural dimension. So when you don't search for a specific number, then "dimensions of sustainability" is more common than "pillars of sustainability" as per the Ngram link that I posted above, as far as I can see. But I am all for using the terms interchangeably, so no problem to use a mixture throughout the article, I guess. However, in the section headings I guess we have to use only one. I would still prefer "dimensions" as per my reasons given above. The "pillar" also doesn't do the model justice when it's described as concentric rings or as overlapping rings (see the image used in the lead section of the article, which compares 3 main images for sustainability that are being used). Pillar only works when you think of those things that hold up a building. EMsmile (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

As TheKevlar brought up this aspect again below (in the section about GA), I am curious to hear from User:PlanetCare and User:Femkemilene what your view is regarding usage of "dimensions" or "pillar" in this article? I think it's good how it is now, as per my reasoning given above. No need to change anything, in my opinion. But it would be good to reach consensus either way. EMsmile (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Not too familiar with the literature, but I believe dimension is slightly better. Femke (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Removed a recently added text block from "barriers"

This text block was recently added under "barriers" but I have removed it because it was deviating too far from the subject and going into too much detail. Perhaps it can be utilised in another article: "Another form of barrier revolves around stigmas cemented in green design approaches.  

Generally, these approaches tend to target an overabundance of issues, attempting to resolve every problem in one consummate design — disregarding the absence of inclusion surrounding basic sustainability measures (eg. energy efficiency) as an industry standard across something like the housing industry. There is a lack of commitment to efforts and programs with minimal degrees of incentive. RHIs (renewable heat incentives) or carbon taxing are simply not effective and produce limited results.

As an example, eco-friendly infrastructure projects have largely been individualized to a single or set of structures built with specificity. Even projects designed to focus on sustainable living in a residential context have romanticized disconnects between plausibility and idealism. The ZEB pilot house, constructed in Larvik, Norway (2014), is a residential house built with concepts surrounding recycling, energy production, grid redistribution, bioclimatic principles, and embodied energy. The house alone generates over 2 times more energy it needs per annum and uses passive structural systems to minimize energy expenditure. However, this house is constructed away from urban contexts and sits on its own plot of land. The inclusion of a farm and swimming pool are additions city planned housing cannot accommodate for. According to the United Nations’ 2020 Global Status report, housing alone uses 22% of globally produced energy. The facilities implemented in this project cannot be reasonably redistributed to the average residential home as there lacks an establishment of standard. Continuing to design buildings unique to an individual context may impede progress of achieving sustainable living as the general population will not have effective means to inhibit consumption or emission, meaning the 22% figure may stagnate or even increase (relative to other sources of energy consumption)." EMsmile (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Student Evaluation

1. I'm glad to see that this article includes a plethora of not only credible and reliable references, but also substantial ones that provide a lot of helpful insights on the discussion of sustainability.

2. That being said, after looking through the variety of sources that are references I feel that it is safe to say this article takes a fairly neutral standpoint by providing multiple points of view and highlighting the discrepancies around the term "sustainability" itself.

3. Further, the sources themselves seem to take quite neutral stances by incorporating data and simply presenting accumulated information rather than trying to persuade an audience for any given reason.--Sammy J 37 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Anthropocene?

Hi, C.J. Griffin regarding your recent change to the sentence with the anthropocene: I was trying to address a comment by User:Femkemilene (see above) who had said (and I agree with the concern): "A further critique is "the realities of the Anthropocene" feels slightly POV: the anthropocene is a proposed geological epoch, not yet generally accepted." I don't have access to the full ref, only the abstract where it says "It is time to move past the concept of sustainability. The realities of the Anthropocene warrant this conclusion." - Do you have a suggestion for a better solution, and addressing the concern of Femkemilene at the same time? I am not sure if we really need to use the term "anthropocene" in this paragraph. We could explain it differently, simply with the sentence that follows: "humans now have a significant impact on Earth's geology and ecosystems (for example causing unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss and climate change)." EMsmile (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the term is mentioned in the source, I would not purge it from the article. I would not object to "so-called" before Anthropocene, but I thought the scare quotes were a bit much. Better yet, how about wording it in such a way that the statement is attributed to scholars and not presented in Wikipedia's voice, like this: "Some scholars have even proclaimed the end of the concept of sustainability due to what they argue are the realities of the Anthropocene: humans now have a significant impact on Earth's geology and ecosystems (for example causing unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss and climate change)." EDIT: On second thought, I'd prefer to keep the previous version even with the scare quotes over removing the concept altogether. I'll self revert.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I am undecided what the best wording should be. Perhaps like this: {{Some scholars have even proclaimed the end of the concept of sustainability due to "the realities of Anthropocene": humans now have a significant impact on Earth's geology and ecosystems (for example causing unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss and climate change).}}. This indicates that the choice of words "the realities of the Anthropocene" comes directly from the source? EMsmile (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Works for me.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on overlap with sustainable development

I am trying to reduce overlap with sustainable development and have just started a discussion about it there on the talk page. Please contribute to the discussion there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_development#How_to_remove_overlap_with_sustainability? EMsmile (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried to enter the phrase about critics of the terme "sustainable development" "The concept of sustainable development has been criticized from different angles. While some see it as paradoxical (or an oxymoron) and regard development as inherently unsustainable, others are disappointed in the lack of progress that has been achieved so far."

It was deleted because : "I disagree with copying these two sentences from sustainable development. They belong to the sustainable development article, not this one. Also, the sentence "The concept of sustainability has been criticized from different angles." is already contained in the lead and in the main text under critique. We don't need it 3 times in this article."

The phrase about the oxymoron "sustainable developpment" refers to criticism of sustainable developpment, while the phrases in the lead and the section criticism talks about criticism of sustainability.

This is not the same.

I think that the view of sustainable development as oxymoron have enough scientific weight for being mentioned in the sub-section in the page. Scientist proved many times that “sustainable development,” as advocated by most natural, social, and environmental scientists, is an oxymoron. Continual population growth and economic development on a finite Earth are biophysically impossible. They violate the laws of physics, especially thermodynamics, and the fundamental principles of biology. Population growth requires the increased consumption of food, water, and other essentials for human life. Economic development requires the increased use of energy and material resources to provide goods, services, and information technology." Citation from the source.

I also think that this terme not go well with sustainability. It should be replaced by "improvment' for example. However writing about sustainable developpment without including criticism, enough presented in the scientific world is an WP:Undue weight

Contrarily, the criticism of the term "Sustainability" as I know is much less spreaded in the scientific world. Sustainability has clear definition and most scientist think it is achievable. I think this should be mentioned here. @EMsmile --Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Work required on the lead

The lead is currently not a good summary of the article. However, before we improve the lead we probably ought to revise the structure of the article. I think it often goes into too much detail on topics for which sub-articles exist. This could be culled & condensed, and in some cases the sections about sub-topics could easily be replaced with excerpts. EMsmile (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleaned up the first 600 words a little more, removed a duplicate paragraph and hoisted sustainable development overlap to the top.

• Can we get help sinking some of the 30 usages of "Sustainable Development" into Sustainable development article.
• Paragraph 5 "Moving towards sustainability can involve social challenges..." needs to be moved to a more appropriate heading
• There are many other places where details could be moved into their sub-articles as EMsmile suggests.

TheKevlar 22:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 22:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)

Let's discuss here what the lead should entail: It should be a summary of the article. In my opinion it should start with the most important current understanding of sustainability, NOT the Latin original meaning (hence I have moved that Latin meaning down to the main text). I think the first paragraph of the lead is quite good now. But we need to summarise also the last quarter of the article, in the 4th paragraph of the lead. We could still do that later though. I have moved that paragraph that started with "Moving towards sustainability can involve social challenges..." out of the lead to the main text under stakeholder responses. Am not totally sure if it fits there though, it needs urther work and references. Regarding your other two points I will reply to them in separate sections just now. (my comment above about details and culling was referring to the November 21 version, not the current version!) EMsmile (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead section as it now have no sence because it is said in the first sentence that this is a goal without saying what is the goal. Therfore a reader will not understand what it is.

Sustainability has very clear definition. Generally this mean the ability to existing constantly reffering to humanity and biosphere. I writed the definition of the UN :"meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It was deleted because it was "that of sustainable developpment". In the site of the UN it was the definition of sustainability but in the document that was cited it was really the definition of sustainable developpment.

Therfore I propose to use the definition in the source cited in the first line "the long-term viability of a community, set of social institutions, or societal practice. In general, sustainability is understood as a form of intergenerational ethics in which the environmental and economic actions taken by present persons do not diminish the opportunities of future persons to enjoy similar levels of wealth, utility, or welfare."

If this looks to you too long or too much close to the definition of sustainable devoppment lets puth the beginning: "the long-term viability of a community, set of social institutions, or societal practice."

It must be repaired because as for now the article did not meet the goal of wikipedia: providing knowledge and reliable information. @EMsmile

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I had overlooked your comment on the talk page so far but I've just deleted your change to the first sentence. We had discussed the first paragraph of the lead in detail here as part of the Good Article reassessment. A decision was made there to keep the first sentence really brief and simple and then to expand on it further in the rest of the lead. You had suggested "the long-term viability of a community, set of social institutions, or societal practice." which is the definition by Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't think that definition is helpful at all because it just replaces one term (sustainability) with another ill-defined term (viability). Also I disagree with your statement that "Sustainability has very clear definition". It doesn't. See the section on "current usage" and the publication by Ben Purvis which we have cited many times because it's very good. We say there: "sustainability is a fuzzy or vague concept". EMsmile (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It is sad that you do not invited me to these dicussions. Howevere, there is still no consensus on this issue because I am completely not agree.

Susatainability has enough clear definition for being presented in the page. As I have already writed the most repectfull sources like britannica, UN think that there is a definition and "one or even several studies that says other things still did not means that there is a consensus or a majority on this therfore both views should be presented: we should give the most popular definition and than explain that not all agree with it."

Otherwices it is an Undue weight.

Ben Purvis is still not the entire scientific community.

Also as I has writed in the other section in this talk page. When we write than there is not really such thing sustainabiliry "This is also the perfect grownd to environment inaction and Climate change denial. Why really act on climate and environment, why trying to reach sustainability if there is not such thing and the page on sustainability only deal with "dimensions'?" Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean with "It is sad that you do not invited me to these discussions". The discussion took place in the open here and was linked to from this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability#Discussion_about_the_first_paragraph_of_the_lead . Did you overlook that when it took place? Nowhere do we write that "When we write than there is not really such thing sustainabiliry"?? What we do say is that is a concept that is somewhat vague. Ben Purvis is not the only one who said that, he summarised the literatures in his article. I am getting rather fatigued with these discussions that you and I are having here. We need a third and fourth person who can help us here. I've been thinking whom to ping to join in but it's hard to come up with obvious people (many of the earlier editors of this article have stopped Wikipedia editing it seems). EMsmile (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I say only that maybe you should ping me when you dicsussed that.

Yes I think that is someone without Phd, that do not hear about sustanability before, will read the article he will think that there is not such thing "Sustainability".

It is writed that this is vague and unclear world buzzword and no where is said what is this - the ability of humanity and bioshpere to exist contantly. It is some goal but no one is know what it is. This is not what the science says (as there is diagreement about this and the most respectful bodies like the UN, britanica think that there is an definition so the 2 point of view should be presented) and a perfect recept for inaction.

The first lines in britannica can somewhat explain about it. We can write "According to Britanica..."

I will return to the discussion in Sunday. If it is your rest day write later but please not too much. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The section on "Approaches by different stakeholders"

I have now removed the paragraph that had the heading "scientists" because I don't think it fitted here. I've moved it to human impact on the environment. These "warning letters" are about the impact that humans have on the environment, not about the concept of sustainability. This is the paragraph that I moved: "Warnings by the scientific community There are many publications from the scientific community to warn everyone about growing threats to sustainability, in particular threats to "environmental sustainability". The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity in 1992 begins with: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course". About 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including most Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, signed this warning letter. The letter mentions severe damage to the atmosphere, oceans, ecosystems, soil productivity, and more. It said that if humanity wants to prevent the damage, steps need to be taken: better use of resources, abandonment of fossil fuels, stabilization of human population, elimination of poverty and more. More warning letters were signed in 2017 and 2019 by thousands of scientists from over 150 countries which called again to reduce overconsumption (including eating less meat), reducing fossil fuels use and other resources and so forth." EMsmile (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should agree that this Wikipedia article is not supposed to be some sort of advocacy piece, pushing people to live more sustainably. It would be nice if people did that but it's not the role of Wikipedia. Our role is to inform and provide facts. Here in this article we provide the facts about the normative concept that sustainability is. There are other articles that deal more with implementations like sustainable living, sustainable development and so forth. EMsmile (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Addition to the section on scientific community?

I have removed this recently added text block because I think it doesn't fit into this kind of high level article about sustainability. If we started to add each and any report to this section, it could become too long and arbitrary. The content doesn't even mention sustainability but is probably mainly only about environmental aspects. Might fit better into another Wikipedia article (maybe in sustainable development?): "* In 2022 a report called "Stockholm+50: Unlocking a Better Future" was published by a team of scientists, analyzing the changes made from the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 and giving recommendations for the future. The key messages are; "Redefine the relationship between humans and nature, achieve lasting prosperity for all, and invest in a better future.". In addition, youth researchers issued a youth version of the report, called: "Charting a Youth Vision for a Just and Sustainable Future" also making some recommendations. The key messages are: "Health well being and communal solidarity, living in harmony with nature, international solidarity-living as one global family, a world when all humans are equal." EMsmile (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I propose to create an article dedicated to the report (to both reports). I think this report deserve it and deserve being mentioned in this page.

Did you read it or at least go over the text? It summarizes the achievments and non achievments in the domain of sustainability in the latest 50 years.

It differs from many other reports exactly by its dealing with environment and sustainability as a whole and not in specific topic like pollution or forest cutting. It propose strategic solutions referring to global society as a whole.

What do you think? Can you help me with it please? @Sadads @EMsmile

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that a publication like this should get its own Wikipedia article. Perhaps later in a few years when it's had an impact or broader reception but not now. I haven't read it yet but only glanced over it but nothing jumped at me about the theoretical concept of sustainability that would have to be included in the high level sustainability article. Perhaps some key statements from the publication could be added to sustainable development which I see as the more "applied" topic. EMsmile (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I also did not read it all but I checked it for 40-50 minutes. It has at least 6 specific characteristics. I will write it here and if you will find another report in the latest years with those 6 characteristics I will agree with you. If not, I stay with my opinion - it should have it own page and deserve being mentioned in the page sustainability.. @Sadads

• Deal not with 1 planetary boundary, not with 3, but with the ecological - social crisis as a whole.
• Present concrete ways how to solve it not only general recommendations.
• Includes a report that represent the view of the youth scientific society.
• Includes reccomendations to move beyond GDP, global peace, and ways how to achieve it: for example passing from emphasis on products to emphasis on functions.
• Includes reccomendation about technology as a whole - how to make it more environmental.
• Includes lessons from Covid-19. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

References

I had another look at the SEI publication and could not find specific useful content that should be included in this article. This article is an overview of the theoretical construct of "sustainability". It is not a "call to action" or advocacy piece like the SEI publication is. The publication talks a lot about "sustainability goals" and "sustainable development goals" so you might be able to cite it at sustainable development goals or at sustainable development. But even there I don't think it is providing us with relevant information on what those things are, what the barriers are and what approaches are used by people to overcome them etc. - And I think we're having a similar discussion about WP:Recentism and WP:primary sources with another editor who - like you - likes to add content from recently published documents to a range of articles. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prototyperspective#Research_literature_is_very_large and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change_mitigation#Explanation/discussion_of_large_edit EMsmile (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not a publication, but 2 important scientific reports having direct connection to the theme of the page.

Even in the page of the report without entering to the reports themself there are more specific context referring to sustainability then in the 3 other articles in the section about scientific communities. The 3 others are letters not reports, more a call to action or advocacy piece and refer mostly only to some aspects of environmental sustainability (climate change biodiversity losses etc.) while this report refer to all 3 dimensions as a whole: environmental, societal and economic - this is emphasised in the "adult" report demands.

This did not say that the other sources should go because a large parts of the source here like in all environmental pages can be defined as call to action. IPCC reports about mitigation for example.

The section is about "Approaches by different stakeholders"/"Scientific community", therfore in my opinion it has here even more rights than the 3 allready existing sources. All the 4 deal directly with this without them people will not understand what are the approach of sciewntific communities.

Certainly it should have some place in the pages sustainable development goals or at sustainable development but also a shorter mention here: 3 lines are enough in my opinion.

If you see it more carefully you will se that all the page is about "what those things are, what the barriers are and what approaches are used by people to overcome them etc." One of the section of the adult report is justly dedicated to different barriers.

About WP:Recentism and WP:primary sources. I am not going to add any report in this section. But I did not see such report like this in the latest years. I can of course search secondary sources also but the other sources in this section are also can be defined as primary sources.

I am asking you before answering to read the page for see what I writed here.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the report it "was written to provide a scientific basis for the UN international meeting the UN conference, held in Stockholm on 2–3 June 2022. It is intended to stimulate an informed debate on why change towards a sustainable future is not happening at pace with the challenges humans and the planet face, and guide leaders to actions they can take now, informed by relevant science." The conference wasdedicated to the 50 birthday of the conference at 1972. The conference was designed to check what was done in the domain of sustainability in this 50 years. If you see the list of autors and contributors in the youth and adult reports you will see that it represent well the opinion of the bodies dealing with sustainability...

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with you putting that paragraph back in for the third time now despite no consensus being reached. As per WP:ONUS, you first need to find consensus for inclusion. So if nobody else joins the discussion, the status quo should remain. To make it clearer, I have shortened the section on "scientific consensus" now and took out the bullet point list. The bullet points looked like an invitation to add more and more. So it's better not to even start such a list. I think the section can be shortened further because it's all about "environmental sustainability" only, not about sustainability in general. Perhaps your focus should rather be on the article human impact on the environment? EMsmile (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I added the report because you did not responded to my reaction. Therfore I thaught that you have no objections. I waited 3 days. Imagin a situation in wich If someone objected and than decided to stop editing wiipedia. Have I wait forever untill he will respond?

The paragraph have more rights to be presented in the section than the other sources (also included by me earlier) as they are only lettres not reports and deal with several most urgent aspects not with all the issues.

Sustainability is more important than "human impact on environment" because it shows that the threat is existential.

The tree dimension of sustainability are linked to the environmental aspect because society and economy collapse when the environment collapse. Our economy and society are unsustainable because they destroy the environment. And this is what the article must show.

As you know Wikipedia is designed to all. People with PhD have other sources so it is even more important that other people will understand it. In Italy for example pupils learn "sustainability" and maybe they will go to this article as they now that the english wikipedia is larger. In other countries also this is regarded as one of the main termes. They should get clear understsnding what is sustainability.

The article should explain that sustainability is the possibility of humanity to exist, threats, and the solution. As for now the artyicle do not do it. It says that there is not relly such thing "sustainability" what is NOT what the science says ( britannica generally represent the scientific consensus and she says that there is a definition one or even several studies that says other things still did not means that there is a consensus or a majority on this therfore both views should be presented: we should give the most popular definition and than explain that not all agree with it.

This is also the perfect grownd to environment inaction and Climate change denial. Why really act on climate and environment, why trying to reach sustainability if there is not such thing and the page on sustainability only deal with "dimensions'?

I agree that the section and the page itself should not be too long. I think for example that the many detailes about environmental threats should be removed: it should be given a short description of the 9 planetary boudaries, main causes of environmental destruction and measurment.

About the scientific section I think that 3 lettres and 1 report specifically designed to explain the opinion of the scientific community is not too long If there will be too much reports in the future we can shorten it or use some sign that shows that the section is too long.

I worked hurd on improving that article several years ago. Now I see that from one side there are improvments ( the page is shorter now) but from other much of my work is destroyed. I do not remember that someone asked me about the change made. This is not good in my opinion. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The earlier version of the sustainability article (last year) was actually very bad. This was not the fault of anyone in particular, Wikipedia articles are always a works in progress. I think the new version is so much better. I've worked on this over the course of several weeks and months, and each of my edits is explained in the edit summary. Everyone had the opportunity to object, and some people did (see the earlier discussion with Femke as part of the good article reassessment). I didn't do this on my own but with several other experts, mainly Christian Berg who wrote an excellent book on this matter which summarises the scientific literature. I have the book here as a pdf file, I can ask him if it's OK if I send it to you by e-mail. I have cited his book often because it is really very well researched and was a good foundation to reworking this article. EMsmile (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Christian Berg is User:Seemountain by the way (we've been in touch by e-mail and he said he's fine to have his name shown).EMsmile (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting the discussion about the structure

The text below refers to the structure discussion from November 21 (see above on this talk page). EMsmile (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Seemountain and User:EMsmile about this structure but I have some improvments. First we should define what is sustainability - Definition, section 1 (1 Definitions and common /contemporary use, 3 Dimensions of Sustainability ). Than we should write about the threats to sustainability - Threats, section 2 (5.1 Barriers to sustainability 2.1 Planetary Boundaries 2.2 Environmental /ecological footprint /carbon Footprint 2.3 Carrying capacity 2.4 Resilience

2.5 Industrial metabolism)

Than we should pass to solutions - Implementing Sustainability, section 3 (5 Implementing Sustainability ), firstly about the 3 ways to reach it turning around the I = PAT formule because the main discussion is about it. Also we should give about 15 most popular solutions for that people that do not heard about it before, will get some basic guidance.

Only after it we should go to position of NGO, science business and government - Responses/reactions from different stakeholders section 4 (4 Responses/reactions from different stakeholders)

This is because environment page should go by: explanation, problem, solution. You can see it for example in the page Climate change. This is how it is the easier to understand in my opinion.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

We can discuss the structure of course (even though I think the current structure is pretty good now). But to start with, this is NOT an environment page. I think this is where a lot of our disagreements come from. You keep pushing the environmental angle. I see sustainability as a "normative concept", almost like a philosophical construct. There is no such thing as "implementing sustainability" as it's something to strive towards (including many trade-offs), not a fixed position. So your concept of "explanation, problem, solution" doesn't fit here. Perhaps the article sustainable development is closer to what you have in mind (it also gets much more pageviews by the way). EMsmile (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion Sustainability is certainly an environment page even the most important of them in Wikipedia. It is not deal only with environment: it includes also economy and more. But climate change also include it and it is an environment page.

The word development in my opinion is not going well with sustainability as it represent an approach based not on good or bad but on some process not controlled by humans (developing countries = meaning all countries mast follow the way of the west more technology etc must "develop" if they want or not) that means how much more complicate tchnology and GDP. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussions about possible shortening

I also support shortening the article. He wasreally to long in october 2021 and even now it is a little too long.

But in my opinion the article has another problem: he miss the most important information about the topic and concentrated on the not so importants things.

The page "Sustainability" in my opinion is one of the most important pages in Wikipedia and the most important in the environmental domain.

It is the most summary page: Climate change is in fact a subdivision of Sustainability like effect of climate change is a subdivision of climate change.

Therfore it should be short and give the needed information.

That is what it must include in my opinion:

DEFINITION:

Explanation what does it means in termes comprehensible for people that are not specialists in the issue. For examole: "the ability to exist constantly. In the 21 century reffers generally to humanity and biosphere". The sources like Britannica or Oxford dictionary say it clearly only in another words (long terme viability etc). Short history of the term. 3 dimensions

THREATS:

The threats to Sustainabilty. short description of the planetary boundaries (2 lines per boundary no more), carrying capasity, ecological footprint (2 lines per term). Explanation of major underlining causes (economy politics social - all together 5-6 lines)

SOLUTIONS:

Explanation of the debate around I=PAT. Presentation of the major views of each path. For example under "affluence" you should mention steady state economy. 3-4 lines to each of the 3 pathes. Below I think should be presented 15 basic solution as basic guide for those who are not specialist, samply as links: for example Reforestation.

In that section should be included sub-section about "sustainable developpment" but it must include a mention about the criticism of ther conception.

POSITION OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS:

4 sections with short explanation about the position of: governments, bussiness, scientists (must include at least several words from the latest report Stockholm+50 specifically designated to help understsnd how reach sustainability), NGO. 4 lines per section. That is all.

---

As it is now the page did not explain what it is sustainability. It says that sustainability is some goal that no one is know what it is. This is a perfect recipe for inaction and Climate change denial.

As I see for example Oxford university it has a definition of "the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level." If you search google for Sustainability definition it came first. Mcgill university define it as "meeting our own needs without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". While Britannica define it as " the long-term viability of a community, set of social institutions, or societal practice. In general, sustainability is understood as a form of intergenerational ethics in which the environmental and economic actions taken by present persons do not diminish the opportunities of future persons to enjoy similar levels of wealth, utility, or welfare."

If you want to cite exactly I think the Britannica definition is the best.

I passed over the publication of Ben Purvis. He criticize the approach of the "3 dimensions" as it present economical growth as the solution to environmental crisis.

I agree with this: we should not focus on the 3 dimensions but on the definition as "the ability to exist for long time of humanity".

The page have not section about science position. I added it but it was deleted even though it is neccesary: it shows what scientists think about sustainability and how to achieve it. Certainly it can be mentioned in the page Human impact on the environment but also shortly here exactly as the information: "climate change exacerbate wildfires" appeare in the pages "climate change and "effects of climate change".

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In the report Stockholm+50: Unlocking a Better Future. which I think must be included in the page it is writed that Sustainability must become a norme. It will be difficult if the Wikipedia refuse to say what it is (the ability of humanity to exist constantly or for a very long time very simple).

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

From other side there is maybe too much content about the dimensions for example, this can be shortened. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with you on several aspects:

• You said: The page "Sustainability" in my opinion is one of the most important pages in Wikipedia and the most important in the environmental domain.. My opinion: It is not the most important Wikipedia article. If I had to choose, I would say climate change is the most important article, but others would say Ukraine is most important or Bill Gates or whatever. You can see from the pageviews which of the articles the Wikipedia readers find most important, and "sustainability" is not one of them. It's anyway futile to try and determine what is "more important" on Wikipedia than another topic.
• You said: The miss the most important information about the topic and concentrated on the not so importants things.. and we should not focus on the 3 dimensions. In my opinion, the 3 dimensions is absolutely central to the definition of sustainability. For you, sustainability is reduced to the environmental dimensions, that's why you keep equating sustainability to climate change. In the scientific literature, the 3 dimensions are elaborated in detail as can be seen from the two publications that are cited a lot in this article: the one by Ben Purvis and the one by Christian Berg (I recommend that you read the Purvis publication fully, not just pass over it; it is very good and summarises the literature very well).
• You said: I passed over the publication of Ben Purvis. He criticize the approach of the "3 dimensions" as it present economical growth as the solution to environmental crisis. - he doesn't "criticise the approach of 3 dimensions" but he reviews the literature and shows that there are discussions over trade-offs between the different dimensions. These discussions and trade-offs need to be explained in the article and that's currently included. I don't see why this should be shortened.
• The Wikipedia article does explain what sustainability is. Please stop saying that Wikipedia refuse to say what it is as it's simply not true. It does require the reader to read beyond the first sentence of the lead but that should be acceptable. The section on "current usage" explains very well how the term sustainability is currently used.
• The "science position" about sustainability is scattered throughout the article, i.e. by citing scientific publications. I don't think we need more publications in the section "Approaches by different stakeholders" which is more about government, private sector and individuals.
• I think a lot of the content that you want to add should rather be at sustainable living which will be the more practical article.
• If you think the section on the 3 dimensions should be shortened then which paragraphs exactly do you think need to be taken out? EMsmile (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Trying to attract more editors to this page by pinging some people

Hello all, I am pinging a few people here who I hope are interested in sustainability. We need your help. In the last few weeks, there seems to be endless debates between me and User:אלכסנדר סעודה. It's going round and round in circles and we seem to be unable to agree on most things, and it's getting frustrating for both of us. Please help. I know it's hard to wade through all the previous discussions here on the talk page. But perhaps you could give your overall opinion whether you think the new (shorter) version and structure of this article is better than the one from October 2021, i.e. before I and User:ASRASR got stuck into it. This is the link to the 9 October 2021 version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&oldid=1048968444 . So I am pinging people from WikiProject Climate Change and some who were involved in the good article reassessment: User:sadads, User:Chidgk1, User:Femkemilene, User:Clayoquot, User:NewsAndEventsGuy, User:PlanetCare, User:C.J. Griffin, User:Aircorn, User:RCraig09, User:Bluerasberry, User:Arcahaeoindris, User:buidhe, User:Jusdafax, User:Bruce1ee, User:Hanif Al Husaini, User:Jusdafax. - Thanks in advance. EMsmile (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Interestingly, the sub-article sustainable development gets far higher page views than this one (about double). It's not yet in good shape. Would love to get stuck into that one as well once I have more bandwidth again. EMsmile (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Shorter is better I think the question here is a choice between
  • special:permalink/1048968444 9 October 2021 version
  • special:permalink/1094794028 24 June 2022 version

Wikipedia has a certain audience which wants to use this content in a certain way. One of the audience needs is summarizing content to an appropriate amount. At Wikipedia:Article size there is a guide that says over 60 kB of readable prose should be divided, and starting at 40k diving for length becomes a possibility if there are other issues. The 2021 version was 73kb. The 2022 version is 29kb.

Whatever other discussions are happening about layout and content, article size is an overriding concern, and the 2022 version is closer to the correct amount of content than the 2021 version. If you need a direction to take the conversation, come to agreement about what must be included given the size constraints. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Shorter is better. More concise enables readers to more easily absorb the most important info about the topic; details belong in sub-articles. Another thing I like about the 2022 version is use of more informative graphics and avoidance of images that don't communicate much and are primarily for decoration. (t · c) buidhe 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind the article being shorter, so long as material is not being deleted and instead moved to other articles. It seems this is what you are doing, so I'm not opposed to it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bluerasberry , t, C.J. Griffin thank you for taking the time to comment here. Much appreciated. (This page has 612 page watchers but not many of those participate here, sadly). So I think there is broad consensus that the June 22 version is better than the October 21 version, at least based on length and also based on the images used. But is it just length alone? If you could take another look at the type of language and content, could you please tell me if you would agree with me (or not?) that the October version was deviating too far from the core topic, had a lot of tangential, waffly content. Some of that I was able to move to sub-articles, some I deleted. My question in short therefore is: is the current version encyclopedic in style? Does it use reliable sources to satisfy WP:verify? I am very concerned that the changes that User:אלכסנדר סעודה has been proposing on this talk page in the last few days would turn the article into a "how to" guide (how to live more sustainably) which is not Wikipedia's role as per WP:How-to. We're not here to advocate and lobby (no matter how strongly we feel about the importance of sustainable living, climate change...). Some of that user's ideas might fit at sustainable living or human impact on the environment even though those articles should not become "how to" guides either. Is the current version too "academic" and "science-y" though (I don't think so but I am asking you). Does it have too much on "The scientific discussions about the philosophical meaning of sustainability"? I think not but would appreciate additional opinions of people. EMsmile (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Content about how to live sustainably, insofar as it's encyclopedic, should be mainly covered at sustainable living. I don't know the sources well enough to judge WP:VERIFY for either version of the aricle. (t · c) buidhe 16:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Shorter is better from my perspective too. The old version, although well sourced and written, has plenty of superfluous content that is already covered in other articles, and some that do not relate to the core topic (a list proposed by Jared Diamond? Really?). Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)