Talk:Sustainability/Archive 23

Outline
This is a combination of several editors discussions on the best structure for content within the sustainability article, last updated in mid January 2009: Nick carson (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Scope and Definition - establish the various contexts in which sustainability is applied, starting from the most general and moving to the more particular, also discuss the other contexts in which it is applied
 * History - a summarised history of the development of the concept of sustainability
 * Early civilizations
 * Emergence of industrial societies
 * Early 20th century
 * Mid 20th century: environmentalism
 * Late 20th century
 * 21st century: global awareness


 * Description - describe the current/present-day state and concepts of sustainability
 * Overview - may or may not be required as per quantity of content in this section
 * Key Principles and Concepts - outline the key principles and concepts of sustianability, environmentalism, progression, evolution, holism, etc
 * Sustainable Social Systems - social context description, social justice, community ownership, progressive sustained social systems, include links to relevant main articles
 * Sustainable Economic Systems - economic context description, progression of current economic systems, grassroots economics, underground economics, etc, include links to relevant main articles
 * Sustainable Resource Use - describe sustainable resource use and ecological contexts, may or may not require subsections, include links to relevant main articles
 * Water - sustainable water management
 * Energy - include subjects such as the sun, wind, geothermal, include links to main articles on renewable energy
 * Matierals - include concepts such as C2C, toxic material separation, sustainable materials, dealing with existing toxins & links to main articles


 * Measuring Sustainability - include concepts such as Ecological Footprint and other methods of measuring sustainability
 * Application/Implementation - describe the consensus as to how we can go about achieving sustainability, basically; how to put the concepts/description into practice, include links to main articles where appropriate
 * Water - discuss sustainable water use/management
 * Food and Agriculture - discuss the need for localised agriculture & food production
 * Energy - discuss how to transition our energy infrastructure to renewables, include links to main articles on renewable energy
 * Matierals - discuss the utilisation of appropriate materials, non-toxic, non-carcenogenic, etc
 * Waste - discuss utilising waste as food for other biological systems, reducing waste, consumerism
 * Population Control - discuss how to sustain the human population to cope with the available resources
 * Technology - discuss the need for investment in research of appropriate technology to make it a viable alternative
 * Social Systems - discuss education, changing habits, social justice, progression of current social/government systems
 * Urban Structure - discuss transit-oriented urban environments, localised services, eradication of private automobiles in urban areas, sustainable building
 * Economic Systems - discuss how to progress to better, more consistent, sustained economic systems
 * Protection and Regeneration of Biospheres - discuss preservation of remnant ecology undisturbed by human activity and how to rezone areas of land for regeneration of native ecology


 * Difficulties in the Application of Sustainability - just summarise the difficulties in achieving sustainability, may require a few subsections, keep concise
 * Current Efforts in Applying Sustainability - only include major international efforts where sustainable concepts are being put into practice, such as the UN decade for education of sustainable development, major cities being built (provided they are actually sustainable), and mention world-wide efforts such as sustainable forestry, aquaculture, etc
 * See Also - organise so that the reader can navigate through the various topics and sub-topics within sustainability, should be a sizable section for a 'see also'

Featured article criteria
A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
 * 1) It is—
 * 2) *(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
 * 3) *(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
 * 4) *(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
 * 5) *(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
 * 6) *(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
 * 7) It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
 * 8) *(a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
 * 9) *(b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
 * 10) *(c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
 * 11) Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 * 12) Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Advice from Wikipedians

 * User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a
 * User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them
 * User:AndyZ/Suggestions
 * User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA
 * User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article
 * User:Dweller/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates

Peer review
We are getting feedback now. One reviewer has said: "my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability". I will try and follow the format of the first references in the lead and first section that have been checked by Sunray - and follow gradually through the whole document. Granitethighs (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I can take the hint. I'm not going through the citations fast enough... I'll get right on it. Sunray (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Its OK, I wasn't pushing - we can share this task between us all. Granitethighs (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We now have feedback on the article at Sustainability. I'm not sure of procedure from here. I guess we incorporate all the suggestions and then submit again. Perhaps when this is done we also ask reviewers if FA is too ambitious? Should we tick items off like before when they are done? Granitethighs (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate Finetooth's comments. Clearly we have a ways to go yet!. Interestingly, though, his suggestions are very doable. I was struck by the example he gave of the "communities, households, and organizations" statement. That was something recently added by a driveby, anon editor. Perhaps we should restore the "under construction" tag until we are ready for the FA review. I think, given recent experience, it would be a good idea to work out additions of a paragraph or more on the talk page or subpages. Sunray (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do think it would be a good idea to tick off items as they are done. To facilitate that, I've moved the reviewers' comments here. Sunray (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks S for transferring Finetooth's comments - I'll have a go as soon as I can and tick em off. I agree about working on paragraph lengths on separate pages. Granitethighs (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability peer review March 2009 - reviewers' comments

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 22:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into this article about a complicated subject. It's a long way from FA, although it has potential. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

Layout
 * The Manual of Style (MoS) advises against sandwiching text between two images. Many of the images in the existing article should be moved to avoid these text sandwiches.
 * I have moved images to avoid these clashes but I think the layout of text and images to achieve good page design can be improved. I am confused also by the fact that I assume each computer will display differently. Can we ask for assistance with this? Granitethighs (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally, except for the lead image, it's best to set the image size to "thumb" rather than forcing a specific pixel width.
 * When an image is directional, as in the case of the dodo, it's best to position it so the reader's eye is directed into the text rather than out of the page. The dodo would be better positioned on the right.
 * I have positioned the DoDo to the right but am unsure about best right/left disposition of the remaining images. ✅


 * MOS:SCROLL says, "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing."
 * Our "drop-down" side bars contain a lot of very useful links. I'm not sure what to do here - is the suggestion that we remove them? Granitethighs (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally, lists should be turned into straight prose.
 * I would not be enthusiastic about this - the lists we use state information succinctly and clearly. Flowing text with this info would be a hard read. Granitethighs (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotations
 * The MoS suggests using blockquotes only for direct quotations of four lines or more. Shorter quotations should be embedded in the text inside normal quotation marks. The quotations should not be in italics. ✅
 * Direct quotations need attribution within the text and not just in the footnotes. Otherwise, readers may mistake assertions for statements of fact. An example from the final section of the article is "People do not always vote in their self interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values." This should be embedded in the text, put in quotation marks, de-italicized, and attributed to George Lakoff with a dialogue saying "according to George Lakoff" or "George Lakoff said" or "in the words of George Lakoff" or something similar.✅

Assertion vs. verifiable fact
 * It's important to make a clear distinction between what Wikipedia is presenting as verifiable fact and what an outside writer is advancing as an opinion. The distinction must not be blurred. An example of blurring appears in the first two sentences of the "Human settlements" section: "While sustainability is a major global issue, implementation must occur first within our communities, households, and organizations. The study of the interrelationships among these communities, households, and organizations must occur in order to determine a successful and quantifiable plan of action." If this is coming from Wikipedia, it violates NPOV. To avoid violating NPOV, it must be clearly labeled as the opinion of someone outside of Wikipedia. In addition, Wikipedia would not use "our" or similar pronouns in this way, partly for reasons related to NPOV. It's important to write as though seeing Earth from Mars, a detached reporter of verifiable events.
 * Removed this specific text, which had been added by an anon IP. Sunray (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Don't insert Wikipedia into the text as "we" or "us". I see several other places in the text that slip into "we" and "us" mode. ✅

Bolding
 * Bolding is added automatically to the section heads. In the main text, it should be used only in the first line of the lead for the word "Sustainability". Otherwise it should be removed from all instances in the main text such as "Management of human consumption" in the "Implementation" section. ✅

Sourcing
 * A good rule of thumb is to source every unusual claim, every direct quote, every statistic, and every paragraph. Although the article includes many citations, some sections have none.
 * An example is the short "Chemicals" section. ✅

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Very helpful critique. Nick carson (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Submission?
The references need going over with a fine tooth comb but I've done as much as I can and I think it is pretty close. Is the "See Also" section OK? Thanks for sorting out the "External Links" section SR. ?Peer Review? Granitethighs (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See Also section is looking good. I'm keen to get another PR going, so yes! I support the submission. Nick carson (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes absolutely, it's time for a PR. Well done GT and SR for your hard work on the final details.--Travelplanner (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See comments further below regarding the new peer review. Nick carson (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead attempt of change
I notice that someone has attempted to change the lead sentence. While that attempt may not be a good attempt, it does point out that the lead is not well written as it was and this person actually has improved it, but the new phrasing is a little wrong obviously also. Sustainability, in a broad sense in relation to lifeforms, is the not emerely the capacity to endure, but to do some with optimal quality of existence. .. it does point out that the lead, as was, with the chopped off sentence alluding to enduring is poor, as a way to start the article. Others find fault with it, to the point of negating it, language wise. skip sievert (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I returned this edit to the article with a little re phrasing Sustainability, in a broad sense in relation to lifeforms, is not merely the capacity to endure, but to do so with optimal quality of existence. The team has shown no compromise as to its controversial desire for the previous edit... and has now reverted three other editors that disagreed with it over a period of time. This should indicate that this is not a good edit about endure as was written, and also a team while fine does not own the article. skip sievert (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This one needs thought - there are two new ideas in the edit to the lead; sustainability is a characteristic of living systems, and sustainability has a quality aspect to it. Both ideas have merit, though no source is given for either it shouldn't be impossible to find one.  "Quality of existence" in the sense of "life creates the conditions for more, and more complex, life" could be referenced to James Lovelock.


 * The wording is not up to scratch for a lead sentence, I think the same ideas are captured in:


 * "Sustainability is a characteristic of living systems, which can endure through time while gradually improving in quality and complexity."


 * I still have a concern that putting three big ideas into the first sentence will turn some readers off, but obviously there are also people who think our majority-agreed first sentence is an oversimplification (and they're not wrong).--Travelplanner (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO the current opening sentence now half solves one problem and creates 3 or 4 more. Can I suggest that we are now at peer review stage and that we temporarily leave it in the form that was agreed by consensus, acknowledging that there might be changes afoot in the future. Granitethighs (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * GT has it, I agree that we should leave the version that was agreed upon by a consensus in the lead prior to going into peer review. I don't think oversimplification is necessarily a bad thing. Nick carson (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should leave it the way it is, i.e., stick with the version agreed to on the talk pages (by all but Skip). The wording added by Prakash021 is way too complicated for a lead sentence. Here's what was added:


 * "Sustainability in a broad sense in relation to lifeforms, is both a normative ethical and policy principle and a descriptive concept concerning not merely the capacity to endure, but to do so with optimal quality of existence."


 * Lots of important sounding words, but, IMHO poorly expressed, ungrammatical, virtually impenetrable bureaucratese (scores zero in readability level). A phrase like "optimal quality of existence" sounds impressive, but what does it mean?


 * "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic."
 * The current version seems to better achieve this standard. Sunray (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus comes from editors on the article also. Three people have said by editing now that the first sentence is not good. The last person even negated the word, while trying to improve the sentence. The lead, as was, with the chopped off sentence alluding to enduring is poor, as a way to start the article. The sentence is a controversial edit also because it is being strongly disagreed that it does the job as to relating any good information or is a good way to use language as trying to describe this subject. skip sievert (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The other editors are most welcome to participate on this page to work out a better lead. A new consensus is always possible. Sunray (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Prakash021's version is fantastically worded, but not quite appropriate for the lead sentence, we need to keep it simple and in plain english, easy for everyone to understand. A reminder that consensus is a majority view, so 51%. We have been achieving a much higher consensus ratio than that, with 1 or 2 or maximum 3 editors in the minority. Sunray has it, any editors are welcome to contribute to this discussion at any time. If we're unhappy with the consensus version, then we should start from "Sustainability is the ability of a given system, species, etc, to sustain it's own existence." and build from there. Nick carson (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "fantastically worded.." um, could you explain "optimal quality of existence" to me? I must be missing something. Existence of the planet or of individuals? That's not clear. Then too, existence seems to me to be discrete event. Surely something either exists or it doesn't. Are there degrees of existence? Can one say: "my existence is better than yours"? So how then could one infer an optimal quality? But perhaps I've missed something—I often do. Sunray (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, fantastically worded, not perfectly though. I think they intended it to mean individuals and life in general as we don't have much control over the existence of the actual planet (though we do have it over much of the life on it). If we're talking about the existence of life, then yes, we can say that I exist sustainably or I don't exist sustainably. Nick carson (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We are all going to die, so human life itself is unsustainable. I take your point, though. It would probably be clearer to say "I try to live more sustainably" than "I strive for an optimal quality of existence," no? :) Fantastical, sure. Clear enough for the lead? I think we are in agreement on that. Sunray (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well nobody can say we didn't consider it. But I'm with GT that all of the rewrites suggested above (including the one suggested by me) are more complex and create problems in subsequent sentences to the point where we no longer have a good lead and are in danger of delaying the peer review.  I want to go through with the peer review so I think on balance we should leave the lead alone. Travelplanner (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's leave it alone for the peer review, if it needs anything, it's only minor tweaks. Nick carson (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I will initiate that. Sunray (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Second peer review
I queried Finetooth re a further peer review. He strongly recommends that we do that. 

It seems to me that we should attend to the suggestions he has made and then submit for a new peer review. In the meantime we might get an outside expert's opinion (new pair of eyes) by asking someone from the PR volunteer list to take a look. We need to do some further clean-up of the notes. In particular, Finetooth has recommended that we not mix dating styles. We need to choose between y/m/d, d/m/y  and m/d/y. I note that recent FAs use each of these, but do it consistently. Since all of our "Retrieved on" dates are y/m/d we could easily switch to that. Here are two that do it that way. Note that periodicals are somewhat anomalous (which is likely what threw us off). So I vote for y/m/d format. Comments? Sunray (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with all of this. Granitethighs (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'd prefer dd/mm/yy, but that's aussie bias. For this article, and in light of the format of periodicals, the yy/mm/dd would be less confusing overall and more consistent. Nick carson (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We are still awaiting response regarding a second peer review. Given that it is summer vacation time in the northern hemisphere, availability of reviewers is more limited. I am hoping we will hear back soon. Sunray (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A second peer review has been initiated. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; will be the reviewer. Sunray (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Log of changes to do
We still need to tweak references following Finetooth's comments above. Please add any checking you spot to this list. He used a very nice tool called checklinks to look at external links. The ones shaded in red (uh, salmon?) are dead and need replacing.
 * Please add any references or other alterations that need doing here. Granitethighs (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work. Nick carson (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot get checklinks to work ... ? Granitethighs (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sunray points out that we have verification problems - cases of the citation not supporting the text. Here's one that I came across recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=300118616&oldid=300116889 In this case, the citation said cryptically " e-digest environment statistics." I've fleshed out the citation. However, the problem is that I cannot find the word "dematerialisation" (the subject of that section) on that website. I can tell that there are other situations like this. I will try and clear up these blips which i am probably responsible for, but others can help spot similar glitches. Granitethighs (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC) ✅


 * The above link for checklinks seems to work for me. I think we've now replaced all the links coded "dead" by checklinks. We still have a few that are noted as "connection failed." For example, ref # 8, "Theories for Sustainable Futures" by C.S. Holling. The link didn't work for the Conservation Ecology publication of the article. I've replaced it with a pre-publication version. I'm not sure if it will pass muster for the reviewers. GT, would you be able to take a look and see what you think? Here's the link I used: . Sunray (talk)
 * I think we can dispense with this citation altogether as the citation at the end of the sentence seems to do the work needed to back up the statement.Granitethighs (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Perhaps we leave as is and see what happens. ✅


 * Note ref # 16 was coded as a connection failure. I've marked it as a dead link. I will continue to do the same for the others that are connection failures of various kinds (but will have to continue after a sleep break). Sunray (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going through the refs like this Sunray. I suggest that, as we have three references here doing the same job, we simply delete #16. Granitethighs (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC) ✅


 * Correct additional connection failures. ✅
 * I think all the links for references work o.k. now. I've requested a second peer review. Sunray (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Adjust citation formats. Some citations have numbers for links. If it is truly a citation, the link should contained in the title. If it is "for further reference" or "full text available" it should probably be in the "Further reading" section. Instead of a number in such cases the caption should probably say "available here " (with the link attached to the word "here").


 * Convert page ranges for citations from hyphens to n-dashes (per Finetooth). ✅

I can't believe how picky some of this stuff is. However, I'm sure it will be worth it in the end... "The end," he says so blithely. Sunray (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've corrected citations 1-100 for ndashes - will continue tomorrow. Granitethighs (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Finished now - also made all ISBN numbers uniform.Granitethighs (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ✅


 * A few book citations need ISBN numbers.


 * I will add references to Human consumption section - its a bit bare. Granitethighs (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good works guys, wish I had the time to help, but hopefully some words of encouragement will suffice. Nick carson (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

POV issues with sentence about "green economics" in " Nature as an economic externality"
The sentence:


 * "Green economics encourages alternatives to free market capitalism by supporting a gift economy, local currencies, Local Exchange Trading Systems and other methods (see side bar).[175]"

seems to imply that the bulk of the advocacy for community currencies as a means of sustainability comes from people who identify with green economics or ecological economics. I am convinced this is not true. Some evidence: google scholar shows only 2 hits under "Green Economics"+"Community Currency": and 22 for "Ecological economics"+"Community Currency":, but "Sustainability"+"Community Currency" yields 181 hits. Furthermore this search: shows 161 hits that reference "Sustainability" + "Community Currency" but without the terms "green economics" or "ecological economics". Perusing these articles shows very significant coverage. (I did not use "local currency" as a search term because this picks up discussion of national currencies)

On the basis of these things, I am going to change this sentence. Cazort (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Cazort ... point taken. This was a clumsy sentence or two. Thanks for your help. I have tweaked the last couple of sentences further to improve the expression. Let me know if you think this has interfered with any of the points it (or you) were trying to make. Granitethighs (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Great contributions :] Nick carson (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Way too much...
I propose that this article is heavily overdone in many ways. The number of templates is too overwhelming to be practically useful, as well as the number of "see also"s and "further information"s. The article itself also does not seem concise as a whole, which robs it of its encyclopedic quality. Featured Article status has been clearly defined as a goal, but this article has too much of too many things. Naturally, cutting things down is not a project for one person seeing as so much work has gone into it, but the size is simply ridiculous. Jscpowser (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks J. While respecting your opinion, may I ask what your knowledge and experience of WP standards and procedures is - especially in relation to FAs? Can I also suggest that your comments be more specific. Comments like "The article itself also does not seem concise as a whole" and "this article has too much of too many things" do not actually help move things forward constructively. Granitethighs (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Jscpowser, We had these same concerns earlier on and as we worked through the rewrite we realised that the subject matter is quite comprehensive and dense, thus the reason why it is a sizable article. It could really be 100 times the size it is now and we have spent many months cutting it back. It's best to assess the article as one would assess the articles on similarly comprehensive subject matters, such as; Life, Industrial Revolution, etc. Nick carson (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I still am concerned about the article's size. At 116 kb, it is pretty big. Jscpowser's comment that the article "does not seem concise as a whole, which robs it of its encyclopedic quality," is in line with guidance set out in WP:Article size. I recall many moons ago, we said that we would try to trim it and use summary style wherever practicable. It seems to me that we haven't pursued that rigorously. In this peer review stage, I think that all feedback from serious editors can be helpful. I've seen some of Jscpowser's edits at Sustainable living and I do think his involvement here could be valuable. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well put Sunray. Nick carson (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Further reading section has unreasonably large number of publications
The further reading section has become an extensive library of sustainability. Considering these books and articles are not referenced in the text, this lengthy embedded list fails NOTDIRECTORY and NOTPAPER. I doubt any strong argument as to why this article is an exception applies as this embedded list could be integrated into the body of the article (by actually using these as references if they are actually applicable) rather than leaving them as an unjustified floating list.—Teahot (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is essential that this article act as a type of hub to point the reader in the right direction to find any further information they may be seeking. If we were to include all this information in the one article and/or merge articles and related subject matter, the article would become too large. Please note the previous discussions regarding this particular issue. If you'd like help locating them or have any questions feel free to contact anyone in the editing team devoted to the rewrite, as described above. Nick carson (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Teahot's comment is worth considering. I'm really glad that we are getting feedback. It seems to me an important part of peer review. Sunray (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have checked through the archive but only found references to WP:Manual of Style (lists of works) which would not justify such an embedded list on a "topic" as this MOS covers "authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists". If you know of a discussion here that covered compliance with WP:NOTDIRECTORY a link would be useful. In terms of being a "hub to point the reader", I doubt this is a valid reason to ignore NOTDIRECTORY, particularly considering that the ODP link already included does exactly that job without the need for hard to justify lists.—Teahot (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Further reading" is considered a "Standard appendix." The applicable guideline is WP:LAYOUT, see this section: WP:FURTHER. Sunray (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Recent Featured Articles with such sections include the following:, , ' ,
 * So sections of this nature are acceptable. I note, however, that in most of these examples the sections are shorter than ours. Thus we may want to trim ours, eliminating ones that are already included in our "Notes." Sunray (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference. The applicability is not actually clarified in LAYOUT, so I guess the assumption has be that it applies to any article. It might help to compare to an FA for a general topic rather than these examples of specific events, places and people. Obviously with such a general topic as Sustainability it is much more difficult to stop the embedded list of "Further reading" extending to arbitrarily long proportions.—Teahot (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have raised the issue of lack of guidance on size limits for Further reading sections on the talk page of LAYOUT. If any good advice turns up, I suggest it is considered here too.—Teahot (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, based on the discussion on the LAYOUT talk page, the guidance has now become:
 * "A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article."
 * So the discussion here should be, "what counts as a reasonable number of Further reading publications for the topic of Sustainability".—Ash (previously Teahot) (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the number of publications in the "further reading" section is irrelevant. In my opinion, the relevant question is: is the section useful?  If it's too big, then yes, it could be less useful.  But alternatively, it could be broken up into subsections.  Another solution to consider (which I would strongly support) is to pare the section on this page down to the most general publications addressing sustainability as a topic in and of itself (and not within a narrow or specific context), and put more specific things on sub-pages or other specific topic pages.  For example, the Richardson & Wood text on Environmental Law seems to belong more on that page than here.  Cazort (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable energy overkill
First, sorry for the long time away - the real world's fault, again. BUT, on returning I note that a sustainable energy infobox has been added at the end of the intro (appearing beside the contents) which looks odd.

What is odder, is that this same infobox also appears on the following pages •	Passive solar building design •Hybrid vehicle •Solar thermal energy •	Energy conservation •Solar hot water •Cogeneration •Jevons paradox •	Sustainable transport •	Sustainable energy •Geothermal heating •Green building •Anaerobic digestion •	Flexible-fuel vehicle •Microgeneration •Passive solar •	Geothermal heat pump •	Solar combisystem •Mitigation of peak oil •Efficient energy use •	Electric car •	Microgeneration Certification Scheme •	Template:Sustainable energy •Sustainability •Energy law •BioEthanol for Sustainable Transport

Also that in all cases that I've checked, it's been added by User: Lawrencekhoo. It gets worse - when user:Johnfos removed it from Energy conservation Lawrenckhoo reverted this and put it back on again. 

All very strange. I suggest it doesn't add any value to the article and have deleted it - have also left a note for Lawrencekhoo to respond; we'll see what happens!--Travelplanner (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I made the navbox template with links and categories following on the page on Sustainable energy, which I believe is the overarching concept for energy related articles like 'green energy', renewable energy', 'energy conservation', 'alternative energy', 'energy efficiency', etc. I have noticed that there is a veritable host of pages about these and related topics, and very often, no well defined structure or relationship to them. They often don't mention each other, and there's no way to figure what's there or how everything fits together. That's why I made the template. As is standard practice for a template, I added it to all the pages the template linked to, and a few other obvious related pages without navboxes. This was done in the hopes that it will help people understand what's there, how things fit together, and find related articles. Personally, I still feel strongly that something like the template I created is neccesary. If not the navbox I created, then something like it, e.g. parent article/subarticle headings in the article to help people understand what's there and how things fit together. LK (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I must confess to some sympathy for LKs dilemma (although the positioning of the nav box wasn't right IMO). Following WP procedure all of our information boxes, each with numerous links, have had to be removed. I understand why this has occurred and also see that there is good reason why this should be so. However, they did seem very useful clickable information sources in key subject areas of sustainability - as LK points out they are a way of focusing information and allowing readers to follow up on different lines of thought. The topic of Sustainability seems particularly appropriate for this sort of box, possibly because it is such a diffuse topic and also a new and developing one. Also, transferring the links in these boxes to the text is not quite so easy as might appear ... there are a lot of them and there is the danger that the article would turn into a "link farm". Also I dont think we can make much more use of the "Main article" headers. There has also been criticism of the armoury of nav bars at the end of the article - and I can see why. Removing them all (or some) would tidy up the article and reduce its length but IMO diminish its utility. It does seem that a major strength of Wikpedia is allowing people to follow their own lines of research and by removing these sources of information we are actually reducing this capacity. Perhaps the Peer Reviewer(s) could find some satisfactory compromise or some way of addressing these issues? Granitethighs (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that we have to diminish the utility of the information that is currently in the infoboxes. Some of it is only weakly related to the article, but some is valuable. Here's what Ruhrfisch said on this subject in a note on my talk page:
 * "I am 100% in favor of putting the information from the boxes into the text itself - I think it will be clearer that way as some of the box links are Easter egss (Sustainaibility and consumption was a link to Consumerism for example, not an article on that topic. There are also Main article and similar templates that can be used."
 * It seems to me that the challenge is one of retaining valuable information by moving the links that are valuable into the body text. Sunray (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - so be it. Granitethighs (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's more on easter eggs. Sunray (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't the answer to fix those piped links, choose the right navbox, and reorganize it so that it's logical and useful, rather than banishing all navboxes from the page? 203.168.215.89 (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the anonymous comment above. It's better that we tailor our nav boxes to the needs of the article, except if the nav box is of good quality and comprehensively relevant in the first place. Nick carson (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Further reading tag
Here is the paper trail relating to the tag.

Hi WAID - thanks for adding the tag to the page. I have tried to read the guidelines you cite but they are too long, diffuse and unclear (to me). Could you state briefly exactly what it is needs doing to the Further reading section to make it acceptable? Or, better still, could you make it acceptable yourself? Granitethighs (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Try to pare down the list to this "must-have" reading material. Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The biggest issue is that after 213 regular references, there can't be that many more books that we really need to recommend to the readers. But here are some suggestions:
 * Re-check them all for duplications of the ref list (e.g., Bookchin, which I removed for you). Double-listing is not accepted.
 * See whether any of more of the books in the list could be used as references in the article.
 * Review the remaining list to identify the most important (to a general reader) items -- a famous book, for example, or one that's particularly complete, or one that someone entirely new to the subject might benefit from reading.


 * I've pared away several times - could someone else have a go now. Granitethighs (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest the two papers (no ISBNs) included are dropped? If they were significant they would either have influenced one of the large number of books already included or ought to be included as a reference. I note that Bartlett introduces the 1998 version of his paper admitting that nobody has contacted him to criticise his paper; can not really be ground breaking material or recommended essential further reading (apologies if they are reading this, IANAE).—Ash (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's definitely a good idea to maintain a diverse range of references and sources. Good work. Nick carson (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree. However this is the Further reading section, so these are not references or sources but just publications in a list without any inclusion (or exclusion) criteria specified. Your comment is not a rationale to keep these two items in this list of publications.—Ash (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ash raises a key point about the criteria for inclusion in this section, IMO. There is so much written on this subject, that almost anything we include will be arguable. That can only lead to continual expansion of the section. Since we are looking to trim the article's size, perhaps we should consider eliminating this section altogether. We do have over 200 sources listed in the "Notes" section and there are many such lists available on the internet. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Size
We are now at 113 kb. The very similar article to ours (it is a FA) Global warming is 95 kb. Perhaps we aim for something around here. Could everyone suggest areas for reduction please? I'm happy to then do some reducing. In terms of relative space allocation i think the History section could be pared a bit. Granitethighs (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So we should aim to reduce it by around 10% perhaps? We've got to be really careful not to omit essential information, perhaps we could look at omitting any non-essential images? Perhaps that'll help reduce the size? We should also be weary of focussing too much on attaining 95kb, if it needs to be 98 or 102 or 113, then so be it. Nick carson (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick suggests not setting a hard and fast target. I agree that we need to ensure that essential information is included. I will take a hard look at areas for reduction. I've already suggested one: The "Further reading" section. Sunray (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. Perhaps a target range like 95-105? Nick carson (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability and Prosperity
In this edit, User:Sunray stated that "Sustainability does not rely on prosperity. To maintain in a steady state is sufficient"). I have a differing opinion: I see sustainability is intimately tied to prosperity:


 * Prosperity is in many ways a synonym or at least has great overlap in meaning with the word wellbeing, which is currently on the page.
 * The current page on prosperity also touches on the relationship between prosperity and sustainability, referencing two sources from the Rocky Mountain Institute: and.
 * There is significant evidence that certain types of prosperity are integral to and perhaps even necessary for achieving sustainability. For example, better education, higher wealth, and access to birth control lead to a lower fertility rate in a country.  At the other end of the spectrum, extreme poverty often contributes to deforestation and desertification as people clear forests for firewood or agriculture.  These examples both illustrate that sustainability is a long-term concept; it's something that people will only think of and address when their short-term needs are met--and having all your short-term needs met is certainly one aspect of prosperity.

What do others think? Cazort (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It would seem to depend on how one defines "prosperity." One common definition is: "successful in material terms; flourishing financially," (various sources) another is: " the condition of being successful or thriving" (Webster's online). The second definition seems closer to the sense you are describing. Most definitions of sustainability have to do with maintaining a steady state. An important social criterion of sustainability is "meeting human needs fairly and efficiently" (American Planning Association; the Natural Step). The definition in the lead was chosen with much thought and discussion on these pages. The question it responds to is: "What does it take for life on this planet to endure?" Given its ambiguous meaning, what does the addition of the word "prosperity" add that is useful? Sunray (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't want to hastily change a definition that was reached after thoughtful consensus, but looking at the edit history it seems the definition is continuously evolving...I like what we have up now: "...it is the potential for long-term maintenance of wellbeing..." Maybe you are correct that the word prosperity is more easily misleading (i.e. interpreted in the materialistic or economic sense).  I think there's something important here, though, and I think it reflects problems that resurface throughout the article.  The common definition of prosperity as "the condition of being successful or thriving" actually has a great deal of synergy with the concept of sustainability, and less antagonism with it than the article would suggest.  The conflict, in my opinion, is largely an artifact of a particularly narrow view of prosperity, a materialistic and individualistic definition that seems to originate mainly from within the consumption-focused schools of economics.  I think the current article actually gives tacit approval to this narrow view of prosperity, in part just by being too negative.  Is this making any sense?  Cazort (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes a great deal of sense and I think we should take a closer look at these underlying assumptions in light of neutral yardsticks, such as the need to meet human needs fairly - a just measure of prosperity, in other words. Sunray (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly this is a valuable discussion and thanks Cazort for initiating it. I am sad that the word "prosperity" carries with it connotations of living in an ever-expanding economy - I'm sure this is a recent corruption of a useful word, but for me the social and spiritual dimensions conjured up by the word "wellbeing" don't come into my head with the word "prosperous".  Also, sadly, while you are quite right that prosperity lowers birth rates, unfortunately it does not lower consumption rates - that is, fewer people consume more per capita.  You are not correct that poor people have any worse record on deforestation or desertification that prosperous people - the Australians are a case in point.
 * The graph of ecological footprint vs Human Development Index (which comes close to a measure of "prosperity" as you see it) shows pretty clearly that measured on a neutral yardstick poor people are doing a lot less damage to the planet than prosperous ones, at least at the moment.
 * That said, it's vitally important to offer some positive sense of how intelligent, informed choices can enable humans to reduce consumption while improving the important aspects of prosperity. Sustainability isn't a state of hopeless despair.  Where the text doesn't convey choice, hope, and the opportunity for people to enjoy living in a sustainable society we need to look at ways to change the text.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * T.P.'s comment That said, it's vitally important to offer some positive sense of how intelligent, informed choices can enable humans to reduce consumption while improving the important aspects of prosperity. Sustainability isn't a state of hopeless despair. Where the text doesn't convey choice, hope, and the opportunity for people to enjoy living in a sustainable society we need to look at ways to change the text.-- end quote - ... is a good example of what is wrong in general with the article 'Sustainability' now. Part of that being a narrow ... ultra narrow pov with a small band of editors controlling the article in detriment of better presentation. Wikipedia is not a forum to promote or educate people about neglected fields. Our standard for inclusion is "Verifiability, not Truth". Facts and citations can be verified; 'truths' are often open to dispute.


 * Thats pretty much the reason it is impossible for outside people, other than the sign up team to improve this article. Three or four people have controlled this article to its detriment for over a year now... check the history. While I managed to open the article up a bit for a while with more science and historical information, it is pretty much in a closed editing loop. Those are my thoughts Cazort. skip sievert (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that certainly is Skipsievert's point of view and he has shared it abundantly with us. A brief overview of the current article improvement project follows (see new section). Sunray (talk)

User:Travelplanner said:
 * "while you are quite right that prosperity lowers birth rates, unfortunately it does not lower consumption rates"

This statement illustrates my point about the narrow definition of prosperity--you are using the narrow, mainstream economic definition of prosperity here. That narrow type of "prosperity" increases consumption rates--but does not necessarily improve real propserity--and I have never seen any evidence that real propserity is tied to increased consumption in more than the extreme short-term. I think virtually every person would agree that having a shorter commute time to work would be an improvement in their prosperity--and this would reduce consumption of resources. Improving the insulation of a building and saving on a heating bill would be an improvement in their prosperity--and this would reduce consumption of resources (even though it might also reduce GDP). I compost and it improves my prosperity by enriching the soil in my garden, and it greatly reduces my environmental impact by both reducing waste and eliminating the need for fertilizer use. The very narrow definition of prosperity has snuck its way very deeply into the way a lot of people in America (and other parts of the world, too, sadly) think. It's weaseled its way into this article. Is it clear now? Cazort (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, clear to me. I certainly do not disagree with what you are saying. However, one might substitute another word for "prosperity" in your examples - such as "sustainability". My only concern is with the usage of the word prosperity, which often connotes material wealth. Given that, what would you suggest we do? Sunray (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the introduction for now...I'm still thinking about how to address the overall concerns...the big pattern is more of a concern to me than that one word in the introduction. Cazort (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement project - New editors welcomed
A review of the Revision history of Talk:Sustainability reveals the following:
 * The history of the current article improvement (FA) project goes back one year and starts with the efforts of Granitethighs.
 * He was joined by OhanaUnited, V.B., and Sunray in August 2008.
 * Travelplanner joined discussions in mid-September, but editing of the article and discussions on the talk page slowed down between September and November, 2008.
 * In early November, Travelplanner spearheaded the current article improvement drive, with most of the aforementioned editors joining, except Skip. Nick Carson joined on November 20.

The important thing to bear in mind is that there is an open invitation to join this project. Recent editors who have joined the talk page discussions, such as Jscpowser, Teahot, and Cazort, have enriched the dialogue and would be most welcome to join the project. In fact, as we are in the final push towards a review for GA or FA status, additional eyes and hands are badly needed. Any editors who would like to join are encouraged to do so. The place to sign up is at the top of the page. Sunray (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here here ... new editors and fresh input are always welcome. This has, to my mind, been a successful collaborative editing effort so far (not without its difficult moments, but that is part and parcel of the process) and I hope the article quality shows that. There is always room for improvement. Granitethighs (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well put. Nick carson (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues related to the peer review

 * Presentation and neutrality? skip sievert (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to provide examples from the article to illustrate any concerns that you have? Sunray (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Transition section

The earth has a finite capacity to provide resources and to absorb waste, and human demands already exceed that capacity. < Outdated U.N. information that is over sourced and reffed throughout article Current lifestyles in the developed world, to which many people in the developing world also aspire, rely on depleting natural capital and are unsustainable. The United Nations have stated, in the Millennium Declaration <Twice again U.N. over reffing, that "current unsustainable patterns of production and consumption must be changed". < Over reffing and sourcing the same U.N. information again Yet weight of information and scientific evidence is often insufficient to produce necessary social change, especially if that change entails moving people out of their comfort zones.

There is a wealth of advice available to individuals wishing to reduce their personal impact on the environment through small, cheap and easily achievable steps. But the transition required to reduce global human consumption to within sustainable limits involves much larger changes, at all levels and contexts of society. Over sourcing and over reffing U.N. information yet again > The United Nations have recognised the central role of education, and have declared a decade of education for sustainable development More U.N. over sourcing. The Worldwide Fund for Nature proposes a strategy for sust.ainability that goes beyond education to tackle underlying individualistic and materialistic societal values head-on and strengthen people's connections with the natural world.

The level of change required to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the Earth sets new challenges for community and political structures. Over sourcing the U.N. information again > Al Gore states that "We have everything we need, save perhaps, political will. Political disinformation with no real value... self promotion of politic nonsense  But, you know what, political will is a renewable resource.” Political views appear to be changing, however. By who's distinction? - Focus on political instead of science China initiated a National Climate Change Program in 2007, with a focus on raising the proportion of renewable energy and setting targets for reducing energy consumption per unit GDP. On assuming office as prime minister of Australia in December 2007, Kevin Rudd immediately signed documents to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Since his election in 2008, U.S. President Barack Obama has initiated a science and technology-based approach to moving the U.S. towards sustainability'''This is not accurate information Obama is a political host to special interest groups like car companies and oil companies. He bailed out G.M. which makes a carbon burning machine instead of letting it tank'''. During his election campaign, Obama had promised: "Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" '''Empty progressive liberal political disinformation. No credibility. Seeming endorsement of a political party in the article'''.


 * I admittedly come from a very strongly pro-environmentalist perspective, and do not agree with everything that skip sievert is saying here, but I think he raises some critical points that need to be addressed. He pointed out that this section relies heavily on UN sources, especially for its guiding themes/direction.  While the UN is certainly authoritative and carries a lot of weight (and has some inherent diversity behind its opinions/publications), it is still one perspective among many.  I think it's problematic to allow a single perspective to guide the tone of a whole section unless the section is clearly presented as describing the views of a single perspective.


 * Also I see a second issue Skip is raising here. Whether or not the material is true (I believe it is mostly true), much of it would be controversial to some, especially to those of the conservative political persuasian in the USA.  It is also hardly self-evident--it's based on years of science, but it's also based on areas that are continuously changing and often hotbeds of controversy.  In cases like this, it's important to identify in the text of the article, and not just the references, who and on what basis the statements are argued.  It's also important to still refrain from stating things as fact which are almost certain, but not completely certain...look at how the intro on Global Warming is handled currently:  "The IPCC concludes that..." and "These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science".  This is the proper way to handle it when there's a scientific consensus, not to state "X is true" and cite a single UN report.  Cazort (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cazort, I agree with you completely in the way you suggest of handling contentious "facts". I think it is just a matter of stating explicitly, here, precisely where you think the article is lacking and  proposing the way you would deal with it. On the UN ... it might be worth reading back through the archives of this talk page to see some of the many discussions on this issue.  But a few points: the influence of the UN in these matters can hardly be questioned and an encyclopaedia account should reflect that; there seems to be a view that the UN holds a "position" - certainly there is the sustainable development agenda but much of the literature and reports it puts out are, I believe, honest attempts by scientists to present information as best they can. IMO the view that there is some strongly censoring UN overseeing body that vets everyone producing information with or for the UN - ensuring that they are following the party line is mistaken. I have worked with sustainability for quite a few years now and I go to UN documents simply because many of them are among the best in the scientific literature - I would go to them even if they were produced by Monsanto or the KGB. IMO the article covers a lot of "perspectives" - everything from the ?social anarchist Bookchin to sustainability as a business opportunity and source of green jobs. I think it is best if you are specific in your suggestions. What perspectives do you think have been left out and how would you include them?  Finally, I think if you scratched the surface you would find that we are all "strongly pro-environmentalists" here. The point, however, is to try and produce a balanced encyclopaedia article. Granitethighs (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You just got dead ended Cazort. In other words they (the team) do not acknowledge that reffing the U.N. 10 times in one little section seems a little odd, or that there would be by all appearance political ax grinding going on in the article. They have chased off any and all serious editors. I could list at least 6 people that gave up and moved on. Thats why I gave up on editing the article. Too much control by three or four people teaming together in a negative closed circle of not neutral presentation. One of the team actually worked for the U.N. The article as it is is really bad... not getting better and over whelmed by a type of pov that is really not creative or illuminating. Its a pity.


 * My suggestion to rescue the article would be to give up on the so called Featured Article status... which is not going to happen with the team in charge... and open the article to others... because the article is not going to get better with the current situation in charge of editing and pov. Before I put it a little in check it was even more absurdly sourced ... The best case scenario for the sake of the article would be the dissolution of the team. It is noted that Granitethighs book formerly sourced in the article also was all about the U.N. as big daddy of sustainability . Really a pity that the article is thus. The focus could be on science issues. Obviously the U.N. is a legitamate source... Sunray says in a misconstrued way that issue as if it makes sense to ref something 10 times in a couple of paragraphs. The larger issue is that the article is not neutral point of view because it relies on such a single pov aspect. The other issue is that the editors working on this article share the same stance too much and use this technique of editing Civil POV pushing, so its impossible to introduce outside good information. skip sievert (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Skip, you seem to be exhibiting unnecessary paranoia here. I found Granitethigh's response to what I said be quite thorough and constructive.  "You just got dead ended Cazort." -- no, we're just engaged in a discussion, and neither me nor Granitethigh has "dropped the ball" or tried to shut anyone down.  I understand how frustrated you are here on this page: you have been raising good points for quite some time (even though I don't agree with all of them) and you are frustrated that editors don't listen to or engage your criticisms or ideas.  Why aren't they listening?  I think it's partly because you believe that they're not going to listen and you focus on the ways in which they ignore you and you ignore the ways in which they listen or engage you.  If instead you focus on the ways in which people are listening to and engaging your arguments, you will find people listen to you and engage you.  This is what WP:Assume Good Faith is about.  The great thing about that guideline is that it works...if you assume good faith, it makes people more likely to listen to you.  Cazort (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding to Granitethighs, I think the problem with this section is the overall structure of it (and of the whole article)...it's written like a single monolithic narrative...as if there is going to be one single story of how human civilian moves towards sustainability. In reality, sustainability is something that many different groups of people, governments, organizations, businesses, and social movements are working towards, in very different, sometimes overlapping, sometimes not overlapping, and sometimes even conflicting ways.  I wonder why we even have the "transition" section...what is the purpose of having such a section?  Why can't the bulk of the article be about the transition to a more sustainable society?  The whole article, as it reads now, is all negative, it's about problems.  Sustainability isn't a problem, it's a goal.  The reason people moved away from talking about "environmentalism" and towards talking about "sustainability" is that environmentalism focused on problems, not solutions, and that doesn't get anywhere.  And now we're falling back into the same trap!  Environmental problems belong on other topic pages dedicated to them, with only brief summaries here.  This page should be structured around ways in which people envision sustainability, and ways in which people are working towards them.  Problems should only be discussed to the degree necessary to understand/communicate the concept of sustainability.  I also think the page needs to get more diverse and less monolithic--emphasizing that there are a myriad of different solutions to the different problems out there, different groups working towards them in different ways, etc.  Is this making any sense?  Cazort (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not so much. Skip, you seem to be exhibiting unnecessary paranoia here. end quote Cazort. I consider that a personal attack Cazort. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. I tried to inform you a bit about the dynamic of the article. Accusing an editor of paranoia is a personal attack. The talk page reflects the very low level of the very shabby article, and that is a pity - No personal attacks... skip sievert (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the comments above because I think you have a valuable perspective and useful criticism to offer, and I see you are distressed that others are not listening to your perspective, and I empathize with that and want to help. I observed that you seemed to think that Granitethighs was shutting me down when you said: "You just got dead ended Cazort", and I wanted to point out that I did not perceive Granitethighs' comments this way.  This is why I pointed to WP:Assume good faith...it seemed/seems highly relevant here.  Cazort (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on transition
Some things that make the article not n.p.o.v. By focusing on the U.N. and political aspects, the science aspects are either neglected or relegated to political interpretation. Anyone care to count the mention of the U.N. in just this one section? It is ridiculous number (10 times by reffing or article links in this small article section alone). The whole article is over-sourced that way to the same U.N., same information. This would be fine if the article was specifically focused on that Sustainability and the U.N.... or Political aspects of sustainability... however the article as is is too determinately going in that direction of political focus and interpretation. skip sievert (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words, same old, same old. You have raised these points hundreds of times and we have wasted hundreds of hours responding to them.  Feel free to re-read the many pages of documentation on this section and if you have a new point to raise, let us know.--Travelplanner (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words you do not acknowledge that reffing the U.N. 10 times in one little section seems a little odd, or that there would be by all appearance political ax grinding going on in the article.


 * Thats why I gave up on editing the article. Too much control by three or four people teaming together in a negative closed circle of not neutral presentation. You have wasted hundreds of hours? That really is odd. Wikipedia is done by volunteers, if you feel you have wasted your time. I do know that all other people attempting to edit the article have been chased off if they are not in accord with the current team. Isn't one year of almost complete control of the article enough ?? - skip sievert (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Navbars again
I really don't think we've got the issue of navbars sorted, and I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that inline quotes are a complete replacement. A number of people are trying to create some sense out of the relationship between the many "green" articles - I'm aware of User:Granitethighs work on the sustainability infobox, the Outline_of_sustainability and User:Lawrencekhoo who has developed an infobox for sustainable energy which I've deleted from a few places...somewhat annoying Lawrencekhoo in the process, which is a pity because he is right too...


 * "IMO, the maze of 'green' articles badly needs some sort of navigation guide. In-line mentions are not a good substitute as they don't lay out the 'map' for a new, interested reader. However, I'm loathe to get into any sort of edit war over this issue, and so will let it go. Please consider adding navbars as appropriate to articles, as I think it really helps readers move around. LK (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)"

I really agree with Lawrencekhoo about the need for this, though doing it in practice is harder than it sounds - try to describe, for example, the relationship between renewable energy and sustainable transport.

This is all pretty relevant, if people want to reduce the size of this article we need to think about the structure of subarticles, which leads back to...

IMHO, the best attempt so far is Outline of sustainability, but since only about 6 people per day look at this, that leaves 1,994 people reading the sustainability article, plus however many other people reading related articles, who need a better map of this space. The infobox at the end of the article is a great start except it's at the end of the article and the more logical real estate for this information is to the right of the ToC, the location of most infoboxes. Ideally I'd opt for a context-sensitive infobox which links to the "second tier" of sustainability articles, and over time populating these with infoboxes linking upwards and downwards. Am I dreaming the impossible??--Travelplanner (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I like these ideas TP, I can't believe I'm still relaying the need for the "Sustainability" article to act as a sort of a hub. Ideally we really do need many subsections to be split off into articles in their own rights, then just give a very brief summary in each section in this article. It is tricky, but we must do what we must do, however hard it may seem and however long it takes. Nick carson (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-group on article length and navigation
There are several issues people have now mentioned. Firstly, the article is simply too large. I am trying to address this but find it nigh on impossible – the only solution I can think of is to place large amounts of the current text into new articles and summarise these briefly in the current article ... as recommended by WP policy. So:
 * I propose the current “History of sustainability” and “Definition” sections become  new articles. We can then summarise their content for the current article without losing valuable information that has been laboriously crafted into readable prose. What do people think?

I too think that context-sensitive links are critical, especially in new and evolving fields like sustainability where, as LK says “the maze of 'green' articles badly needs some sort of navigation guide” ... a map for the user to follow. An example of his work is shown here. Potential in-line quotes are, for us at least, too numerous to be part of a brief and digestible summary section on a large topic. Perfectly reasonably, Wikipedia policy demands simplicity, consistency and uniformity in its presentation of FA articles. For these reasons we have removed numerous context-sensitive navigation boxes (see example here). True, there are those at the bottom of the article. This armoury of nav bars at the bottom (increasing in number and quality) are great but they are not “context-sensitive” and easily missed by someone “dipping in” for information. Perhaps clearer WP policy and guidance on how to use the various nav tools in quality articles would help. I really think WP must embrace the many highly useful and appealing advantages of cross-referenced information.

The nav box here is, to my mind, is a fabulous summary tool-box and research guide for someone thinking about sustainable food production. It cannot be simply and briefly transformed into text with in-line links. Yes, it does not improve the appearance and presentation of the article but IMO greatly enhances its utility (probably more important). And the appearance could be improved with creative imagination. What can we do? Perhaps we could all think about TPs idea of how to work on upward/downward navigation through connected articles (perhaps some lateral connections too!). I will look more closely at the range of nav and info boxes to try and make some sense of how they can be used to help us out of this situation. Any help in thinking of ways to tackle these issues would be greatly appreciated - what do you think? Granitethighs (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * GT, you and I discussed this earlier during the rewrite and I think it is somewhere on one of many thousands of 'to do' lists. I'm up for helping create these separate articles, I think the best approach would be to use the sections here as a basis to begin from and then just come up with a succinct but comprehensive summary in the sections here after the new articles have been created. The more people we have to help, the quicker it'll go.


 * I reckon the definition section could probably stay for now, perhaps we could start with the History section and create a History of Sustainability article. After this we could further explore a Definition of Sustainability article, then perhaps a Principals of Sustainability article. Further again and I think we may need help from our friends at the Renewable Energy, Architecture, Agriculture, Water, etc, etc, etc, articles, they all need massive amounts of work done to improve their sustainability-related content. We should also try to avoid "Sustainable Architecture" and "Sustainable Agriculture" and "Sustainable Water" type articles, sustainability is a natural progression, not a separate thing entirely. I think the Environmental, Social and Economic element sections are far more descriptive and linked closer to this article, there really isn't any use in creating new articles from these sections, they really are required within the context of this article's subject matter rather than subject matter within themselves.


 * I'll echo GT's sentiments regarding WPs slow reaction to embrace WP must embrace mechanisms to cross-reference information and add that WP policy in general can sometimes be lagging behind the present, sometimes it needs a good kick and amendment to bring it back into line with the present. But whining aside, this is a positive move forward and I can't believe we semi-forgot that we were going to split sections off into new articles :] Nick carson (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP policy shouldn't be a constraint - rules were made to be broken. What I had in mind was something like an "infobox big topic"  - something that does for subtopics within Sustainability what "infobox musical artist" does, namely put a musician in context.  My next thought was that the content could start from "Outline of Sustainability" but the presentation needed serious thought.


 * I think that WP's reactions are slow in the sense that there's nobody out there who does the work on this sort of thing... but if it's worth doing, and we're prepared to do it, I can't see WP getting in the way.--Travelplanner (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Nick carson (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some tags
It appears that the current editing team as they self describe themselves has no intention of giving up on the extremely closed and unfriendly aspects of editing among themselves in an over the top friendly way... and treating interlopers as trespassers that get ejected from discussion and from editing the article creatively. I have previously asked politely for the team to dissolve itself so that some real progress could be attempted on this bloated and ugly as to un neutral pov article. I fact tagged {Whom?} tagged several things in the article. No doubt the tag team... I mean team will revert all and chide, without bothering to change any thing... probably if the past is any indicator...I hope not though.

Also, the very awful section called Transition which is a little alcove of disinformation in regard to nonsense progressive liberal hog wash political disinformation, had one sentence removed. Please do not restore it, as it is in complete violation of any kind of neutral editing... and furthermore, is boorish as to its pov of progressive liberalism being interesting or having any answers in regard to this issue. skip sievert (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Citations aren't needed in the lead for things well explained in the article so I have reverted these fact tags. There are pages of discussion on these sentences, tagging them at this point is uncalled-for.


 * I think removing the Obama quote from the end of Transition is actually an improvement - it's a bit of a flowery-words-no-detail quote - others may think differently and again, it isn't as if we didn't discuss this, however I've left this change.--Travelplanner (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of citations in the lead was discussed several times in regards to WP policy and they were deliberately omitted based on this. There is no need for them in the lead. Agree with leaving out Obama. The article has now gone through two peer reviews with no reference to the issues raised by Skip (above) whose comments fall increasingly into the category of WP:Disruptive editing.Granitethighs (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As is the pattern of this article, for the last year... any constructive suggestions, let alone editing, is assaulted by ridiculous overkill of accusations. It is a real pity that 3 or 4 people can assume ownership as to pov in this article. skip sievert (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, this entire article is actually an embodiment of the opposite of disinformation and misinformation. There is no ownership of this article and there is and has been far more than 3 or 4 editors contributing the this article. Nick carson (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Can you name any other articles that have a sign up sheet for editing, and for the most part are contributed to by 3 people for over a year? Closed loops are not consensus or widely balanced ways to broaden information in my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a closed loop, it's not even a loop! and even if it was, it would be open! Information isn't something that can be broadened, I think you mean content within articles. Nick carson (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Transition section
This section is currently very much an embarrassing display of naive green political mutterings that bear no real reflection of the real world... and delivery of real world information as to the subject. Apparently the team here thinks differently, but this is expressly the problem with a narrow narrow range of opinion attempting to control content on a very big subject.

Trying to plug a... slap happy feeling of political la la land into the article in this section is a miserable failure of the article and is not neutral pov, more like political disinformation.

Thank you for finally taking out the Obama quote though. That is one small step for the article without making any gigantic leaps however. Pity no one is able to introduce new information to the article which is now reverted on sight by the team if there is a pov at cross purpose with the political intent of the article. Sunray violated the one revert editing agreement also yesterday, or is that not in effect any longer? Any one care to answer that question?

The following would be a realistic appraisal of the negative aspects of the utter failure of the world economy as to globalism and market forces to deal with sustainability issues and some of this information would be more appropriate for the transition area, as to the current real world situation and failure of a real transition in real time. Climate change and global warming are not going away... they are increasing. The article currently in the transition area sounds like Rebbecca of Sunny brook farm on carbon monoxide, with its excessive political leaning... as opposed to any kind of realistic science information about what is actually happening.

''The Chinese, along with many Asian countries, have less faith in the free market. Chinese oil demand is expected to grow nearly 20% in the next six years, and the country already imports over half of the 8 million barrels a day it uses. "They are doing what you'd expect any country to do: They are procuring resources for the best interest of the people," said Ruchir Kadakia, a global oil analyst with the consultancy Cambridge Energy Research Associates.'' end quotes from here... - skip sievert (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Obama quote was eliminated following Skipsievert's objections that it was "too political." Despite the fact that it represented the views of one of the most important men in the world, it was, nevertheless a point of view. Consensus was to eliminate it. The recent addition by Skipsievert simply substitutes another point of view. This doesn't seem appropriate for the last section of the article. The point, after all has been abundantly made throughout the article and balanced with other points of view. This addition is overkill and not appropriate for the last section, IMO. I think it should be removed, but would like to hear other editors on the subject. Sunray (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * By removing critical thinking as to the subject... even a picture that explains the continued massive burning of carbon, which is excellent and not in the article previously,... and now a brief indication that political ... what could be considered happy go lucky rhetoric is not sufficient to create change when real world players are not connected to actual aspects of sustainability, the article would not be served well. You may think that Obama is one of the most important men in the world. I don't think so. That is part of a pov and should not translate into editing the article. Obama could just as well be described as a puppet for special interest groups and Globalism in many opinions. I introduced some facts and figures and actual information as to carbon consumption into the article... not another pov... or if there is a tiny one it may partially balance out the extreme political advocacy now showing in the article and in particular that section.


 * Also the somewhat rhetorically polemic, political Obama quote was removed after several months of asking that it be, and removing it several times also... so it hardly qualifies finally, as real participatory editing. Why not jigger the comment or phrasing of content Sunray instead of reverting everything the team is not involved in as to their pov. Put a tag on things or tag things for improvement, or edit constructively new information instead of just 86ing things that seem contrary to the teams pov. - skip sievert (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we've got the gist of your views. How about we let others comment? Sunray (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is already far too long - so any additions at all will need strong justification. The Transition section was IMO inserted at the end to juxtapose views of a way forward with the mountain of evidence indicating that this will be extremely difficult - which has already been presented in the body of the article. If this new information is critical to the article then the Transition section is not the place for it - perhaps it could be put in the separate article on emissions? I suggest it be removed. New editors have always been welcome to contribute to the article - it is not a "closed shop". Rantings like "Green political mutterings" "no real reflection of the real world" "narrow narrow range of opinion" "happy go lucky rhetoric""slap happy feeling of political la la land" are, of course, pov.  Do we proceed by consensus or not? And if "not" then what is suggested as a realistic and fair alternative?  IMO Skip's deliberate attempt at  WP:Disruptive editing continues. Granitethighs (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly typical response on this talk page, when an editor is trying to balance the article outside the team aspect. You probably thought it disruptive also when you were trying to promote your pricey book on the article page G.T. here and on other Wikipedia article - I feel sorry for this article. It is also not really cool to continue to call another editor disruptive when they are a good faith editor interested in improving the project, in the 100% zone. - skip sievert (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I repeat. New editors have always been welcome to contribute to the article - it is not a "closed shop". Do we proceed by consensus or not? And if "not" then what is suggested as a realistic and fair alternative? Granitethighs (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the article is open or responsive to creative outside editing anymore... and has not been for a long long while... about a year. Notice the sign up for the team . Notice these people control the article? If the article in that section is too long with political rhetoric which is empty and mostly meaningless... then shorten it and keep new and viable information. The Obama quote is now gone so that argument is not a good one anyway. That is fair and realistic...and would balance out that section a little, though it is still top heavy with political junk speak. It now has a very good information picture, literaly and (graph) not contained previously and also illustrates the difference between political speak and what is going on in the real world of climate destruction and resource destruction as to usage and burning of carbon. Why eliminate Critical thinking for hitting people over the head with political opinions? skip sievert (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that critical thinking has always been encouraged and new editors have always been welcome to contribute to the article - it is not a "closed shop".  I can understand that a  consensus can seem like  a  "closed shop"  to someone in the minority -  but what do you suggest here - that the editors of this article simply defer to your views? If other editors and/or reviewers see the article as "political la la" then this will be addressed. In the meantime, I am sorry but you are, on this particular issue, a minority voice.Granitethighs (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, This repetitive argumentative "discussion" is a closed loop in itself. You must learn to listen to others and absorb what they say, acknowledge it, no one here is against you and everyone here is committed with the best of intentions, the minutest of bias and the utmost passion for the subject matter, no one here has any reason to mislead you and you therefore have a very good assurance that you can absorb what others here say without worrying about it tainting your perceptional views and opinions. We have more important work at hand, creating new articles GAC, etc, etc. Nick carson (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip's suggested final paragraph points out, correctly, that actual human impacts on the planet continue to trend upwards - in this sense, sustainability has (so far) been "all talk" although there are important small-scale exceptions to this. The final paragraph is poorly written and the bit about China's oil policy is inappropriate for a summary of a sustainability article, but the basic point is valid.


 * The choice here is whether to end on a note of hope or despair. As noted earlier on these pages, depair is unhelpful, though a factually correct case for despair can be made.  False hope may be unhelpful too.  Certainly if we have ended on a note of "don't worry, the politicians are onto it" then we've done the article a disservice.


 * I'm up for a rational discussion about this, Skip, you've raised a valid point. Can you PLEASE try to stick to the issue and leave out the paragraphs of diatribe, dead-horse-flogging and accusations, that will greatly increase the chances that we can end the article with something we are all proud of. --Travelplanner (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tried playing nice on the page and it does not work... though I will if the team pledges to change their attitude of exclusion and accusation and baiting and taunting and wiki-lawyering to remove editors or ideas.

The point is this. All the political aspects as it relates to sustainability so far have been non starters in the real world or limited as to success... and loading up the article at the end with empty rhetorical things, is not really fair to a reader that may think that things are getting better, when reality of science says that not only are things getting worse... we may be heading for human extinction or a crashing human population and social chaos.

It is a mistake to give Pollyannaish information in a serious encyclopedia article. Dispair? No. I am an optimist. But by giving so called hope or despair as the dichotomy in the final section a disservice is done.

Realistic appraisal of what the politicians are doing, but.... the actual dynamic of what is happening as to the disconnect of politics and the continuing collapse of the ecosystem... should or can or could be pointed out. Is that important? Yes, because right now the current system is not really changing, in a way that will effect or prevent the collapse of the world ecosystem. That is just a basic reality ... you notice TravelPlanner that what the Chinese government says, and what it is actually doing are dramatically different in that section? That is important. Re-read that section in the article again, with that in mind. This is part of creative presentation in an article and critical thinking again.

I am not trying to pick on the Chinese. At all. Just using this as an example because it is a very good example of politics v.s. environment/reality, in a price system where all choice is determined by money. The picture points out the disconnect in real terms. Travel planner you did another pointless put-down by saying it was written poorly. Cooperative editing means that writing is done cooperatively. All is subject to re-editing and re-jiggering of content writing as to focus and syntax etc. Making petty comments like that is not a way to promote cooperation. I have rewritten huge sections on multiple articles. The latest which I pretty much organized as a total revamp and rewrite is History of economic thought. There was an extreme group of very disparate people that were editing against each other at times on that page. The page was rewritten, re organized, and peace was made on the talk page. Now that article is nicely done. It is stable. No one is fighting over under and around content. Only one example and I could give others... like the main Economics article on Wikipedia which gets about 142.000 hits a month. I also helped to re organize, added large sections, rewrote, and played referee at times on that article when it was redone. Point? I do believe the team here has to seriously reconsider their approach, and the possibility that 3 people on a sign up sheet need to expand the general approach here.

Anyway... if you do not like the phrasing or approach redo it, why ditch anything not done with your pov? I do think the information is important and do not think it is negative or pessimistic or despair like. We are not a glee club here... and realistically all attempts to make real world sustainability progress is being blocked by economic concerns... and that should and can be pointed out... without it being a pov... it is just the reality of the situation currently. That is not a negative or positive, a hectoring comment or positive comment... just a realistic and objective thing that is pointed out. skip sievert (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, the above (and below) is relentlessley negative paragraphs of diatribe, dead-horse-flogging and accusations. Forget trying to edit with you, I've got better things to do with my time.  The irony is, we don't even disagree.--Travelplanner (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Of those who have spoken, no one but Skip supports this addition to the Transition section. I've therefore removed it. Sunray (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You stripped off the other information ... so how come you did not strip off the picture above that was introduced also of carbon burning Sunray? It went with the information. This is the kind of problem that happens when 3 or 4 people working in conjunction as to pov control an article. It no longer reflects a real consensus but becomes a vehicle for the points of view of certain criteria deemed worthy by a closed team with an agenda. In the case of this article it is a liberal progressive liberal political related agenda. That is not a consensus... or if it is not one worthy of the standards of an encyclopedic presentation. Pity really. The article is a ranty diatribe of the U.N. and progressive liberal values. I would hate to hazard a guess of how much redundant U.N. linking is in the article. Just in the transition section last times I counted links and mentioned things it was like 10 or something close. Terrible. Read this team or not, Here to build an encyclopedia. The team is doing a dysfunctional job here in my opinion and should consider opening the article to others. skip sievert (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * New editors have always been welcome to contribute to the article - it is not a "closed shop" - there was a specific invitation made for more editors a short while ago. I can understand that a consensus can seem like a "closed shop" to someone in the minority - but what do you suggest here - that the editors of this article simply defer to your views - what sort of consensus would that be? If other editors and/or reviewers see the article as "political la la" then this will be addressed. In the meantime, I am sorry but you are, on this particular issue, a minority voice. You are simply continuing on a path of WP:Disruptive editing. Granitethighs (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The team has become a hindrance to improving the article. Mostly because they act negatively together as to new information. Do you get sick of calling people disruptive Granite thighs? Really that is considered uncivil to make repeated attacks on individual editors. skip sievert (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Change of goals for the article
Since this is no longer the goal ''FA project In November 2008, we launched a project to bring this article to FA status. Here is the draft charter, process and sign-up sheet. New members are welcome. Just add your name at the bottom and let us know what you would like to do. Goal * To improve the Sustainability article to meet the featured article standard as assessed by Wikiproject Environment.'' - end from top of page area, an updated version or removal of this information from the top of the page is in order.

Currently the consensus of the team according to this is to try for GA nomination instead of Featured article status... so that could be reflected in the outdated top of the page. Please change this information, as currently a wrong impression of the intention of the editing team is given. - skip sievert (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We haven't changed the intention of going for FA status. GAN has been suggested and accepted as an intermediate goal. Sunray (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the link I gave you have changed the focus and now the top of the page should show that. You are NOT going for FA status according to the link I gave you are going for GAN. Please change the information as it is wrong, and gives a false impression on the talk page. skip sievert (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Was my last comment unclear? We are going for FA status. Sunray (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No it was clearly off base as to what you have decided to do as a group. Quote... One thing that Rhurfish recommends is that we go for a GA nomination before going for FA. I think that this would provide us more useful feedback and would give us a sense of our progress. We could respond to all the recommendations from the two peer reviews and then submit a GAN request? What do others think of this approach?... end. Then you all decided to take that course, which is word for word above  is to try for GA nomination instead of Featured article status... User:Sunray 4 August 2009 (UTC) - even a tiny point that makes no real difference is fought over on this talk page. This is the agreement currently of the direction in black and white above. Since you all started this project in this time  more or less ... how long are three main people in a closed loop going to control this article as to content? It is currently misleading to say in the top you are going for F.A. so please change that team to reflect what is actually happening here or someone else will. - skip sievert (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All disruptive distraction of no relevance to the article. Skip - please find some constructive editing to do. Granitethighs (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Baiting and taunting on the talk page instead of acting in good faith is not suggested. If people bring up real issues some thought should be given them... not nasty put down reactions. I notice some poor soul tried to improve the nonsensical first sentence in the article and got shot down today by the team That first sentence is truly an awful intro. skip sievert (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)