Talk:Sustainability/Archive 17

Discussion
The article, above, by Yannismarou has some good suggestions. One recommended course of action is peer review. I will pursue that. Sunray (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

GT, I see a small problem with the Millennium Ecosystem Office citations. I certainly think that we need one reference to the collection of reports, but we need to be able to cite the specific reports in our references. Here are the ones I spotted: Apparently I've missed one, as there are ten listed in the "Notes" section. In any case, we need to go through these and cite the exact report (and where more than one reference, the page number) for each citation. Sunray (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead - 3rd para
 * "Oceans" - 1st para
 * "Freshwater" - 2nd para
 * "Land" - 1st para
 * "Extinctions" - 2nd para
 * "Water" - 1st para; 2nd para
 * "Decoupling environmental degradation..." - 1st para
 * "The Sustainability Transformation" - 1st para

Dates
I need to find out if we need to add the "retrieved on [date}" to each of our citations (I suspect we do) and the current conventions for formatting the date. I would prefer we use ISO dating yyyy-mm=dd, as it is universally clearer. Otherwise we get into a mix-up between Brit (dd-mm-yyyy) and American (mm-dd-yyyy) formats. Sunray (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - thanks for drawing my attention to the MEA citations, I've got the report in full so will check them out. ISO dating it is. Granitethighs (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There's more. Reading through WP:DATE I note that while ISO dating is o.k. for lists (i.e., in the "Notes" section for "Retrieved on" dates), it is not recommended for dates within text. Since we don't seem to have any dates in the article text with day/month/year, we should be o.k. on that score. However, in the list of citations, we have tended to cite the work using the local convention (which is much easier, since it is often just a cut and paste). This may not pass muster given the prime directive for dates, which is consistency. We can ask the peer reviewer if s/he sees any issues. Sunray (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Nick carson (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Tasks

 * I think I was nominated for a copyediting role so I've checked the advice on copyediting and it did actually suggest taking a few days' break - not a good thing to say to a natural procrastinator like myself - so I'm following that advice just at the moment, but also reading more about FA, and FAs themsevles, etc...--Travelplanner (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, you just got back from vacation, TP, no rest for you! :-)  When you signed up, you said that one of the things that you could contribute was "research (especially citations)." This is something we need right away. One of the criteria for FA articles is that each paragraph has citations. And as one of the above commentators suggested, virtually each sentence needs citation unless it is a completely self-evident statement. I have some concerns as to our adequacy in that regard. For instance, the second paragraph of the lead has no citations. Would you be able to go through, check how well we meet those criteria, and track down citations where necessary? Sunray (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok Ok, I never claimed to be hardworking... One question re: citations, can internal Wikilinks count as citations if they function as a citation in context? eg the second paragraph of the lead, each of the internal links (eg ecovillages) leads to an article jampacked with references that in turn include relating the topic to sustainability.  Not that there isn't still a need for citations throughout the article (no rest for me) but clarity on this point would be helpful...--Travelplanner (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, here's my take on this. WP:RS states:
 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."


 * The thing we have to be on the lookout for is original research. While each internal link adds to the picture, without a citation, stringing them together could be seen as an example of WP:SYNTH. But thinking about it, this one is tough. We may want to search for more usual suspects in the article and come back to this one later. When we wrote this, we were looking for examples of sustainable natural systems, sustainable forms of human organization and sustainable processes. Thus it may need three cites. It is quotable, though. I just popped it into Google and was amazed at how many times it has been quoted (often without attribution). Sunray (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A side note (a discussion for WP:RS, but relevent here): WP:RS states that only the opinions of "reliable" authors shall be published on WP. I just think this is really strange, we've been synthesising collective knowledge from all sorts of sources, our own experiences and knowledge included, even though we have conformed to WP:RS and others. If we had relied only on the opinions of 'reliable' authors, I imagine the article would look quite different, and not in a good way. According to WP policy, WP is merely a reflection of published author's opinions, surely the inclusion of truth/fact/reality is the ultimate endeavour of any encyclopedia? Food for thought amongst the editing team before we get drowned in the RS, V, NOR, etc abbreviations. Nick carson (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are suggesting that we have sufficient expertise on our team to write authoritatively on sustainability. I agree. Nevertheless, without consensus on the policies that guide us, I seriously doubt that WP would have become what it is. The three key content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER), and their observance by editors, arguably have made the encyclopedia what it is. The policies ask that (collectively) we be discoverers of fact, not seekers of truth. WP:VER puts it thus: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Sunray (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A helpful discussion - but really prompted by laziness on my part rather than genuine difficulty - I don't doubt there's reliable published sources for everything we've said. I expect we'll really struggle with WP:NPOV though (how can one have a neutral point of view about whether or not to save our planet??).--Travelplanner (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said. If someone has a better idea, we should present it in a balanced manner ;-) Sunray (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Technically to discover fact you must first be seeking truth, if truth and fact are taken to mean essentially the same thing. I agree, the policies have served WP well, but I don't like the way in which they're being cuddled and protected from advancement and progression, amendment. So many amazing things could be done to make WP even better and it's a bit depressing to see things potentially stagnate. Nick carson (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is an idea: put your busy-body rants on a political page that you pay for yourself. You may feel that your 'forced agenda changes' are somehow marching history forward, let me assure you it looks more like goose-stepping to an emmerging totalitarianism. 'Evolution' is not 'Social Engineering', you use the wrong word. If you want to change the world change the way you see the world.

Peer Review

 * A peer review sounds like a good idea. My only concern would be the little bits and pieces that anyone not working on the article rewrite might not understand the rationale for, that type of thing. Nick carson (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. Perhaps we can address it by ensuring a dialogue with the peer reviewer. Sunray (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. Nick carson (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A view from a non-activist
Doesn't it seem odd that the Wikipedia has these 'manifesto' pages that call for social action about causes that are of concern to well-funded entities, such as highly funded political organizations? Whenever I see a quote from a 'social activist' I always search Wikipedia for articles to explain the language and words that these 'activists' use. 'Sustainability' is one such word. The 'sustainability' article has parts that are a manifesto, in Marxist Newspeak, pretending to be an historical article. This genre of Wikipedia entry usually devolves into a rant about the necessity to force cultural change, which the author says is 'evolutionary' but is more engineered than evolutionary. Should Wikipedia include a rant for the forced modification of other people's lives, and the reengineering of society, and the virtue of social actavism? Virtuous or not, do these kinds of articles really have a place in an objective forum? These kinds of ranty manifestos are usually written with a transparent self-rightousness. The author usually makes broad-sweeping subjective statements as if they are objective truths. They always talk in the code language of their particular brand of activism. These kinds of articles are useful in that they expose the nacent thought patterns of those hypnotised into conformist social-agenda mongering. The people who write such articles might be the 'useful idiots' that corporations and powerful groups fool into carrying water for nebulous causes, such as 'tax breaks for wind turbines for the wealthy', which noone can prove solves any environmental problem but definitely benifits certain very large and powerful corporations. Who can say who these writers really are and what their lot in life is except for you who are writing this article. Are you really ready to tell everyone else what to do? Do you really advocate forced social change? Don't you see that forced social change might be considered anti-democratic and counter to the concept of Liberty? This class of article, while distasteful, benifits society in that it allows a prying into the shut-up mind of the hypnotised who think that they have a virtue in being a busy-body and trying to force their views on others. What I present is a worst case parady of a political activist. I hope that my parady lets these folks, who think they are doing good, see how they seem to the rest of us who are fed up with being herded by fuzzy causes and those who would force social change. And we can connect the dots and see what corporations or entities are funding these young minds in their quest for approval and their need to 'save the world' and be a hero. This is a transparent personality type easy hypnotised into activism to benifit the already powerful. Once you figure this out you will no longer be useful to them and they will zero fund you. Or they will 'bring you in' and you can become one of the powerful in their group. It is the same way that religous cults work. If you aren't hypnotized by the 'do gooding' then they bring you in as a 'leader' and try to sudduce you with power. Is that who you really want to be? Or were you born into this cult and you are a partisan for. . . you would know who or what group.


 * In response to such a parody; If ever there was a social/political/environment rant that belonged in a non-encyclopedic publication, that was it. I think it's dangerous to pigeonhole sustainability as a purely activist created concept. First things first; sustainability is a historical concept that has been around for a very long time in human history and in recent decades has been further and further defined and refined.


 * In a broader context, we can take a pessimistic attitude and believe that human beings as a species, are destined to descend into an unsustainable state from which we cannot return, resulting in any number of horrible scenarios. Or we can take control by making wise, informed decisions. We have the knowledge, the ability, the capability, to make decisions that can lead us to a self-sustaining state as a species (which can also be extended to several other species). The fact remains that a pessimistic attitude towards the decisions we make that will affect our future, will likely lead to our species (and inadvertently others) being unable to further sustain our existence on Earth. That is the essence of sustainability, not only in it's present sense but historical as well.


 * To respond to a few other points you mentioned; sustainability benefits not merely one or a group of entities, or an entire species, but many, if not all, life on Earth. Wether you like it or not, we as human beings have evolved the capability to choose how we evolve, not only in the future, but we have chosen, either directly or indirectly, the path that has led us to where we are today. It's a bit harsh and a tad cold to refer to making wise decisions as 'social engineering'. Your points on the commercialisation of renewable energy are entirely valid, but you must remember that has nothing to do with sustainability and is purely a result of capitalist economics (a group of farmers can all go in on a couple of wind turbines without a commercial entity and it ends up being cheaper to construct and maintain because you don't have the inherent costs like executive salaries and the various middle-personnel) Sustainability transcends political ideologies, any supported in the process will be supported because they may be the best alternative, politically, to the others that are available. Much of what your referring to is known as Greenwashing, a whole other thing in itself and something which is hardly even discussed in this article, let alone dictating it's scope.


 * Finally; We're not telling anyone what to do. Sustainability is inevitable to ensure to survival of both our and other species of life. It's not a case of wanting to make these decisions, it's a case of having to make them. And it's up to each individual to make their own decisions. I personally, would rather champion an optimistic attitude towards the species I am a member of, the life that surrounds me and the planet I live on, than pessimistically conclude that we have no right to make decisions for ourselves (on the contrary, we have a responsibility to make such decisions). Regardless, this isn't just my view, nor is it that of sustainability in general, rather; such ideas, concepts, decisions, suggestions, inventions, models, everything, have been around for a long time. This is the scope of this article. Sustainability. Nick carson (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The non activast again: Of course we have a right to make decisions for ourselves. I agree with that completely. That is what Liberty is. Large scale schemes of social engineering are what I am fearful of. Too often these things are forced through within a non-democratic process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.120.202 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting and citations
Here's some suggestions for the copyediting process.

I've archived both the "lead" and "definition" talk pages and put up the content from the main page there. This will enable us to collaborate and comment as we go through the process of copyediting and adding citations, while keeping the main page stable. I haven't done this for the rest of the sections yet (volunteers?) and may not have done it correctly though it seems to have worked. One very nice feature is that the references list appears neatly at the bottom of each section which is good because this is our main focus.

I've created a "copyedit" talk page at the end of the list for scraps of stuff that may turn out to have a use in the article but just aren't right in their current place. Only one example so far.

I suggest we need to agree on a format for references. I personally am familiar with "cite web", "cite book", "cite journal" from the Citation_templates. I like the feature that they can spread over several lines so it's easier to see what is text and what is not, and that you are prompted for the appropriate information. But I note that use of these is "neither encouraged nor discouraged" and that the "Cite" family of templates puts full stops in places where "Citation" puts commas (oh no!!). So we need to agree to use one or the other, or neither if someone has a better idea.

Where a reference is used more than once we should give it a name, so future references to it are simple.

Anything else? This is a seriously big task and we really don't want to have to go back over all these references twice.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice job on the archiving, TP. We can try working off line again. However, I don't see a serious problem working with the main article either, and had begun to do so. The advantage of working on the main article is transparency. A secondary benefit is in knowing how sections (and citations) work together. For example, we have used the single citation format (with abbreviations) for multiple cites of the same article.


 * I find the Citation templates a bit fussy to work with, personally, though they have the benefit of showing anyone who cares to learn the format for cites how to do it. I do follow the format suggested on the Citation templates page, though, (including periods, not commas). I've already gone through the first dozen citations, checking them against the template (with the exception of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which GT is going to provide). Another advantage of the templates is that they separate the text from the citations, which is sometimes clearer, particularly in sections where we have many citations. I'm not at all sure we need to convert them all, however. Sunray (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, the first dozen citations (apart from MEA) set the standard for how we will format cites. Adding cites and doing simple copyedits to the main page in real time is fine.  Anything that needs discussion, the (first two) talk pages are set up and ready for this.  All systems go...--Travelplanner (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * PS. I figure we are roughly half way through completing this article in terms of hours of work, which is a slightly depressing thought...


 * Came across this... and it seems like good info, so... put it into the climate change area as a ref/citation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2004/climate_change/default.stm as a back up to this one http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/ - skip sievert (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say it's depressing :] We've rewritten the article on sustainability, now all we've got to do is check it against the FA criteria in an effort to get the article featured, which would no doubt be a fantastic for sustainability in general :] Just gotta stay focussed and work through the process. Nick carson (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reinvigoration...
I'm a tad confused as to what the current status of our various tasks are:


 * Check article against FA criteria - This seems to be underway but I think we should focus it and organise it a bit better.
 * Peer Review - How do we get the peer review going? Or do we want to wait until we've checked against the criteria first?

Nick carson (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is a good idea to focus our efforts on the FA criteria. I was thinking that we should request the peer review soon and have begun looking for a reviewer. Sunray (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Main article template
On another front. We need to get a handle on use of "Main article" templates. I had always thought that summary style was the main guideline and that these templates were primarily used for sub-articles. My sense is that we need to go a bit beyond that, where there is an article that is well-suited to learning more about some aspect of sustainability. Examples would be articles like "Ecological economics," which are important components of sustainability. On the other hand, I don't think we need to give such prominence to articles that are not as closely related, such as "Dangerous goods." I've been looking at featured articles to get some ideas on this. We can also flag it for the peer reviewer to advise us on. Sunray (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I take your point. I have tried to make the main articles as you describe but it is not always clear how to do this. In many cases we have a topic (say materials, water, biodiversity) which have separate major articles. However, I get tricked because what we are addressing is not the topics themselves but their "sustainability". So directing people to an article of chemicals for instance would not be very helpful. "Dangerous goods" was the nearest I could get to "sustainable chemicals"! Of course I'm happy to fit in with WP protocol and like the idea of directing people to a second, more detailed "layer" of information - also that now's the time to make sure the next layer is the "right" one. Granitethighs (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, we do need to stay relevant with them, but I think it would be useful to utilise them wherever we can, as with the see also section, they're a space-efficient, prominent and powerful way to direct the reader to interrelated, relevant information. I think by linking to some articles like the 'chemicals' article, we may be placing the onus on the editors of such articles to start including more information on sustainability within those dedicated fields. This ties in with the fact that there shouldn't have to be separate articles like 'sustainable chemistry' or something, such information must be included within the relevant 'chemicals' article. Nick carson (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that we should be using links primarily within the body of our article to allow the reader to get more information on a particular aspect of sustainability. The "Main article" template is used when we are summarizing an article in our text. If we have a unified and coherent article, this would be unlikely to happen on tangential topics like "chemicals," IMO. Sunray (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but much of this article is summarised sections. However I agree with topics like 'chemicals', but for other sections within the article that have been summarised, I think we'd benefit from the use of main article templates. Nick carson (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review requested
I've registered a request for peer review. Sunray (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check the statement (link at top of page) and let me know if there is anything else you would like the reviewer to focus on. Sunray (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks fine to me Sunray - thanks for putting it up. There is still a lot of fine detail to look after (uniform referencing, rationalisation of content in side bars, still some repetition of material, the article's relationship to the "sustainable development" article, our use of footer navigation bars and their placement, and so on) but now is a good time for an overview. We can keep working on all these things.
 * Yes, agreed, we soldier on. Sunray (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am assuming we discuss feedback from reviewers at . Is that right? Granitethighs (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe so, but we can cue off what the reviewer wants. Sometimes they respond on the talk page, as well.
 * BTW, I note that Michael Devore was by to do some proofreading. He runs a Javascript proofreading instrument (called Wikisort) and picked up several errors. A real boon. Thanks, Michael. Sunray (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing that has been suggested would improve the chance of use getting a peer reviewer is if one (or more) of us volunteers to do a peer review for someone else. Ideally it would be in an area fairly closely related. Sunray (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A semi-automated peer review has been conducted here. Sunray (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Over referencing to one reference Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
This does not add credibility/neutrality and appears as though the article is in a fulcrum connected to this information to move the information about as to focus...

''^ a b c d e f g h i j Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. The full range of reports is available on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment web site.[1].''

This shows way to much reliance in the article to a pov... which is not good for neutral presentation. It also could be construed as political advocacy in nature because of the U.N. connection. Other sources need to be found besides this one one size fits all reference for the article. This seems like a serious over reference problem. Other information sources for refs... need to be found for the article to avoid being pegged as a mouthpiece... for a political sentiment... the U.N., and the article loses credibility on this count. It looks like a very single purpose aspect that needs to be rethought and addressed.

There are no shortages of good ref/citation/notes material out there. A request for comment may be in order for this, because of previous issues connected with editors here and the U.N. being previously over emphasized in the article...(my opinion)- but first maybe editors here can find other sources without over reliance on one. skip sievert (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I approve of npov and divergent views and sources - all good policy. The MEA was prepared by 1360 biological scientists from 95 countries between 2001 and 2005. It was scrutinised for comment by governments before publication in 2005. It was explicitly compiled as an objective account of the state of the biosphere to be used by those developing environmental policy. It is also, in my humble opinion, the most comprehensive and widely acknowledged quality publication available on the state of the biosphere. As the MEA is such a pivotal document I think it should be well quoted in the article. We have many other sources quoted on all topics - it is a mistake to assume that the use of this source is to the exclusion of others. If you know of authoritative npov accessible material that has been omitted and which you think should be quoted then let's hear about it.Granitethighs (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is over weighing information a b c d e f g h i j -- If you know of authoritative npov accessible material that has been omitted and which you think should be quoted then let's hear about it.


 * The world is not measured by the U.N. only obviously in regard to information links and good information and material. Most likely that group recycles information from science sources that may be just as good or better presented by science and not political sources.


 * Not my job to be expected to find references for other editors. I can tell you that there are many science based groups that provide information that are not connected to political groups. This information, though collated by the U.N., does not have to be presented by the U.N. --- which could be viewed as having political and corporate baggage and used in the article here by people with close relationship to the U.N.. It is over linked in the article in my view. Neutral point of view is compromised by over use of a link... for every catch all purpose in the article. No page numbers... sections... chapters... or areas of this link are being used in the article... just a general referral to it with no specifics. I did not count the times used in the article and mentioned in the article but this tips neutrality in the wrong direction... with too much dependence on single source information. skip sievert (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was working on these references that you have now deleted. I was unsure how to do multiple citations of the same reference but with different page numbers: perhaps you could help here. Your deletions now leave unsubstantiated factual information. This report is as near to completely objective as I know. It states "in this report judgemental estimates of certainty, based on the collective judgement of the authors (1360 renowned international scientists, 95 countries), using the observational evidence, modeling results, and theory that they have examined are as follows: very certain (98%, or greater probability) ... etc." In other words all judgements are qualified statistically. Of course nothing is perfect but this is a pretty good attempt to do everything possible to eliminate bias - it is peer reviewed by the scientists themselves. Please explain in more  detail why you think a document like this lacks credibility - why is this document a "measuring of the world by the UN?" Granitethighs (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a forum to promote or educate people about neglected fields like reports from the U.N.-. Our standard for inclusion is "Verifiability, not Truth". Facts and citations can be verified; 'truths' are often open to dispute. Political truths included. This principle has allowed a diverse community of editors to work together on Wikipedia to cover a wide spectrum of subjects. The thing in question already has a whole section in the article devoted to it. By referencing this information repeatedly... it begins to be nearly a special interest or faction linking. There has been problems and debate over over linking U.N. material... and the former team of editors has been noted to be actively promoting the U.N. or at least certain members of it. --- This all leads to the impression that the article is terribly over weighted to single sourcing the kitchen sink to the U.N. and every thing in between.


 * Example... and am involved in the United Nations education program as part of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development in Australia. I try and focus my efforts on education and awareness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick_carson I am not saying this person is not editing properly. I am saying that the article is over weighted and suffering because of that as to pov.


 * Also, ''How much did the MA cost, and who funded it? http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx

The overall MA budget was approximately US$24 million. Of this amount, around $7 million was provided through in-kind contributions for the MA sub-global assessments. Major donors included: the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the UN Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the World Bank. Additional support was provided by Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Government of Norway, Rockefeller Foundation, UNDP, UNEP, and the US National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA). The exploratory phase was funded by the Avina Group, David and Lucille Packard Foundation, Government of Norway, Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA), Summit Foundation, UNDP, UNEP, Wallace Global Fund, and the World Bank. In addition, significant contributions of data, time and expertise was made through in-kind contributions by such groups as the International Food and Policy Research Institute and WRI. What products are available from the MA?

See Overview of Reports What were some of the innovations of the MA?

The MA was designed as an integrated assessment to cut across sectors, involving natural science and social science perspectives. The MA was also a multi-scale assessment, which included component assessments undertaken at multiple spatial scales – global, sub-global, regional, national, basin and local levels. Another important feature of the MA was the emphasis on including different knowledge systems, apart from “scientific knowledge”. To explore this topic, the MA organized an international conference “Bridging Scales and Epistemologies" in March, 2004, in Alexandria, Egypt.

The MA also had an innovative governance structure that was representative of not only scientists and experts, but also UN conventions, civil society groups, and indigenous peoples. The MA Board, the Assessment Panel, and Working Groups were co-chaired by representatives of both developed and developing worlds. Where are the sub-global assessments? How were they selected?

See Sub-Global Assessments Did the MA conduct new research?

The MA did not conduct new research, but it is the first assessment to focus on the impacts of ecosystem changes for human well-being.' end quoted material.

Which is great... but, It was financed. It may be biased. It is over done in the article. skip sievert (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We have 142 footnotes in the article (over 160 if you count multiples). Given that volume of references, ten cites to the MEA may not be excessive. Would you be willing discuss major changes to the article and its sources here, before making them, Skip? We will consider your comments. However, please bear a couple of things in mind: 1) we are in the final stages of preparing for an FA review, and, 2) "consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Sunray (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be possible to reduce the number a little, I'll have a look - but the MEA contains important benchmark statistics - that is why it has been quoted so much. I must admit to being puzzled as to how to cite it several times with only page number differences between the cites. Granitethighs (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is a different page number, I don't think you can group the citations. I believe you must use a separate cite for each page. Sunray (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In a lot of ways the article in general is looking pretty good, especially the beginning area. The over weighing and overt promotion of the U.N. not just in the 10 overt ref/notes... but also the multiple refs... and directives to related things, the wiki articles related and so forth... sticks out like a sore thumb currently. Unless all this is changed there is no hope of reaching a good F.A. review. And I will be here and there during that process to point out how the article may currently be a little short of an all out promotional vehicle for the U.N., and a science based well rounded presentation about sustainability.


 * Making the article into a mouth piece of the U.N. is strongly discouraged. That is what it feels like now in multiple directions. While some may love the U.N. and their work... it is also a blatant political organization supported by multiple corporate money... and it very much has a certain p.o.v. which while some may find interesting and important... others do not. ''The MA also had an innovative governance structure that was representative of not only scientists and experts, but also UN conventions, civil society groups, and indigenous peoples. The MA Board, the Assessment Panel, and Working Groups were co-chaired by representatives of both developed and developing worlds.

Where are the sub-global assessments? How were they selected?


 * See Sub-Global Assessments

Did the MA conduct new research?


 * The MA did not conduct new research, but it is the first assessment to focus on the impacts of ecosystem changes for human well-being.' end quoted material. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx


 * The article as is now focused through the lens of this overtly corporate sponsored report... instead of in my opinion... where it could be. Science groups and organizations which while may be funded by endowments or governments are hard science related. Would you be willing discuss major changes to the article and its sources here, before making them end quote... yes I would and have been... so lets not confuse this issue here. This issue has been discussed for months to no avail... and no real participation, except to overtly use this material (over U.N. linking and referencing) over and over with little regard to the points previously brought up. Reverting the changes is probably not a good idea until either the sources are better or more broad. skip sievert (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

MA a broad-based international study
While the MA has been used frequently in the article to refer to the state of ecosystems on the planet, I don’t understand why you say “the article is now focused through the lens of this overtly corporate sponsored report… instead of… Science groups and organizations which while [they] may be funded by endowments or governments are hard science related.”

While the UN initiated and sponsored this report, it is a broad-based international study. An assessment of this nature is an analysis of existing research (thus secondary research). It is not pure research in itself, but it is an important component of scientific study. Some facts:


 * The assessment was carried out by universities and scientific organizations, including:
 * Seventeen national Academies of Science including both developing and developed countries.
 * A wide variety of other scientific organizations, including all major U.S. scientific bodies for relevant disciplines
 * Assessment panel members were from prestigious academic institutions including the Smithsonian Institution, Oxford, Cambridge and other universities and institutes on all continents.
 * Donors included private foundations, national governments, UN agencies and the World Bank.
 * In-kind services were provided by an amazing array of NGOs institutes and universities.

As to our weighting of the MA in the article. It is significant, as befits a major international assessment of this nature. However, we have drawn on a very broad range of sources throughout the article. Sunray (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sunray has a point, we should just focus on the weighting towards MA, we have drawn from a considerably wide and diverse range of sources, not just MA exclusively. Let's just keep things in perspective before they're blown a bit askew. Nick carson (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Something is very over stretched in this article
That is the focus on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 - Instead of reverting this... it can be noted that this is overt and over doing to extreme a certain viewpoint... and this is not even all the references by a long shot of http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx in the article. And, it is noted that instead of an all out effort to correct this over weighing of the U.N. a concerted effort is now being made to defend this over referencing as justified and correct. Basic problem here with this focus... and reverting the article to this p.o.v. - 14 refs to a U.N. report? and that is not even the total number. skip sievert (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Granitethighs has said he would take a look at the citations. Sunray (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My final comments on this matter. Yes, I will try to reduce the number down where possible. I simply disagree about the "bias" of this report - I imagine scientists would be skeptical of a study coming from a single institution and consensus always has its difficulties as we know ourselves. I am not sure what an internationally accepted "independent" report would look like: to be acted on it would have to go through the hands of many stakeholders from various sectors of the community (especially the business community). This is the current modus operandi in difficult situations - stakeholder engagement (social, economic, environmental) we've learned that from the article haven't we? It seems that Skips view is that this report is skewed by vested corporate and other interests. My view on the the UN - for better or worse "sustainable development" and other UN activity has captured world attention and stimulated world action - in a WP article this cannot be ignored - it is objective fact and must be reported. I suppose we are getting close to an unproductive "my neutral point of view is much more neutral that your neutral point of view" situation. Again - I will reduce where possible and abide by group consensus on this matter. Granitethighs (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be simple to head this problem off at the past. A request for comment may have to be made. Teams have problems if teams turn into proponents of organizations.... and state that an organization is my view is that it is an honest attempt by the international scientific community to find concensus on the state of the biosphere. This endorsing it as truth giving. Or, another editor says... While the UN initiated and sponsored this report, it is a broad-based international study. Not really. It is a U.N. report collated with corporate money. I can see maybe two references made to http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx and three would be really stretching it unless you want to rename the article.... Sustainability and the United Nations Millennium Assessment... that being the case I would not have a problem with the article at all. But this shows just how this article is currently a vehicle http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 and this is only a fraction of the mention in the article. skip sievert (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Implementation, from article section called Implementation
Because of resistance to discuss issues in the article... and also because two people pretty much control the editing with a third and fourth at times... and because these editors have over reffed the article to a pov.... the article has been tagged.
 * Healthy ecosystems provide vital goods and services to humans and other organisms. There are two major ways of reducing negative human impact and enhancing ecosystem services. The first is to deal with direct human impacts on nature through effective:


 * Environmental management. This approach is based largely on information gained from earth science, environmental science and conservation biology. However, this is management at the end of a long series of causal factors that are initiated by human consumption so a second approach is through:
 * Management of human consumption.  End... article segment.

How is it that this section of the article was sourced with a blank ref twice in two ajoining paragraphs... to this http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx ? exclusively... and at the same time the article section before the implementation section is devoted also to this same exact thing with multiple refs also to the same thing? There has not been a satisfactory explanation of this issue of this report being over linked in the article as of yet. There has been a spirited defense of this information though. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=275503448&oldid=275501663 How is it that one link is used to ref/note an extreme number of things?

Again... neutrality of information presentation is at issue and credibility of this anon reffing of a huge set of disparate things... brings up this question. Is it felt that this assessment is the only right and true thing to use as a note/ref... over and over... in the article? I do not get this at all. Has this article been written around a U.N. publication? A lot of this type of referencing is going to need to either be redone in the article, dropped from the article ... or quoted directly... from this over reffed ref. Scores of references do not make sense... maybe 3 or 4 is a real stretch for the entire article. I have not even attempted to figure out how many times this specific information is used used and used again and again. I am sure the count would be astounding. This is a serious problem. Comments please. skip sievert (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray... by removing the tag on the article you are not going by Wikipedia guidelines. The tag is not meant to be removed until this issue is discussed and dealt with. This is not a good way to deal with a pov issue. skip sievert (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the "To do" list, above, you will see that we are currently working on this item: "Edit entire article according to 'Featured article criteria'." One of the elements of this is "verified footnotes." You have raised some concerns. GT has said he would go through those citations and rationalize each one. Would you be willing to wait for him to do that? By deleting citations, you only make it harder. Sunray (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How is it harder when you have the page history in black and white? I see another user has taken the tag off. That user has made a mistake in taking the tag off ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Johnfos This editor previously was on the losing end of an editing dispute... and apparently has done this recent edit of taking the tag off here, in a wikistalking manner, and I have asked him to please stop. It is a clear case of a disgruntled editor inappropriately doing this.


 * Sunray... lets not be coy about the situation. I have made this known for months about this issue. This issue has not only not gotten better it has gotten worse. There has been ample time for you and others to change the article.... it appears now a concerted effort on the team here to use this link to this U.N. material... and over the last couple days no real conversation except for defense has been used. Defense of this link.... used and used and used in every conceivable way in this article. Can I ask you ... and the other editors in the team here something? Are you an employee of the U.N. or have you been? Or are you involved in promoting them? Nick a member of your team has said he is on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick_carson.... this all looks bad to me. Now another editor Johnfos comes here and gets involved in a totally unrelated disconnected way removing a pov tag, I think because I reported him as being disruptive elsewhere...Johnfos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnfos       which was agreed on by others not involved. Sad really. Too bad the article has to suffer for it here. skip sievert (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Coy? I responded to your comments about the Millennium Assessment Report being biased. I attempted to make my response factual and civil. I see no evidence that you have considered what I've said. Fair enough. However, if you are going to continue down this road, you will need to present some evidence to support what you are alleging. For example, you state:
 * "Making the article into a mouth piece of the U.N is strongly discouraged." How is the article a mouthpiece of the UN? Would you be able to demonstrate how this is the case?
 * "While some may love the U.N. and their work... it is also a blatant political organization supported by multiple corporate money... and it very much has a certain p.o.v..." What is the link between the MA (an international study) and the UN in terms of political perspective—i.e., when you say "the UN" do you mean the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretariat, a particular UN agency or agencies or all of these together? What is the political bias of the UN? How exactly does political organization influence the report? Please give citations from reliable sources.
 * "The article as is now focused through the lens of this overtly corporate sponsored report..." Again, please show how the article is "focussed through the lens of this report." Would you also provide citations that show that the report is corporate sponsored?
 * Finally, you insinuate, as you have done previously, that because Nick Carson has been involved in the United Nations education program for the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, that this somehow "looks bad." You ask if others of us have worked for the UN. What would that indicate? Are you going to infer some particular POV from that? Associations with organizations are often multifaceted. They can be positive, negative or neutral. But more importantly: "... all editors and all sources have points of view... What matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." IMHO you need to present some evidence to support what you are saying, otherwise you are just being disruptive. Sunray (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean you are connected to the U.N.? in some direct way? Do not accuse people of being disruptive... when there is no disruption, but an attempt to understand why and how this article is over referencing some certain aspect. If the majority of members on the team you formed are directly involved in the U.N. it could well be a conflict of interest. That is why I asked. It appears that a conflict of interest could be in question because the information is linked... how many times... I may have to count... in the article. It is used in an absurd degree as a source.

When did the MA begin?

''The core MA process took 4 years, between 2001 and 2005. The MA officially began in April 2001, with the first technical design workshop held at National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), the Netherlands. It was formally launched by UN Secretary–General Kofi Annan, on June 5, 2001, coinciding with World Environment Day.''http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx

It is a funded project under U.N. direction. Already said how... so lets not confuse things by name calling other editors, also it is a personal attack here to call another editor disruptive when they are trying to be helpful... like pointing out problems with the article. You were cautioned earlier about name calling when another editor arbitrated editing here... you previously called an editor a troll... so lay off with implying other editors motives and get on with improving the article.

Who funded it... already said.. above... ''The overall MA budget was approximately US$24 million. Of this amount, around $7 million was provided through in-kind contributions for the MA sub-global assessments. Major donors included: the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the UN Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the World Bank. Additional support was provided by Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Government of Norway, Rockefeller Foundation, UNDP, UNEP, and the US National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA). The exploratory phase was funded by the Avina Group, David and Lucille Packard Foundation, Government of Norway, Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA), Summit Foundation, UNDP, UNEP, Wallace Global Fund, and the World Bank. In addition, significant contributions of data, time and expertise was made through in-kind contributions by such groups as the International Food and Policy Research Institute and WRI. What products are available from the MA?'' end quote from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx


 * I will tackle the citations but am occupied until Tuesday. Please be patient. We all carry our own baggage of POV. WP articles are a great way of trying to present all sides of a "case" by trying to be as objective as possible. I am tring to have a NPOV and have no interest in pushing the UN. I am not aware of Nick pushing the UN either. How can you claim to be "neutral" Skip when you openly promote all the Technate stuff. Perhaps this is influencing your judgement of other people's views? Perhaps the Technate has a position on the UN? (Just curious). And, upon reflection, does me saying this assist the article? (I'm trying to point out how unproductive it is to stir people up. Clearly Johnfos has been stirred). I shall be as objective as possible in referencing the MEA but, Skip, that will be a day or two yet. Remember as assessment for FA there will be another layer of assessment over the current one. Granitethighs (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets not compare apples and oranges. The article currently pushes this report in an overt way by over reffing it almost to death. Nick is a U.N. volunteer or worker... read his user page. I do not promote any thing on Wikipedia. Perhaps this is influencing your judgement of other people's views? That is kind of a borderline way of attacking another editor. No idea about positions of a group on the U.N. and that is not an issue here. Johnfos came to the article to create problems in a negative manner in my opinion and did a drive by tag removal..., because of a previous unrelated encounter with him. It would seem that the MEA stuff must mostly be removed from the article from its position of now... and actual sources to information given. I am not trying to stir any one up. My only interest here is neutral presentation. skip sievert (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You persist with the point of view that the MA report is overly referenced and that it somehow is biased. On the first point GT has agreed to look at the citations to the report. On the second, I have asked you to present documentary evidence of bias. Please do so now. Sunray (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the point here. Your team of which you apparently are the leader (you suggested earlier you would like to be the team leader), made all these multiple references to one thing. You are overseeing the article. I pointed a problem months ago about over referencing the U.N.- How can you possibly think that an article should be reffed by the same ref so many times..?, and why are you defending this over reffing now?.., it is just bad form...because I am sure it is against guidelines. Count the references in the article and tell me how any reasonable editor can not think it is overused with a section of its own being presented also... and then the same ref being used over and over and over and over to ref anything seemingly and everything in many of the article sections.


 * Is it biased? Not my contention... It may be... it is a funded corporate report... the point is... why oh why is it used scores of times... through out the article? I have listed who sponsored the article. That is enough for any reasonable person to give thought about the money behind the project. Were you involved in it somehow? You may be in a conflict of interest here if you were. I am waiting for the other user now to clean up the sourcing. I am guessing that sections of the article may need rewriting... or actual sourcing beyond this catch all sourcing used currently to one thing the MA report. skip sievert (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey skip chill out :] Sunray isn't the leader. He's just got more experience concerning the ins and outs of WP than the rest of us working on the rewrite. Let's not all of us go nuts. Just try and focus on proving your assertion of bias in the MA. Nick carson (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not my assertion. My point is the over referencing of material from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx in the article to the point of extreme almost ridiculous repetition. I could see the amount of refs to it if the article were called Sustainability and the Millenium Assessment... but that is not the name of the article. I also question that you may be in a conflict of interest here in regard to this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185skip sievert (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved discussion on "Economic opportunity" to subpage
This discussion has been move to the "Economic" subpage here Sunray (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem here. Cazort edit the article and do it boldly. I have had long running problems with ownership issues here by S.R. - It was unofficially mediated a while ago and he was told to stop what he was doing in regard to over controlling his team... and preventing others from creatively editing. I have the link to those findings. The same people have controlled even almost every minor flinching of this article for months and months. They are not friendly toward people that are not editing on their terms. It is fine to form a team if people feel they must. However... it violates policy to have 2 or 3 or 4 people... that may be in a conflict of interest in regard to the U.N. and its material control the article over sourcing.

Probably a RFC (request for comment) may be needed and could be made on the point of over over and over use of the U.N. === Also editors here have over linked their pet projects... which many of which also over over and over source the U.N. --- One of the team members here admittedly works for or promotes the U.N.- Another will not answer as to involvement. Another claims to not be into them but sources overwhelming aspects to them. So the article has huge conflict of interest aspects currently in my view... that have gotten worse over the last couple of months instead of better. What article lists things like this http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx over and over in nearly every section? This gives the article zero credibility... and it calls into question violation of C.O.I. or at the very least very very poorly over sourcing. Currently the article is a weak mouthpiece for the U.N. in my opinion. I am not pro or con U.N. - This glaring aspect though is pretty awful in the article of over reffing it. It is a political corporate organization run by banking and other interests.

Another problem. G.T.... you refactored my comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability&diff=prev&oldid=276130988 This is misleading. It appears the section you wrote under my signature is from me...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=276130988 - I do not like what you wrote. It has nothing to do with what I presented. I made a counterpoint to some of the things that Cazort wrote... in a connected manner. I am removing the comment because as said it is under my signature. Please do not do things like that. Refactoring anothers comment. Cazort... the article previously was a good B article. I would say that some improvements in the article have occurred particularly in some sections... but over all the article is worse now than before because of p.o.v. issues with the team. skip sievert (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, I apologise for the refactoring under your name - that was an omission on my part, I did not realise I had done it. However, please restore my suggested Option 2 which was put up for general discussion - its contents are not set in stone. How else do we discuss anything? You say you did not like what I wrote and deleted it. I think a little longer on this site Cazort and you will understand why the "structure" is as it is ... especially when you become the brunt of attention. Can I suggest you read some of the early archives and discussion that have occurred with this article. Granitethighs (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem... but this does not get at the issue. If you think your information is good then put it under your signature somewhere. Read the early archives..?. May I remind you that I edited portions of the article, for some time? Feel free to repeat your suggestion somewhere.. but I did not find that it related to the direct issue. My add on was a direct juxtapose to the Cazort material. skip sievert (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Response by Sunray
Skipsievert is alleging a pro-UN bias by article editors, "ownership issues" (directed at me and others), and has stated that he thinks there is a conflict of interest on the part of one or more editors. I have asked him to provide evidence regarding the allegations concerning the UN. So far the only thing he has presented is a statement by Nick Carson on his user page that Nick has been involved with UN Education for Sustainable Development. Skipsievert refers to a previous "unofficial mediation" regarding the ownership issues. This was a matter looked into by Jehochman here. For the sake of clarity, here are Jehochman's findings, which were agreed to by both Skipsievert and me:


 * 1)   and others may choose to work as a group and establish processes for their editing, but they may not take ownership of an article and dictate processes to others outside of Policies and guidelines.
 * 2)  If  wants to edit Sustainability, he may do so, and his edits should not be reverted merely because they violate a voluntary process established by other editors.  If the edits are unhelpful, they can be reverted.
 * 3)  If Skipsievert edits Sustainability while others are preparing better versions offline (or in userspace), there is a chance his work will be replaced by a better version.  Other editors should consider merging Skipsievert's edits with theirs, but they are under no obligation to do so.
 * 4)  Skipsievert should not frustrate consensus of the working group by posting lengthy or tangential comments, circular arguments or any similar tactics that amount to disruption.
 * 5)  Sunray, it is generally best practice not to call another editor a troll or ask if they are trolling.  There are better ways to deal with trolls, and such comments risk offending good faith editors who might unintentionally be causing disruption.

In order to minimize further disruption of a valuable collaboration, I call on Skipsievert to continue to abide by these findings, as will I. Let's move on Skip. Sunray (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert the article as to breaking the three revert guideline. I have reported that. I also think it is not appropriate to bring this up here as you have done on an article talk page. User pages and pages connected with the actual issues would be better. Please do not refactor headings above my comments that personalize another editor here. skip sievert (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As you will discover I do not break the 3RR. If you are prepared to move on, so am I. I would be fine with archiving this and not mentioning these issues on this page again. I would, however, like to resolve this UN issue to your satisfaction. Would you be able to let me know where we might discuss that further? Sunray (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The U.N. issue can be discussed here on the talk page. I just asked for disclosure like Nick did...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 Since this other issue has spilled over here I will put this addendum above as to reverting. skip sievert (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:


 * You neglected to post the finding of this report: Result: no vio. Sunray (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)