Talk:Sustainability/Archive 26

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)

Subpages

 * Lead
 * Definition
 * History
 * Description
 * Measuring sustainability
 * Application/Implementation Environmental management
 * Application/Implementation/consumption Management of consumption
 * Current Efforts in Applying Sustainability
 * Social material
 * Economic opportunity
 * Talk:Sustainability/Transformation (was Talk:Sustainability/Barriers)
 * "leftover" material from copyedit, unlinked references etc

Peer Review
I missed the following comments which have been available for a few days and have put them here so that all is clear - please put them back if this is not procedure. A few brief comments:

Granitethighs (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * R says there is a way to go on WP:MOS which is his area of expertise. I assume if we address each of his points one by one then that should improve matters. He does not suggest going for GA but that is still an option.
 * He thinks the UN references look reliable - but not sure if this is a comment on npov too.
 * Perhaps we need additional comment on the subject area, npov and other aspects of the article as well as WP:MOS etc.

Sustainability

 * Previous peer review
 * 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 July 2009.
 * 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 July 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because we are preparing to list it as a featured article candidate. The regular editors of the article are too close to it and need a fresh pair of eyes to see what we do not see. We have likely nailed down many of the formatting issues, but are nevertheless looking for both "big picture" advice (especially concerning neutrality, readability, reliability of sources and such) as well as small details (links, etc.) that may trip us up. While the article has been stable recently, there have been repeated claims by one editor that the article is overly-reliant on UN sources. Our view is that much of the comparative data pertaining to sustainability comes from UN agencies or UN-sponsored studies, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. That said, we have tried to use a broad range of sources from a variety of perspectives and methodologies.

Thanks, Sunray (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on Sunray's talk page, I would make sure that all of the points from the previous peer review have been addressed. My comments are mostly WP:MOS pointsthat seem to need to be addressed - I am not an expert on the topic and the UN refs seem to be reliable to me.✅
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - the best FA model I can find is Renewable energy in Scotland - while not a perfect match, it faces many of the same issues (trying to cover a broad topic which can be controversial) ✅
 * The lead image caption does not really tie the image explicitly to the article, perhaps something like Sustainability can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, as seen in NASA's Blue Marble composite images from 2001 (left) and 2002 (right). ✅ Sunray (talk)
 * Images also need alternate text for the visually impaired before going to WP:FAC - see WP:ALT✅ Granitethighs (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Captions that are not full sentences generally do not end with a period / full stop ✅ Sunray (talk)
 * Image captions in general need to do a better job of explaining the image and its relation the text. For example, there are seven labels on File:Sustainable development.svg, but the caption just says "The three pillars of sustainability.[3]'' I think many people skimming an article still read the captions, so these need to do a better job of describing the image and its connection to the topic.I have had a go at this but see what you think. Granitethighs (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)✅
 * Per WP:MOS, most images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. This was done by someone outside the editing team. Granitethighs (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Does the lead follow WP:LEAD? The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I am not sure the current lead does this.It is the best we can do at present. Granitethighs (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Quotations need to follow MOS:QUOTE - unless a whole sentence is being quoted, punctuation goes outside the quotation marks, so fix things like Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination."[7] to ...a "journey" or "destination".[7] Fixed example; need to review article for additional offenders. Sunray (talk)
 * Per WP:ITALIC the use of italics to apparently imply quotation in "This difficult mix has been described as a dialogue of values that defies consensual definition.[11]" is incorrect - if it is a quote, use quotation marks. Corrected Granitethighs (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Linking statements such as "The next section traces the evolution of thinking about sustainability in human history." are not generally given in Wikipedia FAs. ✅ Sunray (talk)
 * Avoid all capital letters in things like GLOBAL BIOPHYSICAL CYCLES CRITICAL FOR LIFE ✅ Sunray (talk)
 * Spell out abbreviations on first use and give the abbreviation after in parentheses. So fix sentences like concept of living within environmental constraints underpins the IUCN, UNEP and WWF definition of sustainability:... Fixed example; are there more? ✅
 * This needs a ref: Societies outgrowing their local food supply or depleting critical resources either moved on or faced collapse.✅ --Travelplanner (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC) My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. (This eg. fixed, may be other examples --Travelplanner (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Refs need to be consistent and to present a minimum of information for each ref. Books generally need page numbers, but the Guns, Germs, and Steel ref and some other book refs do not. I have been through the references several times adding pages where these are needed and leaving those that seem OK as is. To my mind they are now OK but scrutiny by other eyes never goes astray.Granitethighs (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)✅
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. Things like current ref 92 with a bare link "UNEP Grid Arendal. [1] A selection of global-scale reports. Retrieved on: 2009-3-12" need to be fixed. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * While a huge amount of work has bgone into this, it is not anywhere near ready for WP:FAC from a MOS point of view. Most articles have the hardest time meeting WP:WIAFA criteria 1a (well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard). I think parts of this could be made more concise. The Definition section is one example. Making this more concise will not make it read better, it will also make it less huge and thus more inviting to the average reader.

Automated review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?] ✅To my mind the one gallery is justified and useful as it is - but people might think otherwise - please comment. Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually). ✅ I think we can manage without but if someone has the skills to produce an infobox then it might provide consistency with similar topics. Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?] Should be OK now. Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?] I do not know the techniques for this - but it may be possible to reduce the headings without mangling the text. Could someone help or make suggestions please? Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * apparently I have removed this word although it was OK in its context but could edit out. Granitethighs (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behaviour (B) (American: behavior), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), cosy (B) (American: cozy), curb (A) (British: kerb), program  (A) (British: programme), sulphur (B) (American: sulfur). OK, I think we decided to standardise oops -ize on Yankee. Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] Granitethighs (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)✅
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] OK will check Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ✅

Sustainability task force
I have created WikiProject Environment/Sustainability task force. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
I would like to see automatic archiving on this page but we need to decise on how poften. See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think user Sunray has been archiving this page pretty much as to criteria he defines himself, as a kind of expediter person of the sign up editing team on the article . I think this probably steers the discussion page too much, because the discussion page has been controlled as to presentation by the team or sign up participants. I would like to see the sign up on the top of the page also archived as it has been featured there along with some of the criteria of this group (voting etc.), which in my opinion has too much control as to who is and who is not making edits on the article page, and that in my opinion has gone on for too long a time. I would like to see the page go back to ordinary editing methods as to regular guidelines, as I believe the limited editing team is too closed as to commonality of pov, as in reinforcing their mutual edits in a closed way. skip sievert (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a bot doing the archiving. I've been doing it whenever the page gets too large (such as right now) and issues are resolved or outdated. However, a bot archives everything on the page and I think we should leave the project details at the top until the project is completed. Therefore, I suggest we hold off on MizaBot for now. Meantime, I will archive old discussion now. Sunray (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was considering moving the project stuff to the task force that I created. That where is belongs and is one of the reasons why I created the task force. The bot can be configured to leave a set number of discussion threads behind rather than leaving an empty page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is a good idea. The project page stuff should go to the task force and not be such a continuous feature here. Also one editor deciding archiving as to what should or should not be... is not such a great idea, and having a bot do it removes issues connected to that idea of a certain presentation of the discussion page. The idea of issues being resolved or outdated points out another control issue as to the sign up team on the discussion page, in my opinion skip sievert (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot is set up to leave some stuff behind. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Auto archiving now set up. Threads not commented on after 21 days will be archived. Max archive size is 256k. Min of five threads will be left on this page. Options are variable. See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold on. You haven't addressed my concern. I'm not so sure about a standardized project yet and would like to hear views from other members of the current FA Project. There have been concerns about disruption on these pages and that is still a problem. I cannot see simply importing that to another project. Sunray (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Normal guideline procedures on the article discussion page can go forth. Control of archiving should not fall to one person (as was the case previously), or even a group. A.L. has gone to a lot of grunt work to make it happen as to a task force page. Calling the sign up team an FA Project may not be accurate as it more appears that it is an ongoing Good Article project as the F.A. goal is more a symbolic goal. The upper article information can be archived as was done by the bot, and which is in accord with normal practice. skip sievert (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * By standardised project I presume that you mean the Sustainability task force. I set up the project for a number of reasons:
 * It is well overdue considering the level of interest in sustainability in wider society
 * It is a distinctive subset of the Environment WikiProject
 * It is a good place for the FA and PR stuff at the top of this page. That where it belongs (or somewhere else) rather than on an article talk page
 * I am hoping that it will defuse the lengthy, unproductive, noisy discussion on this page but is seems it has now moved to the task force as well.
 * Bear in mind that the task force is for ALL sustainability articles and not simply this one. With regard to the bot you can undo my edits. I feel that I was doing the right thing and hardly being bold. Bot archiving is common on active talk pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see TP has commented on the Task Force. I have to be blunt. Alan L may not be aware that Skip, in spite of his many comments about uncivil behaviour by the "team" has given out plenty of flak to all - Ohana, Sunray, Nick, TP and GT. We have all been left smarting on several occasions. My own view is that some of this is just "life" but as you can see from the last page or two it eventually becomes unproductive to the point where people would rather not "play". I am very keen to help push the sustainability story on forward on Wikipedia but things would have to change from endless time-wasting battles (read the discussion at Representative money that has taken place over the last few days - it is all so familiar). To the point: I think we need at least some of the "header" stuff at the top of the article talk page - but otherwise a Bot Archiver is great all-round.  Granitethighs   11:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks is an issue on this page, consistently, editing information, is not discussed, but singling out unrelated issues has been, as to rationale` of editing. Thanks, but could you please stop giving your opinion on me as to how you think my editing skills are or my ability to understand or related article that have zero connection to this page? Avoid personal remarks. This follows a pattern of personal attacks on users that questioned the editing sign up team that formerly controlled most aspects of editing this particular article. skip sievert (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We haven't yet heard from several of the regular editors of this page, but I am finding it very counterproductive not having the project information and sub pages at the top. So if the bot can archive everything else, fine. Meanwhile, I am relocating that information back here. I will archive everything else down to this topic. Sunray (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The bot is set to archiving so it now does not have to be done manually. The task force main page was not the right place admittedly but is should not be on this talk page either. Bung it is a sub page and put and notice box at the top of the page with that and all the other subpage links. That will stop the bot from doing its job and shoving it in the archives. Because of the increasing size and complexity of WP admin it is best to have consistency across all WikiProjects. We need to find out that the usual method of allocating such info is. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Winston Churchill
Not suggesting we emulate this but have a look at the size, number of Categories, and number of nav bars in this GA article.  Granitethighs  04:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yuk!! Personally I think it is too much - over the top big time. Not sure what the general consensus is for number of templates. Generally, from what I have seen with my work on categorisation, there ore not more than about 5 or so cats. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:22, 10 September 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)

Archiving
I would like to see automatic archiving on this page but we need to decise on how poften. See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think user Sunray has been archiving this page pretty much as to criteria he defines himself, as a kind of expediter person of the sign up editing team on the article . I think this probably steers the discussion page too much, because the discussion page has been controlled as to presentation by the team or sign up participants. I would like to see the sign up on the top of the page also archived as it has been featured there along with some of the criteria of this group (voting etc.), which in my opinion has too much control as to who is and who is not making edits on the article page, and that in my opinion has gone on for too long a time. I would like to see the page go back to ordinary editing methods as to regular guidelines, as I believe the limited editing team is too closed as to commonality of pov, as in reinforcing their mutual edits in a closed way. skip sievert (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a bot doing the archiving. I've been doing it whenever the page gets too large (such as right now) and issues are resolved or outdated. However, a bot archives everything on the page and I think we should leave the project details at the top until the project is completed. Therefore, I suggest we hold off on MizaBot for now. Meantime, I will archive old discussion now. Sunray (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was considering moving the project stuff to the task force that I created. That where is belongs and is one of the reasons why I created the task force. The bot can be configured to leave a set number of discussion threads behind rather than leaving an empty page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is a good idea. The project page stuff should go to the task force and not be such a continuous feature here. Also one editor deciding archiving as to what should or should not be... is not such a great idea, and having a bot do it removes issues connected to that idea of a certain presentation of the discussion page. The idea of issues being resolved or outdated points out another control issue as to the sign up team on the discussion page, in my opinion skip sievert (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot is set up to leave some stuff behind. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Auto archiving now set up. Threads not commented on after 21 days will be archived. Max archive size is 256k. Min of five threads will be left on this page. Options are variable. See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold on. You haven't addressed my concern. I'm not so sure about a standardized project yet and would like to hear views from other members of the current FA Project. There have been concerns about disruption on these pages and that is still a problem. I cannot see simply importing that to another project. Sunray (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Normal guideline procedures on the article discussion page can go forth. Control of archiving should not fall to one person (as was the case previously), or even a group. A.L. has gone to a lot of grunt work to make it happen as to a task force page. Calling the sign up team an FA Project may not be accurate as it more appears that it is an ongoing Good Article project as the F.A. goal is more a symbolic goal. The upper article information can be archived as was done by the bot, and which is in accord with normal practice. skip sievert (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * By standardised project I presume that you mean the Sustainability task force. I set up the project for a number of reasons:
 * It is well overdue considering the level of interest in sustainability in wider society
 * It is a distinctive subset of the Environment WikiProject
 * It is a good place for the FA and PR stuff at the top of this page. That where it belongs (or somewhere else) rather than on an article talk page
 * I am hoping that it will defuse the lengthy, unproductive, noisy discussion on this page but is seems it has now moved to the task force as well.
 * Bear in mind that the task force is for ALL sustainability articles and not simply this one. With regard to the bot you can undo my edits. I feel that I was doing the right thing and hardly being bold. Bot archiving is common on active talk pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see TP has commented on the Task Force. I have to be blunt. Alan L may not be aware that Skip, in spite of his many comments about uncivil behaviour by the "team" has given out plenty of flak to all - Ohana, Sunray, Nick, TP and GT. We have all been left smarting on several occasions. My own view is that some of this is just "life" but as you can see from the last page or two it eventually becomes unproductive to the point where people would rather not "play". I am very keen to help push the sustainability story on forward on Wikipedia but things would have to change from endless time-wasting battles (read the discussion at Representative money that has taken place over the last few days - it is all so familiar). To the point: I think we need at least some of the "header" stuff at the top of the article talk page - but otherwise a Bot Archiver is great all-round.  Granitethighs   11:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks is an issue on this page, consistently, editing information, is not discussed, but singling out unrelated issues has been, as to rationale` of editing. Thanks, but could you please stop giving your opinion on me as to how you think my editing skills are or my ability to understand or related article that have zero connection to this page? Avoid personal remarks. This follows a pattern of personal attacks on users that questioned the editing sign up team that formerly controlled most aspects of editing this particular article. skip sievert (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We haven't yet heard from several of the regular editors of this page, but I am finding it very counterproductive not having the project information and sub pages at the top. So if the bot can archive everything else, fine. Meanwhile, I am relocating that information back here. I will archive everything else down to this topic. Sunray (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The bot is set to archiving so it now does not have to be done manually. The task force main page was not the right place admittedly but is should not be on this talk page either. Bung it is a sub page and put and notice box at the top of the page with that and all the other subpage links. That will stop the bot from doing its job and shoving it in the archives. Because of the increasing size and complexity of WP admin it is best to have consistency across all WikiProjects. We need to find out that the usual method of allocating such info is. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've used a notice box to refer users to the FA project. The subpages are left at the top for ease of reference. Let's see how it works. Sunray (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This article has become ponderous
This article, even though its traffic hit rate is very modest, is arguably, ultimately, the most important article in Wikipedia. But it is drowning in its own gravitas. Why not redevelop it as a summary article organised around key component articles such as sustainable populations, sustainable recycling, sustainable pollution controls, sustainable agriculture, sustainable forestry, sustainable fishing, sustainable greed and sustainable aggression. And then spend at least equal energy making sure that the component articles are properly developed.--Geronimo20 (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with your assessment. Currently the article is long and drawn out and also mired in focus of certain aspects. More science based information and sourcing is needed, and less creative writing, as to formatting the information. Population probably could also be a number one focus in the article. Currently the world is overshooting the resource base as to population by at least 30% of resources to population. Vancouver's Bill Rees, who developed 'ecological footprint' analysis at the University of British Columbia. Rees calculates that human consumption of the biosphere is 'already 30 per cent into overshoot', consuming more than the ecosystem can replenish. Be bold G.20. The article really needs reformatting and new direction in my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree. We have discussed this recently on this page (see recently archived discussions). A tag about article length was placed on the article in August. The current objective of several of the editors who edit here regularly is to develop summary articles. The History section has been reduced and a summary article created. We are working our way through other sections of the article. The "Environmental dimension" has been identified for drastic belt-tightening. The "Environmental management" section has been copied to a subpage for work. Care to pitch in? Sunray (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer to see any new pages (esp sibling pages) to be created directly in article namespace rather than as subpages. They may get a wider set of editors and a bit more urgency in article namespace. There is often enough info within Wikipedia to create a respectably sized article. Havving said that I have number od embarracing stub article out there that are not getting worked on! But anyway, for a reader it is better to come across at least some info rather than no page at all. Readers may not find subpages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree 100%. There is also too much overlap with sustainable development. The sustainability article should be about all aspects of sustainability - economic, social and environmental. The sustainable development should have the focus on the social and environmental aspects. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In accord with the idea that a myriad of subpages is not suggested anymore and leads to confusion as to new people figuring out what is going on and editing without going through administrative over involvement. Also could the information be left off again above about the editing team. I hope that this group does not continue with its thumbs up thumbs down approach to content, and I thought this issue of posting this on the talk page was pretty much over.


 * Also it is noted that Wikipedia should not be disrupted to make a point, which two member of the editing team did recently on the new project page connected with sustainability issues Please remove the sign up team information from this article discussion page, for multiple reasons discussed, and also as to just following usual guidelines. That information was better suited to the project page where it was previously. A special group has no special ownership rights on a Wikipedia article - skip sievert (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In view of the non-collegial tone currently operating here, I am reluctant to participate further. I will however work quietly over time on an article about sustainable fishing, which hopefully might be compatible with the eventual framework of this article. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Pity you feel that way about involvement here because constructive editing of the article is needed in the here and now. Example... even an attempt to copy edit the article constructively add a ref/note and remove excess, is automatically reverted by a sign up team editor here, in the person of its ostensible leader . In effect, editing of the article is mostly blocked, outside, of the narrow range, of pov of the team.... and the article hence crippled as to creative input. This violates Wikipedia guidelines and in effect gives possession and ownership to a small knot of people that aggressively edits in a Civil POV pushing (in my opinion) way. Unless or until the article is freed up, by other editors this condition remains. The latest block revert did not even bother with an edit summary, and was a total dismissal. skip sievert (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see is that not all editors are willing to abide by Consensus, which is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Sunray (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That does not address the issues brought up. skip sievert (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The changes made were not an improvement (grammatical and syntactical errors, removing a source), and they went against the version agreed to by consensus. Sunray (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This comment follows a pattern of this Civil POV pushing. You are not saying how or why. You deleted a reference/footnote also. Ownership issues with article in relation to your edits. skip sievert (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

New approach to editing on this page
There have been several observations, most recently by Geronimo20, that editing on this page is not collegial. We need to deal with that. Last November, several of the regular editors initiated a project to bring the article up to FA status. They have made some progress. However, there have been frequent disruptions (no names; no pack drill). We now need to move beyond that. I am assuming that those editors would like to continue, provided that order is restored. We have also heard from several editors who would like to join in, but have been dissuaded by the non-collegial tone on this page.

I propose that we try harder to comment on content, not the contributor. I further propose that personal attacks against other editors, whether directed personally or at the "team" should be removed in accordance with policy. All those who agree with this please so signify by signing below. Discussion? Sunray (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks a little like signing a loyalty oath. Just following normal guidelines should suffice. However, there have been frequent disruptions (no names; no pack drill).. The above is just another of these attacks, only done more veiled. More of the same same. Then your comment above is just another personal attack... according to you, and should be removed. This is not good. This repeats the ordinary behavior on the article. Could you please stop... and just follow normal procedure?


 * I am sorry but the facts bear out that the editing being done on the article page by the most active editors or regular editors as you put it is problematic, not cooperative, and is exclusive and not being done constructively as to normal editing guidelines <-including a recent mass revert also minus an edit summary done by the author of the above. My best suggestion is that the sign up team approach as to the editors and personal attacks is apparent here and elsewhere  as was done recently here WikiProject Environment/Sustainability task force. While it is nice to propose changing editing behavior, the best way to do that is to stop the behavior and edit constructively instead of making a proposal to do so. - skip sievert (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, I see you have successfully edited other articles where your dominance was not  challenged, but you seem to have trouble with being a team player when you cannot get your way. The reason I don't want to edit in such a climate is because it drains too much energy. Like right now, responding to this problem. I can't see that there are the problems you claim with a signup team, so long as membership is open to all editors. My question is: Why didn't you sign up there yourself? From the outset, you seemed determined to play it your way. Sure, the team may effectively "own" the article, but participation in the ownership is open to all. De facto teams, like this, operate all the time. What is wrong with making it transparent. In fact a signup team where the members reaffirm their commitment to courtesy, non-disruption, and consensus editing, no matter how frustrating that may be at times, would be a good idea. I agree with you that such a signup team shouldn't be necessary. Editors implicitly agree to those principles, which are policy, when they create an account on Wikipedia. But not all editors honour that.


 * To be explicit, the "non-collegial tone" I referred to above is the tone that you bring to the article. You leave in your wake a trail of accusations, harassments, and divers attacks on other editors, always claiming that it is them, not you, that are accusing, harassing, and otherwise attacking. I get the impression that you don't want this to change, and that your constant positioning of yourself as the victim of this unjust world is precisely the outcome you are seeking. Sunray recently asked you "What can I do to make things better for you?". You did not respond. It seems to be a way of life with you. It goes back for many years in your interactions with other groups on the wider web. It may be that, even if you were to make an effort, you couldn't change this pattern now. Anyway, I don't want to be around it, simply because it drains so much energy, and there are so many other articles that are worth working on. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What Geronimo says strikes a strong chord with me. To my mind accommodating various editors requires real collaboration - not a relentless battle of individual wills to prevail over everyone else. To be sure there will be tough times but cooperative editing is possible. I believe that the "sign-up team" fell into a quick and effective editing group working together - and the article itself, for all its warts, is a demonstration of a good collective effort. The pattern of bickering though is sapping everyones enthusiasm. I will help with the article wherever possible but, like Geronimo, am disinclined to continue on other projects when the probability of long, unproductive and debilitating discussions seems so high - where the focus of attention seems to be deliberately manipulated by shifting attention from the article to the debate.  Granitethighs  23:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Geronimo and GT both echo my thoughts and feelings. Nick carson (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. Then your input is probably not needed with attitude like that Geronimo and the above personal attack No personal attacks is sadly a continuation and commenting on users and your opinion off wiki is decidedly a personal attack. Understand? It is the article that suffers. Also civil editing is not attacking another user like your statement above which sadly has come to be expected on this discussion page... and that is not good. Bye. skip sievert (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume that "Bye" means that you are leaving, Skip. That may be for the best, all things considered. Sunray (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, soapboxing, personal attacks and edit warring are not allowed on Wikipedia. Wholesale reversions of good cited information is also not a good idea especially without even an edit summary, and trying to turn person against person is not suggested. As to the vote or poll above Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and the recent disruption to other connected pages by sign up team members also indicates problems - Note that snide comments are not a good way to make for good editing either, or a way to promote any kind of conflict resolution... quote S.R.-> ''"Bye" means that you are leaving, Skip. That may be for the best, all things considered.'' Bye means that another user that made reference to not wanting to edit the article is not going to and left... which is fine. Wikipedia is voluntary. That other editor also referred to another editor as... quote Geronimo-> ''It seems to be a way of life with you. It goes back for many years in your interactions with other groups on the wider web. It may be that, even if you were to make an effort, you couldn't change this pattern now.'' end quote Geronimo20, and that is a personal attack, and the sign up team of which you apparently are the spokes-person seems to heartily be in sympathy with that personal attack also or at least did not refute that kind of off site commentary reference to another user. skip sievert (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a vote. To clarify that, I've changed the wording of my request. Sunray (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion pages are useless if people are refactoring the discussion S.R. and I have requested that you stop doing that, numbers of times. skip sievert (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I regard your comments above as a personal attack, I'm o.k. with leaving them on this page, provided that you agree to confine yourself to content and not contributors in the future. I am suggesting that everyone who edits on this page agree to do the same. Would you be agree to that? Sunray (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Guidelines. I support using the existing guidelines as to editing on Wikipedia. skip sievert (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sunray, and am certainly willing to confine myself to content issues, Skip. The problem with "using the existing guidelines" is that they can be used to bludgeon editors. We are all experienced editors here, we have all read the guidelines, and it is discourteous to keep implying we don't understand them. We don't need the letter of the guidelines thrust at us, we need to practice the spirit of them. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You referenced an editor off site. You made a personal comment, a personal attack in that way above ^ I did not say this, you did ->It seems to be a way of life with you. It goes back for many years in your interactions with other groups on the wider web. It may be that, even if you were to make an effort, you couldn't change this pattern now., end quote Geronomo20, and that seems more like this > Assume bad faith to me, so... you did not confine yourself to content issues. Maybe you have not read the guidelines about personal attacks... and maybe we can practice the spirit of the guidelines, but you did not. skip sievert (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well there it is --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * True. We seem to be lapsing back into personal comments again. I suggest that all comments about other editors are now behind us. Let's move on.


 * In future, personal comments should not usually be necessary on this page, unless an editor has a particular concern. In such a case, policy requires editors to maintain civility. It is also helpful to stick to observable facts and "I" messages. That way editors can focus on content rather than the other contributor(s) and avoid blaming. In dealing with such concerns, it should only be necessary to raise an issue once. If there are continuing concerns, they would have to be taken to another forum. Is this making sense? Sunray (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I apologise for any personal comments I may have made that precipitated any subsequent off-topic discussion :] Nick carson (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable individual inclusion? Yes/No
I've only recently researched the life of Norman Borlaug, was just wondering if we've remembered to include him in this article? Nick carson (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No for now. He was a brilliant scientist and interesting person but I do not think he has a place in the article unless connected perhaps to the population explosion of humans since World War 2. That would carry a lot of baggage though as to figuring out how to present. Population is a main issue that the article on Sustainability could focus on more and does not now. Some current marginally related areas of the article could be dropped entirely and much more focus given to population issues. An expanded area like that could include incidental information on this person Norman Borlaug. An aside to this and its importance as to exponential growth in population and resource destruction skip sievert (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Overpopulation is well presented in it's own article at Overpopulation. Overpopulation is more of a result of many other issues so we shouldn't focus too heavily on it, I think it's representation in the article now is sufficient. Nick carson (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)