Talk:Sustainability/Archive 12

Full steam ahead
I think we are set. We surely have consensus that we work an item at a time and that there be a time limit to each item. We will need patience to work together but there is no doubt we have the advantage of a wide-ranging set of experience in the group and the number is manageable. I'd like to make a suggestion. Sunray is the most experienced wikipedian of us all. Sunray, could you act as a kind of coordinator, posting up each item at a time, getting suggestions rolling and setting us the time limit? And, when we are finished, posting up the agreed material? Skip I understand your frustration with this item by item approach but it probably suits people who have limited time, and it is then clear exactly what we are doing and where we are up to. For example I empathise with your concern about UN stuff but am still considering definitions, leads etc - it all gets too much - and tackling the UN issue would be part of the consensus editing as part of the "to do" list. The timeline should mean that we make steady progress together. If people agree with this and Sunray is happy to accept this role then he can get us started. Nick I would like to guarantee working at a particular time but I dont think that is possible - but I can manage within a timeframe. Have I forgotten any important points? Granitethighs (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! At least we all know when the best window of time is to edit (ie: when we're all most likely to be editing together) things should flow a bit smoother. Now lets get these sections up, maybe a "History" and "Definition" with 48 hour limits? Another idea would be to leave these sections at the top of the talk page and create special archives for each section discussion, because as we go previous sections will need amending, and then at the end the whole thing will need a few copyedits. Nick carson (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we confirm we are still working to VB's outline (top of this talk page)?
 * Nick has made some comments on it. How about each of us takes a look and see what improvements we can suggest. Sunray (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still chugging away at a "Measuring Sustainability" section at User:Travelplanner/sandbox and have good new data on ecological footprints and human development, which I have graphed and uploaded; this took me more down the track of "Sustainable Development" - still lots of good comments to consider and include but I hope to have this ready to move to one of the proposed section pages when these are created.--Travelplanner (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nomination for coordinator, GT. However, I don't think I am well enough qualified for the job. I just flashed up some subpages, but, after spending several minutes scratching my head about what to put in them, I'm too disoriented to be able to make much sense out of it. What I would like to do is copy some of the relevant material from the above discussions into the various subpages. But it is difficult to separate out the relevant material. There is so much chaff! Perhaps someone else can make sense of it. I will come back to it later. Sunray (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll include my lead/intro rewrite in the discussion section and I'll have another read through the article and the discussions and do a rewrite of the definition and history sections. I'll do this over the next day or 2 so if people bear with me, I'll have them up there and then we can unleash a discussion on them. Nick carson (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. It was inspiring, when I awoke this morning, to see that you had done that. With a few hours sleep it all looks more do-able to me. I'm going to refactor and archive so that we can navigate around this page more easily. As to coordination: I really like to work in a shared leadership model. That way, each of us can take the lead when needed, coordinate when necessary, and generally use her or his skills when and where they are needed. I think Wikipedia lends itself to that. Sunray (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is important... As I work through this article I'm getting a real sense of how messy this article really is. The history section is basically just a history of related literature (mostly economic). There are whole sections (such as the one about the global impacts human beings have on the environment) that should be summarised and direct people to their respective main articles. We need to focus on the subject matter. Based on this focus, the article should be relatively simple, not too long, but contain alot of summarisations and links to main or sub articles. Sustainability is the ability of a system or individual to sustain it's own existence. Sustain-ability. All other derivative terms such as sustainable, apply to the front of given subject matter, such as sustainable development, or sustainable architecture. Sustainability itself, is a very broad concept that encompasses every fundamental system of life on Earth. We can't go treating this subject matter as we would any standard subject matter. I'm going to do more reading, research and thinking before I contribute anything more here. I think it's heading down the wrong path, getting far too complicated. We have main articles that deal with particulars, but this main sustainability article is naturally suited to being somewhat of a hub, an article of summaries, that ties in everything that comes under its definition. If we attempt to explain it all in one article, as has mostly been done, it's going to get, and has gotten, very complicated and subsequently, disorganised, confusing the hell out of us all trying to reach a consensus on its rewrite. I'll continue to refine the outline so we can then begin to work within it and filter the current content of the article into it. Nick carson (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Beginning intro.
I think this 4th paragraph of information in the beginning intro. is probably over-kill and it also is suggested that about 3 paragraphs or two are a good measure to an intro... which is not aimed at too expansive an approach... but to get the general idea across. Below is the area that seems better trimmed off the current intro. top of the page information. Also it seems pointless to give opinion warnings about how controversial a subject is and try to reinforce that makes things look ambiguous. The rest of the intro. now seems fine.

Sustainability has become a controversial and complex term that is applied in many different ways: to different levels of biological organization (e.g. wetlands, prairies, forests), human organization (e.g. ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities) and human activities and disciplines (e.g. sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture). --- skip sievert (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick has proposed some changes to the lead. His version is now in one of the subpages, above. I am about to refactor this page so that discussions will be more clear and will be archived when issues are dealt with.


 * As to your comment about the fourth paragraph. It (the paragraph) is rather short, and I take your point about three paragraphs. Usually in featured articles the lead is three or four paragraphs. According to the style guide the lead should be a "concise overview." As to the content of the paragraph, it seems to me to provide an overview of what will be in the article regarding applications of sustainability. Sunray (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Its uncited and it is opinion oriented. It is preachy and not connected to actual information in that regard. It picks out a few things that are better dealt with in the article itself. skip sievert (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by preachy? If you interpret it that way, others may as well, so we should address any needs that you raise. As one of the co-authors of the statement, I can vouch for it being factual. Certainly it needs a citation or two and I fully intend to add those. Its purpose, at the end of the lead, is to outline initiatives that are currently underway in the field of sustainability. It is meant to tantalize the reader and get her or him to follow the links or, better yet, read on in the article.


 * While the intent was to avoid being preachy, by introducing the notion of wetlands, prairies, forests—these great, self-sustaining natural ecosystems—it is possible that some humans will feel humbled, as well they should. But these are our blueprints for sustainability and the links connect with initiatives that respect that. Sunray (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At one time we had a phrase pointing out that sustainability may be used as a buzz word that is trotted out to cover a plethora of situations and therefore lacking any precision. We may not agree with that but it is, I believe, a widely held and defensible position. This last paragraph conveys to the reader some of this "feel" by indicating wide-ranging situations where the word can be used. I too regard the statement as essentially factual  and would query the necessity for "justification" using citations (however, citations wont do any harm). I vote for retaining the paragraph but if people feel strongly otherwise I'm OK with that too. btw are we discussing the lead in the article itself or a re-write of it buried somewhere above? Granitethighs (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand where Sunray is comming from, I have included the content of the 4th paragraph into my rewrite of the definition section. I agree with skip in that the paragraph isn't up to scratch, regardless of the fact that its the 4th paragraph. I think further information could be added to the 3rd paragraph, or if needed, create a new 4th paragraph with content that gives a better overview of the article, we can come back to this once the whole article has been rewritten as we'll have a better idea of it then. GT has a good point, but i think that the reader gets a good indication of the scope and wide ranging use of the term after reading the first couple of paragraphs of the intro. Nick carson (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just had another read over it and can't see any reason why that sentence would require a citation. The existence alone of these subfields and their histories is verification enough that they are rooted in sustainable concepts and inextricably tied to sustainability in general. But there may be a citation needed for the "has become controversial" sentence. Just note that sourcing references is not my strong point so I'm not likely to do it myself :] Nick carson (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all good. Thanks for offering to do the write-ups Nick - I am assuming you will post them up here - is that right? OK - see it all now at the top of the page - everything is fine. Granitethighs (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If thats fine with everyone else, I'm happy to do that. We can then discuss each section one at a time. I've had a read through about 90% of the article and while we've got great content, its very messy, we have to make it concise and simplify the content, working within the outline. I mean one general observation I made was that (especially in the history section) there was heeaapss of references to literature about sustainability, but there was nothing written to tie all this information together. I'm working on a rewrite of the history section now, in the meantime we should begin discussing the lead and description, mostly on how each section flows and how it reads, then we should start adding citations where needed & check spelling, grammar, etc. So yeah, I think most of the content we need is already there :] Nick carson (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is meant to tantalize the reader and get her or him to follow the links or, better yet, read on in the article. Bad idea... it is not our job to foment things... its not a blog. Or an advertisement or come on. Putting up info like that and trying to source it then, is way to p.o.v. Sustainability has become a controversial and complex term that is applied in many different ways Again... says who.?. and this is leading the reader... with weasel words... the article already makes clear as to the difficulty of getting a handle on the issue, in the lead and elsewhere. Why repeat how confounding the issue is over and over? That is not neutral... it is not sourced... and as Nick said... it is not really an overview of any thing connected either.
 * I think that section should be removed. If parties are interesting in preserving what little info. is there from article links, it can be put into the body of the article. It is excessive now to no real purpose... except repeating problematic aspect of sustainability, which the article is over weighted with.


 * The history section does not need to be tied together much. It is presenting information... we are not telling a pithy story... information as to times and dates happen when they happen and while they can be tied together in a time and thought line, creatively... they can do that by themselves without excessive commentary or story line. Also... the U.N. section repeats information and is a scatter gun of info... and that is the area in my opinion that needs a serious rewrite ... and the series of three article links a little below... do not deserve a separate section... they are starter articles all of them with little oversight or additions of material except by an editor here... and that seems not appropriate... some with sourcing that was recently added and iffy.


 * This area should be melded with the U.N. section as the material is overwhelmingly connected to that. This could easily be done by making the material below a long sentence with the three links in it.

Sustainability science The formal study of sustainability has relatively recently emerged as an academic discipline referred to as sustainability science which examines and underpins the broad, inclusive, and contradictory currents that humankind will need to navigate toward a just and sustainable future it also encompasses the study of sustainability governance as the process of implementation of sustainability strategies; and sustainability accounting, as the evidence-based quantitative information used to guide governance by providing benchmarks and measuring progress. -- skip sievert (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

FA criteria
One of the tasks I agreed to take on related to article standards. This will be the first in a series of posts on this topic. Skip questions the lead. He suggests that we are not about "tantalizing the reader." He worries that this would make the article "like a blog." These are important concerns. We need to be clear about our aims and the criteria that will guide us. We have set ourselves the task of getting this article to FA status. The prose in an FA article is described as "engaging, even brilliant." As the Guide to writing better articles states:
 * The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more.

It is important that we not quibble. At this point, we need to write well, not perfectly. The lead (Nick's rewrite) is pretty good for starters, but it is far from done. It is best regarded as a placeholder for what we want to say. However, advice on writing the lead is to come back to it at the end. The article has a long way to go, we have an exceptional group of people gathered to work on it. It will be an amazing article. So let's relax and support each others' efforts. Sunray (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sunray for keeping us focused on the target - and for the words of encouragement. Granitethighs (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We can't expect everything to come together all at once, just as we can't waste time "quibbling", I think if we stay on target and stick with it consistently, by the end, the article will be greater than the sum of its parts. Nick carson (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest to always have the sections of sandbox versions of the article updated, with the current section copies of the article itself, as presented in real time. The actual editing that goes into the article should always be the jumping off point for new or proposed edits. This keeps things real world... and not alternative universe in a vacuum ... so that people coming here or over looking the article can contribute also... without figuring out elaborate postponed plans by one or two editors. Nick... please continue to edit the article in real time...and then transfer those edits as they appear to the project pages after they seem stable... this ensures that efforts made by ourselves and others... outside the group also will be used or considered. Please do not have an elaborate alternative version of the article that does not reflect real world word or idea editing... that is being done .. in the present. I encourage people to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BB ... as this is the method that hones down the article and makes improvements quickly and with the oversight of the most people. The ultimate sandbox is the article itself then, that is where the most important attention can be focused, and in my opinion sandboxes while a good idea and important to work things out sometimes, yes, but... lets focus on improving the actual article in real time... and then as said... maybe transferring that material to sandboxes or debating sandboxed material... having the actual focus on the article. skip sievert (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture added


To sustainability and development section. skip sievert (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Discussion about the outline has been left on main talk page under the section "Further thoughts on outline," pending final resolution. Sunray (talk)

To do list
When I did the archiving, I noticed that certain editors had agreed to undertake particular actions. So while the discussion was finished, there was action still remaining. I thought that a good approach might be to use the "To do" list for follow-up action. It seemed uncontroversial enough to me and I simply added a "Current tasks" section. To my surprise, Skip deleted it with the edit summary "bring this up on the talk page first. These are old issues or issues that need real time discussion." I'm really concerned that Skip would revert something one of us has done without discussion. I've restored it twice.

I would like comments on two things:
 * 1) What do you think of using the "To do" list for follow-up action?
 * 2) What groundrules should we observe about reverting one another?

I'm rather angry right now, so I think I will pack it in. I look forward to your comments. Sunray (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems pointless to me to start another discussion area. The discussions are sprawled out all over already. Lets keep the to do list as an updater for things on the article that are done or currently done enough, as to focus, and not as a chat area.. or an interrogative area. Why not use it to check off areas that have been done in the article as before? Certain editors agreeing to do certain things....? All very fine and well.. but lets start going by what certain editors actually are doing. There are no contracts or legality issues here. If you want to ask an editor something ... how about their talk page? Or this discussion page is made to that purpose. skip sievert (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never reverted anything since being a Wikipedian and am not sure how to - although I could easily find out. I do not view this as especially virtuous because there are obviously times when it is absolutely necessary and reasonable. However, like deleting other people's work, it is inherently confronting and adversarial. I see it as a last resort because it is likely to lead directly to a "well, he started it" situation i.e. edit wars. To answer your questions - I am completely comfortable with you using the "To do" list for follow-up action (why should I not be?). I also suggest that reverting is done by consensus in future and that this be added to the agreement/contract at the top of this page. By the way I really cannot afford a lot of time devoted to activities other than directly improving this article. The fewer diversions the better. Granitethighs (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Description, and Measuring Sustainability
Have made a start on "Description", and in the process used up all of my good content from "Measuring Sustainability". Suggest this is fine - one less heading is great, and if we make an effort to stick with what can be measured and cited, the reader will have a decent overview of the key sustainability measures by the end of the article anyway.

Not sure I offered to do the "History" section - I am very nervous to take this on as previous attempts seemed to get bogged down in edit wars and I don't have time for that.--Travelplanner (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should combine measuring sustainability and the definition sections. The history section is indeed a tricky one. Nick carson (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could find a heading other than "Description." It seems confusing after a "Definition" section. In most versions of the outline we have had a separate section for "Measuring sustainability." Seems we currently have two outlines floating. We need to get consensus on a version we can work with.


 * Sorry to have misunderstood about the history section, TP. It is complex, so perhaps several of us should be working on it. It is just that your outline of what should go into that section was so good, that I guessed you would be working on it. I can work on it too. I agree that we need to avoid edit wars. Perhaps adopting the BRD would be good. Sunray (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We can always leave the history section until we're all ready to organise a joint rewrite of it. I think the definition and description sections are separate enough not to warrant renaming them. Definition defines sustainability, while Description describes its concepts and what it encompasses. Nick carson (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes adopting that method would be a good idea to some degree, as the idea of this team is not working well. For one thing... Mostly it is confusing and is making a huge amount of wasted time and space and unconnected or old information that is now lying about in multiple places. BRD is effective and keeps things moving along when needed, and it also gets at the issues very quickly. Nick and I have been working together/separately, tweaking each others contributions. He is adding and subtracting from the article as I am... looking at the talk page...and making commentary on his edits and others suggestions... this policy or guideline makes a lot of sense... and no, there is no contract of behavior as to agreements when editing. That is a legal aspect that wikipedia does not use. In effect people are not contracting to a certain form of behavior by contributing the article... only using guidelines as a general method of operation. Travel Planner I urge you to start making incremental improvements or what you think are that, on the article page, even if they are small and cautious. This article is now being looked at from many different directions by many eyes... as it should be... so, be bold if you want to implement some things.. and please do things in real time and then update your theory page then. it will be looked at and either accepted/rejected/improved/tweaked... etc. The multitude of pages is getting out of control and the chatty aspects of the team patting itself on the back and forming sub-teams is getting old. Use the sandboxes... but not as some supposed future archive to implement... try to implement incremental ideas in real time and then update your sandbox to reflect that. I agree with Nick that there is no real reason to combine measuring sustainability sections and definitions section either.

I combined the article section of three articles, that Granitethighs created into a few sentences without losing any of the linked information, and added that at the bottom to the U.N. section, where it most likely is appropriate as to setting. I still have some basic questions/misgivings about those articles as to content and notability for reasons already discussed. However they are still in the article with their information at least for now... that is an issue though and may be discussed further.

Here is the section that was moved and modified into the U.N. section

One formal study of sustainability recently emerging as an academic discipline is referred to as sustainability science. This examines the broad, inclusive, and contradictory currents that humankind will need to navigate toward a just and sustainable future This also references sustainability governance as a process to implement sustainability strategies and sustainability accounting.

It was rephrased a little and modified to reflect a little more where those issues are currently. skip sievert (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We can always leave the history section until we're all ready to organise a joint rewrite of it. I think the definition and description sections are separate enough not to warrant renaming them. Definition defines sustainability, while Description describes its concepts and what it encompasses. Nick carson (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Note on organization
Skip mentions that this page is "confusing" and refer to "a huge amount of wasted time and space and unconnected or old information that is now lying about in multiple places." He has said this before and I will be frank. Skip: You are one of the main contributors to this problem. As I have said before, your posts are very lengthy. Because you cover various topics under one heading it becomes hard to follow. Here are my suggestions:
 * 1) Make posts short and to the point.
 * 2) Use new headings for different subjects; subheadings for different themes within a subject
 * 3) Try to respond to and build on what others are saying.

I was suggesting that we use the "To do" list for a simple "one stop shopping" way for participants to see what needs attention. You apparently don't subscribe to that approach and instead suggest that we use the bottom of the page. The problem with that is that others come along and add things and items that haven't been dealt with move up the page. I would like to hear from others about this. Sunray (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the "to do" list - it gives quick focus to us and site visitors.
 * I agree with the above points.
 * I like the one page one topic that we have started - it shows the evolution of one segment of the article very well.
 * I like staying focused on the job at hand.
 * I find constant changes to the current article distracting.For the time being my preference would be to work on a small topic at a time to consensus, then put it up.
 * I think direct editing of the article by all of us at present would not work - we would be straight into edit wars and would not be able to follow the evolution of our collective thinking.
 * It seems to me that working together will inevitably prove difficult - we will all need a lot of patience as our ideas and efforts are challenged, but we can do it.
 * As a working group we can try to encourage and assist a difficult collective effort or we can tear one-another down. Sadly there seems to have been a bit of the latter. :-(   I suggest that we try to stay focused and that "distractions" are simply ignored. Granitethighs (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Too right! I must also apologise if I may be seen as tearing people down regarding the outline, I've spent alot of time on it, incorporated elements of suggestions by others and believe it to be a good foundation for us to adhere to, adding and subtracting pieces as needed as we rewrite this article. Nick carson (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Section title
Scope and definition changed to Aspects of sustainability which would seem to reflect the contents of that section better. This seems more open ended to me and not so definite as to material therein. skip sievert (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We need to be clear, concise and relevant. The purpose of the "Scope and Definition" section is to establish the scope of what sustainability encompasses and define it within the various contexts. There are many aspects of sustainability and that heading I think is too broad. Nick carson (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. skip sievert (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability and sustainable development
Wikipedia has an article on sustainable development. I think it would help our write-up if we are all clear on how what we are doing will differ from this site. Please leave your comments. Granitethighs (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sustainability - the ability to sustain
 * Sustainable development - development that is sustainable
 * Therefore, this sustainability article is by definition broader, sustainable development focusses on various systems developing sustainably, etc. Nick carson (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what I was driving at was how the two articles will differ in content. I didn't mean to ask for definitive definitions. I suppose I had the Wikipedia user in mind - who might benefit from an extremely brief statement (perhaps right at the very top) of how the two articles will differ in approach. Granitethighs (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think ordinary WP users/viewers will distinguish between the two perfectly fine, just as they would between "Life" and "Marine Life". I think if we stick to the proposed outline, the content of this article will be more relevant to its subject matter, as is already the case with the sustainable development article, and we will then certainly have no problems distinguishing between the content of the two :] Nick carson (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the question; it also reminded me to go back and read "Sustainable Development". Lots of similar ground being covered in the talk page (including the three pillars/four pillars/ three interlocking circles debate) but the article itself is, I think, quite distinct.  It's a good and useful article but also a good reminder of what we are NOT trying to write - an overview of the international community's efforts to establish common ground between the environmental, and development, agendas.


 * My view is that the "Sustainability" article needs to have its emphasis on the physical science basis and to be built around concepts of ecosystems, natural cycles and limits to the ability of natural systems to provide resources / absorb waste for humans. When I get time (always an issue...) I will have another try at the "Description" section because my draft does confuse the distinction between "sustainability" and "sustainable development" in its current form - or if someone else wants to fix this issue that would be great.


 * For both "measuring sustainability" and "sustainability science" - yes these sections can be valuable parts of the article. But please let's also try to get a measurable / science focus to flow throughout the article.--Travelplanner (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is exactly what I meant. In past discussion we have agreed to the priority of the environment over society and economy. I suggest we follow this up by making our priority physical and biological systems and human influence on them which is basically our consumption. The "sustainable development" article, I think, has emphasis on what I would call "sustainability governance" with its interlinking of society and economy with environment. Skip has suggested sustainability governance is a neologism. Call it what you will I mean implementation, administration, management or the like. We need to make a short clear reference to the UN enterprise but, in my view, then leave it up to that page to do the work on this topic. A main task we have is to suggest ways of measuring impact so that management can become efficient and we can measure progress. This seems to me to be critical. I have called this "sustainability accounting" because it is like the way we manage our financial lives and people will identify with that. However, although this expression is in the literature Skip has suggested it is also a neologism so if that is a problem we can call it whatever you like and "sustainability measurement" is fine: it is the principle that is important. This, I agree, should be a strong thread through the article. I have gone on a bit because I think it important we sort this out early on.Granitethighs (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am happy with Nicks organizing skills. The two of us have edited back and forth and the beginning is probably pretty close now. I have put a new copy of the current edit on the lead page sandbox, Granitethings... I suggested that this be your jumping off point in real time, now because that is the current consensus edit... that Nick and I have honed down back and forth several times.. and more recently I have added some tags to this area also, to improve a couple things as to sourcing or getting rid of sentences or ideas. I agree with travel planner that science and academic study of the subject (the history section is very important I think).. as to scientific discipline, is the natural start focus point for the entire article... and suggest we stop talking about how hard or challenging or difficult the article is... it really is not... and the less bloggy... the more neutral... the less over powered with political groups opinions, the more interesting the article becomes... I have found Nick to be a good writer... and when he has added to much ornateness to things I have tried to streamline and make thinks more objective... Right now I think the article is pretty nice... and coming along fairly well. I would like to encourage the players here... and any other interested parties to go ahead and edit the article. That is the reason it has improved. Also please update any sandbox pages with the current edit and use that as the real time and consensus editing guide. skip sievert (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The section title "Measuring Sustainability" is non-ambiguous and we can include in it summaries of the various ways in which we can measure the sustainability of systems, etc, providing links to the main articles on the subjects. Just a side note; I'm not happy with using terms like "sustainability accounting" or "sustainability governance", I mean, sustainability is an all encompassing concept and one which is inevitable, the last thing we need to be doing is separating 'sustainable governance' from 'governance'. Governance from this point on (arguably since always) must be sustainable in itself without creating a separate term and concept for some special type of governance that is sustainable, thus my hesitation to use these terms. Sustainability within accounting or governance or anything should be discussed within governance and accounting and whatever else as the inevitable transition of that term or system towards being sustainable. Nick carson (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A few points. Firstly, procedure. Rightly or wrongly it is my understanding that our method is to put the current section (lead, definition etc.) at the top of the work page, we then work on that together until consensus, then we put it up in real time. I think editing by the team in real time is confusing as it is perfectly legitimate to alter things several times and possibly quite drastically. Why make readers put up with that, not to mention the extra work. Other people, of course, might edit in real time and that is fine. I would like a consensus decision on this because I think the current method of real-time editing has been instituted by Skip, not the team. I will, of course, abide by the group decision.
 * Resolved by consensus decision. Group will use sandbox to reach editing consensus before putting up final version in real time.Granitethighs (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Secondly, the Outline. I am glad you are comfortable editing with Nick Skip. Wouldn't it be better if you were comfortable editing with everyone? Let me put my side of your story above. In regards to the Outline, so far as I am concerned when the section goes to the top of the work page we do our best to make this section the best we can over a limited period of time then put it up in real time. I suggested an alternative outline to the one that Nick had put together. However, Nick persuaded me that at this stage, since the thrust of the content of the two articles was similar we should stick with his proposal. I have conceded that.


 * Rightly or wrongly, and regardless of the editing that you and Nick have done, I have made a suggestion in regards to the lead. I am part of the team and entitled to a hearing. I really was not aware of the editing back and forth because I was not aware of real-time changes. When consensus is reached over procedure this problem will not recur. Yes, my changes are quite drastic. Either the team can vote the idea down or a compromise can be reached. Sorry, but once again I would like a consensus decision on this. We have not heard from Sunray, Travelplanner or Ohana.


 * The same applies to the definition page. We all need a hearing and a collective decision.


 * Finally, Nick. You dont like sustainability governance or sustainability accounting - that is fine, I have already said the words are not important. However, I would like to ask you a question. A little up on this page you said:
 * I think ordinary WP users/viewers will distinguish between the two perfectly fine [we were discussing the distinction between sustainability and sustainable development], just as they would between "Life" and "Marine Life". 


 * How is your example different from the distinction between governance and sustainability governance? I think WP users would distinguish between the two just fine. Granitethighs (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think they would have any trouble distinguishing between the two, I just don't think those terms should dictate the structure of the article or section titles, but by all means include reference to, or summaries of those disciplines within the content and links to their main articles. Also, I thought your proposal for the lead was the way to go, as you said, a good bare bones structure to build on, but I think the lead is good enough anyway for now. I agree with GT, we have to focus on the section subpages at the top of this talk page, make the edits there and discuss them there before editing the actual article. I too would like to hear more from Sunray & Ohana, especially ohana whom I don't think I've heard from since I signed up nearly a week ago. Nick carson (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Description, and Measuring Sustainability
OK, now both of these talk pages have content - comments and changes welcome.

As for the main article, my understanding was that we were going to leave it alone, until we'd developed a section to our mutual satisfaction at which point it would be loaded up to the main article page. Perhaps I am oldfashioned, but I like things to be presentable before publishing them. I have not yet written a single word of the main article, although I do hope that some of my writing ends up there at some point I am happy for the process to take time.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. Nick carson (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Sunray (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Granitethighs (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really sure what the issue here is. Wikipedia is meant to be edited. In actuality there is not a team... only individuals... some may be notable and some others not, but no one here controls the article except by general consensus... and you can not form a contract, legal or otherwise as to enforcing some ambient concept of group think unconnected to the real world of Wikipedia editing. Edits should stand up to merciless... interpretation by others... That is how articles are improved... Maybe this basic understanding is not getting across. Recently the article has improved with editing. That is the idea behind wikipedia. This is very basic. Also... people here seem to be under the impression that a contract of editing behavior that is apparently being floated outside of wikipidea guidelines is in force some how. That is not the case. This is in effect threatening legal action. That is a no no on wikipedia. This is not a contractual issue that has repercussions as in a civil dispute. All editors are suggested to follow guidelines. Travel planner I did incorporate your info into the history section... although I think Vandana Shiva is more notable than the person you suggested... I put both in though. Unfortunately you made no comment at the time... although I documented that on the talk page. Also I agree with Nick ... that the articles created by GT that are iffy at best as far as original research and blogging like information... probably do not deserve a place in this article, although I formatted them into the U.N. section for now..., and they could also soon be up for A.f.D. inspection as to notability... and the issue of creating Neologism word phases to make long rambling... in my opinion political hay... ala U.N. material... by one editor here... and then trying to sprinkle that information throughout areas of the article... which was done here by G.T. --- I am just pointing out the reality of that having happened in the past. So... I may now take off that information in the U.N. section also in the article as Nick has reacted also pretty strongly as to it not being appropriate... because these articles are one editors opinion here... not notable... and p.o.v. too the point of the article being at risk... or at least in the past the article looked like a placard for U.N. material and politics. That is no longer the case as much... this is what is meant by improving the article. I am not pro or con U.N. by the way... just interested in well rounded balanced neutral information. skip sievert (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume this is now resolved by consensus decision. Group will use sandbox of each section to reach editing consensus before putting up final version in real time.Granitethighs (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * G.T. I suggest that you read basic wikipedia guidelines and not try to reinvent the wheel here. Here is an example of a guideline below.


 * Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. &mdash;Jimbo Wales

Community discussion takes place on various pages: noticeboards such as at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; or pages such as Requests for comment and Requests for arbitration. These require collaborative effort and considered input from their participants to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus.

In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion.

Polls are structured discussions, not votes. Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a vote. Convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. Pure argumentativeness rarely convinces others. skip sievert (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Skip, you have signed up to the following statement: This will be a collaborative editing project. Decisions on article content will be made by consensus. Consensus decision-making is defined as: "a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections." When a vote is required, a two-thirds supermajority will be considered consensus.

Could someone else sort this out with Skip. I am more than happy to abide by consensus, whatever that turns out to be. Granitethighs (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This talk page is not supposed to be a debate. Any conclusions we reach would likely be original research anyway. Instead, we should focus on how the sustainability concept is actually described by reliable sources and present that. I have explained that an opinion about contracts of behavior and the use of a so called supermajority in wikipedia are not connected to the actual guidelines of editing an article. Defining tendentious - having or marked by a strong tendency especially a controversial one; "a tendentious account of recent elections"; "distinguishing between verifiable fact and tendentious assertion" ... Getting bogged down with made up rules outside of the guidelines is contrary to moving ahead here and counter productive (my opinion). In consensus-based editing, a number of editors, sometimes with differing viewpoints, work together to craft an article that is fully compliant with Wikipedia's core content policies, such as neutrality (WP:NPOV), no original research (WP:NOR) and verifiability (WP:V). Editors may sometimes revert article changes that violate Wikipedia's core content policies; this is not tag-teaming. A tag team is formed when two or more editors coordinate their edits in a way that is disruptive to an article or to the project.skip sievert (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We've all gotta stick to the rules as discussed, makes changes in the talk page sections at the top of the page as per the proposed outline. Discuss each section within its own talk page section. No edits to the main article until each section has been resolved in the talk page. If you want something changed, write it out and discuss it in the relevent talk page subsections. A big part of the confusion is occurring because of disorganisation. Stick with it. Nick carson (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)