Talk:Sustainability/Archive 18

Last phase
I have tweaked the "last phase" things we need to do in the "to do" box to make it more systematic - there may be others. We just need to finish the "social" bit and then we are down to the final tidy-up. Nick, can we delete the remaining item in the first part of the list or do you think it still needs addressing? Have we left out anything critical - Nick you listed a number of things, moany of which have gone into side bars - anything else? Granitethighs (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a bushfire-free day today, after visiting Yarra Glen, Steels Creek and St. Andrews over the last few days, talking to people, families, police and taking photos for WP, it all started getting pretty intense. So I've had a read over the article and I think we've covered the 'current efforts in applying sustainability' in the 'application/implementation' section. Social section is getting there. Nick carson (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sunray - you have been through this last phase of refining an article for assessment several times before. What do you suggest - is the "to do" list OK? Granitethighs (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:FACR is probably the best guide. I will copy it below for ease of reference. Once we have gone through the criteria and copyedited the article, we should be in a position to request an assessment. Perhaps we could divide up the chores. The "Notes" need attention: a) verification, where possible, and b) formatting conventions most commonly used by Wikipedia. Note that we don't necessarily have to use the templates, but the format for each kind of source (book, journal, report, news article, etc.) is given in the "Examples" columns of the table.

Anyone want to specialize in a particular area? GT, I notice you have begun to edit, which is great. TP you have expertise in researching citations. We still have some passages in need of cites. Want to have a go at that? Nick, you mention an interest in copyediting - that is always needed. I will look at the format of citations and do some copyediting. Perhaps we should all take a look at the "Advice from Wikipedians," below. Also, we should also each take a look at various Featured articles over the next few days for style and common conventions. I will be interested in how links are handled (especially "Main article" and "Further information" links). Oh yes, we should also take a look at length of FAs to know how much we need to edit down and use summary style.

We have used British spelling mostly in our re-write. We will need to ensure consistency throughout the article. We will also need a "commented-out note" asking people to stick with the one style. Sunray (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, following Sunrays suggestion I will re-read it all for consistency, non-repetition and uniformity of reference/citation presentation. I will also make notes in the "to do" box for things which I think we all need to consider. Granitethighs (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll also do a read through over the next few days, same as GT, make some notes. It'll help to get familiar with the article overall and perhaps serve as a precursor to working through the FAC. Nick carson (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The "See also" section
Just to help out with this (which I shall look at) - this is what WP has to say on the "See also" section: Contents: The "See also" (less commonly "Related topics") section provides internal links to related Wikipedia articles. "See also" is the most appropriate place to link a Portal with the portal template.

A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical "perfect article" are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. A "perfect" article then may not have a "See also" section at all, though some links may not naturally fit into the body of text and others may not be included due to size constraints. Links that would be included if the article were not kept relatively short for other reasons may thus be appropriate, though should be used in moderation, as always. These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links).

Location: The "See also" section, if used, follows the "Works" section, if used.

Format: The links should appear in a bulleted list. It is helpful to alphabetize the links if there are more than a few of them. Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent. For example:
 * Related person made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005.

Granitethighs (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, good to clarify this. I went through the "See also" section a while back with this guideline in mind and pruned it fairly severely. However, I'm not sure I eliminated all links that were contained in the text. Sunray (talk)


 * We should be weary of cutting it back too severely, I think if we use common sense, we'll discover that it would be wise to include certain important links in the see also section, even if they have already been used in the body. It is a very space-efficient and powerful way to link to important, interrelating and relevant information. Nick carson (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

MEA and over sourcing the United Nations
I have reduced the number of references to the MEA to seven. The MEA (hardly surprisingly) contains critical statistics and comments concerning the state of the biosphere. I cannot reduce the number more. You may want to get someone outside our group of editors to pass an opinion on whether or not this is overkill - or wait for further peer review. Granitethighs (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is only a small part of the over linking/sourcing to United Nations related material in the article. Not really sure how many times U.N. material related and reffed and sourced in the article but it goes way beyond just the obviousl MEA reffs. The MEA (hardly surprisingly) contains critical statistics and comments concerning the state of the biosphere. end... yes.. but they just collated information and did no actual research but relied on information and then put it together in a certain way with a pov. skip sievert (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, these scientists were selected as experts in their particular field to make submissions concerning their particular specialities. I cannot imagine external pressure being applied - there would have been a major outcry, especially as so many were involved. Wikipedia is sponsored by all sorts of people and organisations: does that mean that you and I are muzzled or forced into a particular POV? Probably the only way to resolve this issue re the UN is to get an independent outside view. I am perfectly happy for any reviewer to be told that this has been discussed by the team and is an unresolved issue on which we would appreciate comment. Granitethighs (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem with overlinking old U.N. related material is that a lot of it is out of date... and does not reflect research that is happening now... things like http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7935159.stm point out that much antiquated material presented by the U.N. is stale at best. This is why current science sourcing seems better... it also gets rid of the governmental political corporate aspect also that is baggage of U.N. presented material.


 * Another example... using the MEA to anon source something like ocean acidification instead of something up to date and cutting edge like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7936137.stm ... nothing can be learned really from the old MEA link which is ancient compared to this other information. Replacing most of these links is suggested, otherwise the article really does not give useful information and is not informative. Keep the section of MEA material... but spilling this link over through out the article, does not do the article information any favor as to sourcing/reffing and creative presentation of material. I see some of the MEA/U.N. refs have been eliminated... and that is a start... but many more need to go for credible and informative information presentation. Mostly the over use of that sourcing deprives the article of better education sources of information. skip sievert (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fundamentally this is a difference of opinion about what is a Reliable Source - so I've posted it as a question here.


 * My own opinion is that MEA and other meta-analyses of multiple scientific work around the world and across decades is a far more reliable source than news or "cutting edge" scientific reports. There's so much published, and so much of it is contradictory or turns out to be BS after awhile, which of course is what creates the need for these major international meta-analyses in the first place.  I don't see how it's possible to write an encyclopedia article, free of original research, without relying on high-level sources like the UN.  That said, Skip's link on ocean acidification is easy to access online, readable and informative.  Perhaps there's room for two types of "best" link; the most reliable source and the most readable?--Travelplanner (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Even in the extremely unlikely event of the MEA being BS, its influence is undeniable and it is essential that it be included in WP reportage such as this article. In specific reply to Skip: as I said before, because the report was a deliberate attempt to summarise the "state of the planet" in a biological sense, there is a lot of excellent summary information and statistics in it. That is why it is quoted 7 times. I agree with TP about trying to include all the latest gee whiz info from the radio and TV. Lets give this a rest now Skip, let an outsider or two have a say, so we can get on with getting the peer review suggestions done. Granitethighs (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The level of discussion in response to my reliable source question is pretty amazing, check it out.--Travelplanner (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are for discussing things G.T. so give it a rest... no... and who has over linked and over reffed the links in question mostly ???, so it is not appropriate to suggest others just ignore them. The U.N. stuff is quoted many more times than 7 in the article ... I am not talking about just the specific M.E.A. reff.


 * Thank you T.P., obviously you brought your opinion to the question of this in my opinion oversourcing of U.N. related material... and I doubt what they had to say supports the idea of using this link over much except where it is directly called for in relation to the U.N. - My favorite comment on the page is probably the first one ...


 * ``It's a RS for the position of the UN. I wouldn't use it as a definitive source beyond that. THF (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)::


 * This fits pretty nearly with what I have been saying... and I do believe a concerted effort needs to be made at telling where the source is from... a kind of intro... or disclaimer... or before each use of the ref in the article ... beyond the specific area in the article that is built around the very U.N. M.E.A. information. Bottom line ...the U.N. is funded... many times from corporations and political special interest groups. As a primary source it is not really effective or good except to source itself as information it is presenting. skip sievert (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks TP for making the referral to the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. I agree that the discussion was comprehensive. The verdict, below, is very clear and authoritative. Sunray (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Verdict of RS page concerning UN and MEA discussion
OK my understanding of the above advice (much appreciated) is: Is that the gist of it?--Travelplanner (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A large organisation like the UN needs will generate different types of information; political statements, consensus decisions, scientific reviews etc. Editors will need to make judgements as to whether a specific UN report is a reliable source for a specific statement.
 * In the specific case of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment this is a reliable source. The relative weight to give to this source is an editorial judgement.
 * The topic talk page is the right place to have the rest of this discussion.
 * you nailed it. Dlabtot (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. If there are ongoing issues over weight or COI that can't be resolved on the talk page, you could seek help at other venues (but not here, because this page is only for RS discussions). Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There never was an issue as to it being a reliable source. The issue was that it is oversourced and that as a source as stated above it works fine as a source of the U.N. --- Using it to source the kitchen sink as was being done throughout the article was not appropriate... for reasons mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_United_Nations_a_Reliable_Source.3F


 * Quote, from above. ``It's a RS for the position of the UN. I wouldn't use it as a definitive source beyond that. THF (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the number of sources that spill into the article of this is still excessive compared to the availability of different points of view... this is still an on going problem. skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Skipsievert. The statement you have quoted from User:THF is one editor's opinion among several. That statement was also made early in the discussion of the UN as a source in general, potentially including political statements, not just as a source of scientific reports. The discussion continued for some time after that statement and became more specific. The final consensus was that the UN's Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report is a reliable source and appropriate to use in this article. It is not as you say only "fine as a source of the U.N.", it is fine as a reliable scientific secondary source, not unlike a publication in a reputable science journal. There was also some agreement that unless other reliable sources disagreed with its findings, there is no need to explicitly state that the statements in the prose are sourced from the MEA (but the source would still need to be cited, as always). I would also say that in cases where the MEA has the most recent comprehensive scientific perspective on a given area of the article, it's natural that it will be quoted in that area. Of course, other secondary reliable sources (i.e. sources such as literature reviews) should also be given their due weight, especially if those sources reach different conclusions to the MEA. Primary sources, including "published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments" are always less preferable than secondary studies, and in the rare cases that they are used they should only be used descriptively and not intepreted by editors. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding use of MEA as a source
I'd like to make a suggestion regarding the concern of the over-use of the MEA report as a source in this article. I would suggest that every time the source is cited, a relevant quote from the report be given inside the reference. That is, the quote would not be visible in the prose of the article, but would be readable in the References section. This will ensure that every time the source is being cited against a statement, text in the source that supports the statement can easily viewed and so that readers and editors can decide for themselves whether the source is being used appropriately. Personally, I find this a useful approach for ensuring the most transparent possible use of sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea R.P.-. I never thought it was bad sourcing really... just overdone in extremis. It has improved since it was at its most overt http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 in the article. The team here is overly fond of it, I think... that would be to the detriment, I believe, if they are seeking good article status. Mostly it seems a perfect source for the section in the article entitled...Global human impact on biodiversity - Main article: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.


 * A lot of the information originally in this report is outdated presently. Also because it is presented in a possible political... corporate context.. while also it may strive for neutral presentation in its findings... there is still that corporate sponsorship aspect. The article presently looks better without as much sourcing to this one thing. So... that seems like an improvement. It may still be over weighted though in the context of well rounded presentation in the beginning section in particular... my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We have no reliable sources raising doubt about possible bias of the MEA. When I searched for sources on the RS noticeboard I found that the MEA seemed to be well regarded. Unless you intend to provide reliable sources to back up your statements, I suggest that it would be pointless to continue insinuating that the report may be politically or "corporately" biased. So long as there is no evidence of such bias, that argument holds no water and seems especially implausable alongside your statement that the reliability of the source is not in question. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In terms of your concern of over-use of sources originating from the UN, I would note that the article cites over 150 sources and that many of them seem unrelated to the UN. I would also suggest that instead of making such a broad-brush criticism you focus on specific statements in the article that are currently referenced to UN sources that you believe would be better referenced to other sources, or that you believe can be shown to be outdated by referencing other sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless you intend to provide reliable sources to back up your statements, I suggest that it would be pointless to continue insinuating that the report may be politically or "corporately" biased. R.P. end quote..I assume you have not researched who funded them. Donors and in-kind contributors. I assume you have heard of the Rockefeller Foundation, USA and some of the other corporate contributors here such as the World Bank? These are strings attached... one could suppose... right? In terms of your concern of over-use of sources originating from the UN, I would note that the article cites over 150 sources and that many of them seem unrelated to the UN. Yes...? not my argument. Is there some part of this that bothers you??, that you want to defend here, from the previous version presented http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 I have said that the article is better now... because this load of Refs... has been reduced. As a link it works... never said it did not... just said it was previously over used.

The Board of the Millennium Assessment, on behalf of all those involved, would like to thank the following institutions for their support (as of December 2003): Donors

* Global Environment Facility (GEF) * United Nations Foundation (UNF) * David and Lucille Packard Foundation, USA * The World Bank * United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) * Government of Norway * Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN) * Swedish International Biodiversity Programme (SwedBio), Sweden * Rockefeller Foundation, USA * US National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) * Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), UK   * International Council for Science (ICSU), France * The Christensen Fund, USA * Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) End.

A small number of the donors listed...http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Donors.aspx -

I would also suggest that instead of making such a broad-brush criticism you focus on specific statements in the article that are currently referenced to UN sources that you believe would be better referenced to other sources, or that you believe can be shown to be outdated by referencing other sources. Check out the article edit history...R.P. I have tried to do this and others recently also have done this. skip sievert (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sponsorship does not demonstrate bias. Do you have a reliable source stating that the report is biased due to its sponsorship? If not, this is just a personal theory of yours and editors here should not be expected to give it any special credence. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is not my personal theory that they were funded by corporate interests. Also there are mixed reports about it... here is one http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24076/pub_detail.asp


 * ''One difficulty with the MA’s assessment of ecosystems on the global scale is the limits or absence of data, which the MA forthrightly acknowledges:


 * Relatively few ecosystem services have been the focus of research and monitoring and, as a consequence, research findings and data are often inadequate for a detailed global assessment. Moreover, the data and information that are available are generally related to either the characteristics of the ecological system or the characteristics of the social system, not to the all-important interactions between these systems. Finally, the scientific and assessment tools and models available to undertake a cross-scale integrated assessment and to project future changes in ecosystem services are only now being developed. At this point the lay reader may scratch his head and wonder, just how, then, is the MA reaching these sweeping conclusions and offering projections for the year 2050? Are they just making it up?


 * Because of the age of this thing... even being 5 or 6 years old... lots of the facts and figures seem antiquated also. Here is an example of outdated U.N. information, compared to recently discovered and collated information. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7935159.stm ... recently added to the article. skip sievert (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to have misread my question. Do you have a reliable source stating that the report is biased due to its sponsorship? Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Calm down friend. I am not a conspiracy theory person. At all. This is a non-issue. I am not pressing this issue. Mostly the article has been changed as to over referencing the MEA material now. Whether the World Bank or the Rockefeller Foundation has strings attached to their money I have no idea... and do not care. Some people think the U.N. is great... and the wave of the future. Others hate it. Each have a multitude of reasons. Mostly you can find believers on both sides.... but this is not really the issue. The issue was that previously, in at least my opinion, the article was over reffing itself in a dump every thing into the laundry bin way to a certain thing... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 - that has now changed in the article, so my suggestion is that this is a dead to more relative minor issue now. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With no reliable source to back up your insinuations that the UN reports are biased, it's wasting people's time to push that barrow. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there some part of that is not my problem or issue that you are missing here? Have you noticed that what you are repeating is not in contention so much? More that the report is antique old information that was over reffed previously but is better now because other editors have removed some of the over reffing? I told you a couple of times that I was mainly complaining about the over reffing of the link... ok? My insinuations?... Obviously the U.N. report was financed... correct? No please, just stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass

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

Copenhagen International Scientific Congress on Climate Change
This may be an important link to have in the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/stern-attacks-politicians-climate-change ... Here is an example of the information in it... ''His stark warning about the potentially "devastating" consequences of global warming came as scientists issued a desperate plea last night for world leaders to curb greenhouse gas emissions or face an ecological and social disaster. More than 2,500 climate experts from 80 countries at an emergency summit in Copenhagen said there is now "no excuse" for failing to act on global warming. A failure to agree strong carbon reduction targets at political negotiations this year could bring "abrupt or irreversible" shifts in climate that "will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with"'' etc.

I may find a place to insert some of this information later today... but if any one else thinks they may like to use this link... in context in the article, to information in the link... have at it. This looks like very stark and important information... and extremely overtly topical. skip sievert (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My view would be that we keep the sustainability article "long-term" and, following Paddy's recommendation, mostly reliable secondary sources (I am not saying this source is unreliable). It is one of the problems with sustainability that everything is constantly moving on all fronts - we will not be able to keep up with the latest information but can only hope to cover it in a general sense. I hope we have captured the fact that climate change might get worse. I think the climate change page is the place for this sort of announcement. Granitethighs (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Right... it contradicts older U.N. information. Pretty dramatically, it pretty much shows how outdated the U.N. material is. Science is science... that means facts. Facts are not opinion. Bolstering the article with facts... and sources that have variety.. is important. skip sievert (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Skip on this one - on balance. My call is that this is an important development, not at all the sort of thing that happens every day.  The scientists at a (Skip please note) corporate sponsored conference closely linked to the UN have issued a separate scientific statement which is hard-hitting, scary and urgent and very well backed up by highly respected people.  It throws the scale of action to date into sharp relief relative to the task ahead.


 * I've posted a question on the Climate Change page - it's not referenced there currently, and if it's worth including here it's worth including there, and they are presumably better placed to make the call about its relevance than I am.


 * I don't think the Guardian article is the correct reference - better to link to the scientists' statement directly here


 * I recognise that updating the article with every event in the constantly-moving field of Sustainability is an impossibility - though Nick and others managed almost real-time updates of Victorian Bushfires it was only for a few days, the topic was clearly defined and I'm not sure if they ate or slept much. BUT
 * Updates are helpful, certainly ones like this that are at least as important as the information already in the article.


 * So Skip, where in the article do you see it fitting best? Others, do you agree it should be added?  Personally I think it belongs at the end of the History section and acknowledged again at the very end.--Travelplanner (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I suggest the climate change bit is where it should go. Granitethighs (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright... I put this very close to the end in the history section, a quote from it, some other aspect could enter the article lower down in the climate change area.


 * Environmental scientists (Copenhagen climate change summit 2009 Climate change report) Copenhagen Climate Council, issue a strongly worded statement:


 * "The climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts."http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/stern-attacks-politicians-climate-change - http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages/''


 * Put this also in the global warming section of article reffed to same info...


 * Recently 2,500 climate experts from 80 countries at an emergency summit in Copenhagen (Copenhagen climate change summit 2009) Copenhagen Climate Council, issued a keynote statement that there is now "no excuse" for failing to act on global warming. A part of a statement issued argues that without strong strong carbon reduction targets at political negotiations this year, "abrupt or irreversible" shifts in climate that "will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with" may occur. - skip sievert (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Skip and for detailing the change on this page. I moved the quote forward a little in the first section to follow on from the climate change sentence and altered the wording a little to keep it short and simple. Also indented it a bit to make it clear. It is just slightly less than the 4 lines needed for a blockquote but long enough IMO to be separated from the continuous flow of the text. See if it looks OK and let me know if any of what I've done does not seem appropriate. I'm not sure about repeating the info but we do need something in the climate change slot. Granitethighs (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The addition looks good. But does anyone else think this subsection (21st century) needs a copyedit?  The first sentence is a bit of a monster.  Happy to put it up on a subpage and have a go, if others agree.--Travelplanner (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Go for it TP; that would be great. P.S. Any chance of the magic sustainability square going onto the diagram? Granitethighs (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mostly it is just the first sentence that is awkward. Try rewriting it on the article. It is not such a big thing.


 * Redid a couple of the clunky sentences in the beginning of the 21st. century area.. New...More specific and detailed studies have led to an understanding and awareness of the importance of sustainability. Global awareness of the threat posed by the human-induced enhanced greenhouse effect, produced largely by forest clearing and the burning of fossil fuels, poses a threat to many species


 * Formerly it said... Old... Since the turn of the century, more specific and detailed initiatives have led to widespread understanding and awareness of the importance of sustainability prompted by a sudden global awareness of the threat posed by the human-induced enhanced greenhouse effect produced largely by forest clearing and the burning of fossil fuels. - skip sievert (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest in team
[Attempted outing of editor removed]. Sunray (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the COI banner from the article. My comments on this "issue" are  here--Travelplanner (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also commented on the issue here. In addition, sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites are about as far from non-notable as the Milky Way from Triangulum. Nick carson (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It probably is better to leave the conflict of interest tag on as this is being gone over now on the notice board mentioned above... and it is their suggestion that a tag should be put on an article with this perception of conflict that is stated on the beginning info of that notice board. The article continues to reference a capital concern... a for profit book, that is authored by editor Granitethighs here by their own admission, and that was not disclosed as to give others a choice previously as to notability of said project or other issues. Here is the reff/note in the article ...note deleted by --Travelplanner (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)... skip sievert (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip I am happy to add the COI banner back if the outcome on the COI page supports your view. While 4 editors think it's a non-issue, and we have no external comment, surely the 1,000+ visitors to this page can be spared having it in their faces.


 * Note the requirements on the WP:COI page to "Please limit statements to 200 words or less. Long, drawn-out speeches may be ignored."


 * And seriously note the last point: "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline".


 * Cheers --Travelplanner (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[Attempted outing of editor removed]. Sunray (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok now we have an answer from user:EdJohnston which I will summarise as:
 * This isn't a matter needing COI enforcement
 * It's boring
 * We have work to do on the article
 * Makes sense to me, can we get back to doing something useful?--Travelplanner (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure that is over with yet. Lets not jump to conclusions. [The] book is probably not a neutral presentation. It is all about the U.N. and all about his p.o.v. -- which has been injected into the article. Also some real aspects have come up about the presentation and over control of a closed circle of editors on what appears to be a mission. The article was a good B article before... It was over reffed with political and U.N. material as the team has edited it. I have tried to trim a little of that down. This is now an issue that has been made known by outside reviewers. skip sievert (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)