Talk:Sustainability/Archive 33

The section on critique
I have some questions regarding the recent edits to the section on critique, User:Mkevlar? I felt the earlier version was possibly better because it was written as flowing text (prose), not as unconnected bullet points. At the very least, we do need an introductory sentence to explain what follows there as a bullet point list, I think. I think the first paragraph of the old version was pretty good? Also you seem to have removed the page numbers of the references, was that on purpose? The edit summary states "pruned paragraph as it contained conjecture, cleaned up formatting and references", where was there conjecture - everything had references? Here is the old version which I am referring to:

++++++ The concept of sustainable development has been criticized from different angles. While some see it as paradoxical and regard development as inherently unsustainable, others are sobered by the lack of progress which has been achieved so far. "Sustainability" also has a reputation as a buzzword.

According to Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of the first report to the Club of Rome, called "The Limits to Growth", many people deceive themselves by using the Brundtland definition of sustainability. This is because the needs of the present generation are actually not met today, and the economic activities to meet present needs will substantially diminish the options of future generations. Sustainability has also been described as an “exhausted roadmap” due to the fact that our consumer societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive.

Some scholars have even proclaimed the end of the concept of sustainability due to the realities of the Anthropocene: These realities include "unprecedented and irreversible rates of human induced biodiversity loss, exponential increases in per-capita resource consumption, and global climate change". Therefore, it might become impossible to pursue a goal of sustainability when faced with these complex, radical and dynamic issues.

The Rio Process was a huge leap forward: for the first time, the world agreed on a sustainability agenda. However, global consensus was facilitated by neglecting concrete goals and operational details.“ The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) now have concrete targets (unlike the results from the Rio Process) but no methods for sanctions. +++++++++

Compare with the new version:

+++++++ * The Limits to Growth: According to Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of the first report to the Club of Rome, called "The Limits to Growth", many people deceive themselves by using the Brundtland definition of sustainability. This is because the needs of the present generation are actually not met today, and the economic activities to meet present needs will substantially diminish the options of future generations. Sustainability has also been described as an “exhausted roadmap” due to the fact that our consumer societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive.


 * Anthropocene: Some scholars have even proclaimed the end of the concept of sustainability due to the realities of the Anthropocene These realities include "unprecedented and irreversible rates of human induced biodiversity loss, exponential increases in per-capita resource consumption, and global climate change". Therefore, it might become impossible to pursue a goal of sustainability when faced with these complex, radical and dynamic issues.


 * The Rio Protocol was a huge leap forward: for the first time, the world agreed on a sustainability agenda. However, a global consensus was facilitated by neglecting concrete goals and operational details. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) now have concrete targets (unlike the results from the Rio Process) but no methods for sanctions . +++++++++ EMsmile (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand the "prose" quality and as a recreational read that would be fine but the world of sustainability professionals is one of high stress and low value. Many readers of this article with a business background want to skim it and find the few gems they are looking for quickly; this audience are often the decision makers that shape the world. So lets make the content digestible for them too.
 * As for the bullet points, they clearly articulate sub-article headings which adds structured knowledge where they reader can drill deeper with a single click and that is something worth doing. Over time more Critiques and Criticisms will be added by others, so giving then a structured format will make for better clarity TheKevlar 10:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)
 * Well our target audience is the general public, not sustainability professionals in particular. So I think the text needs to be readable, understandable and flow well (and not be full or jargon). I agree that most readers have little time. For that reason, the lead is so important (the section before the table of content). It's supposed to be a summary of the article. About 600 words long. Many readers will not read further than the lead! Many Wikipedia articles have poorly written leads. Let's work on the lead of this article together? Also if you want to create a structure for the critique section then I recommend rather using sub-headings. This way, the sub-headings will also show up in the table of content. Shall we do that? I agree the critique section should be built up further over time, and it's good to have a structure for it. EMsmile (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed! The first 600 words are worth working on. If you sandbox them with a link here I will put the effort into helping out. Mkevlar (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sandbox is too cumbersome, I suggest improving the lead "live", making it a good summary of the article. End result should be about 4 paragraphs or 600 words. Further guidance also here: WP:LEAD. If you have time, please give it a go (saving frequently and bringing up anything that needs to be discussed here on the talk page?). I think the first paragraph of the lead is pretty good though. EMsmile (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Criticisms
Collecting all criticisms into one place adds clarity. Not sure what standards WP has on this but it's where most STEM professionals look to find the conflicts.
 * Buzzwords belongs here if you can find more than a soft criticism reference
 * Policy greenwashing and loftiness could go here if someone wants to add them TheKevlar (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * We typically do not have a separate section for criticism/controversy (per WP:NOCRIT), but this article may be an exception where it could work. The critique doesn't fit in nicely into other sections, and I think the article is usually sufficiently stable to avoid the section becoming disproportionately long. Femke (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not clear on what you're saying, TheKevlar? You are suggesting to rename the current section from "critique" to "criticism"? I have no strong views on that. When we write about critique we need to be careful as it should be about the concept of sustainability, not about how humans live in general. E.g. The Limits to Growth is not a criticism of sustainability as a concept but more about the causes that have led to unsustainable practices. EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with "soft criticism reference"? The two references that currently go with the buzzword statement are fine, aren't they? Do you want to find additional ones?EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Policy greenwashing and loftiness" are similar things to the buzzword statement. Could also be added, with refs. We talk about greenwashing and eco-labelling already in the business section. I think it fits well there or should it be moved to "critique"? EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Reassessment of this article's Good Article status (March 2022)
Please note that I have listed this article for reassessment of its WP:GA status (which it got 11 years ago). I don't think in its current form it meets GA status and I think the label ought to be removed for now. We can later work towards regaining the GA status. Please see the discussion here. EMsmile (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, can you remove it User:EMsmile I don't know how and I do not not have the time to become politically involved in WikipediaTheKevlar 10:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 10:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)


 * while I won't deny there are political aspects to working on Wikipedia, it's unhelpful to think of it like that. One of our core pillars is WP:neutrality. That means giving weight to various opinions based on the proportion of WP:reliable sources. When you write well here, you'll often end up writing things you don't agree with personally.


 * P.s. Don't forget to sign your post with four tiles ~ Femke (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Core pillars interesting choice of words because the discussion with EMsmile is the use of the word pillars and her enforcement of the word dimensions on most places. Your use of the word pillars coveys the same intent as pillars of sustainability a correction I have been asserting all along.
 * PS. I have been signing with 4 ~ but just discovered that the custom signature syntax has changed since I originally configured it years ago and that caused the signature to failing TheKevlar (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I had explained here my reasoning for not replacing "dimension" everywhere in the article with "pillar" (which is what TheKevlar had suggested): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability#%22Dimension%22_is_equally_common_as_%22pillar%22 If people disagree, then let's continue the discussion in that section and reach consensus. EMsmile (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Dimension" is equally common as "pillar"
Hi User:Mkevlar, sorry, but I have just reverted your edit where you changed the lead and also replaced "dimension" with pillar in each instance. I feel that your changes to the lead were not an improvement. That definition from the Oxford dictionary clearly only related to environmental sustainability. ("The current definition of sustainability in the Oxford Dictionary is “The property of being environmentally sustainable; the degree to which a process or enterprise is able to be maintained or continued while avoiding the long-term depletion of natural resources“). If the Oxford dictionary was always right and perfect, we could just copy from there each time and wouldn't need Wikipedia... Secondly, the term "dimension" is very commonly used in the literature. So there is no benefit in replacing it with pillar in each instance. EMsmile (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Your reversion is unfounded. GOOGLE "three dimensions of sustainability" and the word "pillar" comes up in searches more often than "dimension". even the UN uses pillar . In Germany the more commonly use the word is dimension but for the rest of the world it is not. I will wait for others to weigh in before changing it back. Mkevlar (talk) 2:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 14:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just looked at Google as well. When I put "pillars of sustainability" I get 476,730 results. When I put "dimensions of sustainability" I get 287,805 Results. So I would say that's pretty similar (but doesn't take into account which term is becoming more popular and which is becoming less popular over time). I think pillar is probably the older term, whereas dimension or aspect is probably the newer term. When I look at the ngram viewer in Google Books, then "dimensions of sustainability" is far higher than "pillars of sustainability", see here: Google Ngram Viewer here. Either way, I think the article makes it clear that several terms have been used and then picks one for consistency throughout the article.  EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As you mentioned the UN, they sometimes use pillar, sometimes dimension. On the website that mentioned it's pillar, yes. But in the UN declaration for the 17 SDGs in 2015 here they use dimension several times, pillar not once (example: "We are committed to achieving sustainable development in its three dimensions – economic, social and environmental – in a balanced and integrated manner." and "They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development. "). I rest my case. EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Using a 3rd metric Google Ngrams it becomes evident that pillars has become more commonly accepted in publications. So I propose a compromise: use both in the opening paragraph for definition and use pillars for the rest of the article. TheKevlar 14:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, the difference with your Ngram is that you used "three pillars of sustainability". I think that gives a less accurate impression than just "pillars of sustainability" (without a number). Like the sustainability article explains, many scholars have talked about more dimensions of sustainability (not just 3), e.g. the cultural dimension. So when you don't search for a specific number, then "dimensions of sustainability" is more common than "pillars of sustainability" as per the Ngram link that I posted above, as far as I can see. But I am all for using the terms interchangeably, so no problem to use a mixture throughout the article, I guess. However, in the section headings I guess we have to use only one. I would still prefer "dimensions" as per my reasons given above. The "pillar" also doesn't do the model justice when it's described as concentric rings or as overlapping rings (see the image used in the lead section of the article, which compares 3 main images for sustainability that are being used). Pillar only works when you think of those things that hold up a building. EMsmile (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As TheKevlar brought up this aspect again below (in the section about GA), I am curious to hear from User:PlanetCare and User:Femkemilene what your view is regarding usage of "dimensions" or "pillar" in this article? I think it's good how it is now, as per my reasoning given above. No need to change anything, in my opinion. But it would be good to reach consensus either way. EMsmile (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not too familiar with the literature, but I believe dimension is slightly better. Femke (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed a recently added text block from "barriers"
This text block was recently added under "barriers" but I have removed it because it was deviating too far from the subject and going into too much detail. Perhaps it can be utilised in another article: "Another form of barrier revolves around stigmas cemented in green design approaches.

Generally, these approaches tend to target an overabundance of issues, attempting to resolve every problem in one consummate design — disregarding the absence of inclusion surrounding basic sustainability measures (eg. energy efficiency) as an industry standard across something like the housing industry. There is a lack of commitment to efforts and programs with minimal degrees of incentive. RHIs (renewable heat incentives) or carbon taxing are simply not effective and produce limited results.

As an example, eco-friendly infrastructure projects have largely been individualized to a single or set of structures built with specificity. Even projects designed to focus on sustainable living in a residential context have romanticized disconnects between plausibility and idealism. The ZEB pilot house, constructed in Larvik, Norway (2014), is a residential house built with concepts surrounding recycling, energy production, grid redistribution, bioclimatic principles, and embodied energy. The house alone generates over 2 times more energy it needs per annum and uses passive structural systems to minimize energy expenditure. However, this house is constructed away from urban contexts and sits on its own plot of land. The inclusion of a farm and swimming pool are additions city planned housing cannot accommodate for. According to the United Nations’ 2020 Global Status report, housing alone uses 22% of globally produced energy. The facilities implemented in this project cannot be reasonably redistributed to the average residential home as there lacks an establishment of standard. Continuing to design buildings unique to an individual context may impede progress of achieving sustainable living as the general population will not have effective means to inhibit consumption or emission, meaning the 22% figure may stagnate or even increase (relative to other sources of energy consumption)." EMsmile (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Student Evaluation
1. I'm glad to see that this article includes a plethora of not only credible and reliable references, but also substantial ones that provide a lot of helpful insights on the discussion of sustainability.

2. That being said, after looking through the variety of sources that are references I feel that it is safe to say this article takes a fairly neutral standpoint by providing multiple points of view and highlighting the discrepancies around the term "sustainability" itself.

3. Further, the sources themselves seem to take quite neutral stances by incorporating data and simply presenting accumulated information rather than trying to persuade an audience for any given reason.--Sammy J 37 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Anthropocene?
Hi, regarding your recent change to the sentence with the anthropocene: I was trying to address a comment by User:Femkemilene (see above) who had said (and I agree with the concern): "A further critique is "the realities of the Anthropocene" feels slightly POV: the anthropocene is a proposed geological epoch, not yet generally accepted." I don't have access to the full ref, only the abstract where it says "It is time to move past the concept of sustainability. The realities of the Anthropocene warrant this conclusion." - Do you have a suggestion for a better solution, and addressing the concern of Femkemilene at the same time? I am not sure if we really need to use the term "anthropocene" in this paragraph. We could explain it differently, simply with the sentence that follows: "humans now have a significant impact on Earth's geology and ecosystems (for example causing unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss and climate change)." EMsmile (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the term is mentioned in the source, I would not purge it from the article. I would not object to "so-called" before Anthropocene, but I thought the scare quotes were a bit much. Better yet, how about wording it in such a way that the statement is attributed to scholars and not presented in Wikipedia's voice, like this: "Some scholars have even proclaimed the end of the concept of sustainability due to what they argue are the realities of the Anthropocene: humans now have a significant impact on Earth's geology and ecosystems (for example causing unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss and climate change)." EDIT: On second thought, I'd prefer to keep the previous version even with the scare quotes over removing the concept altogether. I'll self revert.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am undecided what the best wording should be. Perhaps like this: . This indicates that the choice of words "the realities of the Anthropocene" comes directly from the source? EMsmile (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Works for me.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on overlap with sustainable development
I am trying to reduce overlap with sustainable development and have just started a discussion about it there on the talk page. Please contribute to the discussion there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_development#How_to_remove_overlap_with_sustainability? EMsmile (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried to enter the phrase about critics of the terme "sustainable development" "The concept of sustainable development has been criticized from different angles. While some see it as paradoxical (or an oxymoron) and regard development as inherently unsustainable, others are disappointed in the lack of progress that has been achieved so far."

It was deleted because : "I disagree with copying these two sentences from sustainable development. They belong to the sustainable development article, not this one. Also, the sentence "The concept of sustainability has been criticized from different angles." is already contained in the lead and in the main text under critique. We don't need it 3 times in this article."

The phrase about the oxymoron "sustainable developpment" refers to criticism of sustainable developpment, while the phrases in the lead and the section criticism talks about criticism of sustainability.

This is not the same.

I think that the view of sustainable development as oxymoron have enough scientific weight for being mentioned in the sub-section in the page. Scientist proved many times that “sustainable development,” as advocated by most natural, social, and environmental scientists, is an oxymoron. Continual population growth and economic development on a finite Earth are biophysically impossible. They violate the laws of physics, especially thermodynamics, and the fundamental principles of biology. Population growth requires the increased consumption of food, water, and other essentials for human life. Economic development requires the increased use of energy and material resources to provide goods, services, and information technology." Citation from the source.

I also think that this terme not go well with sustainability. It should be replaced by "improvment' for example. However writing about sustainable developpment without including criticism, enough presented in the scientific world is an WP:Undue weight

Contrarily, the criticism of the term "Sustainability" as I know is much less spreaded in the scientific world. Sustainability has clear definition and most scientist think it is achievable. I think this should be mentioned here. @EMsmile --Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Work required on the lead
The lead is currently not a good summary of the article. However, before we improve the lead we probably ought to revise the structure of the article. I think it often goes into too much detail on topics for which sub-articles exist. This could be culled & condensed, and in some cases the sections about sub-topics could easily be replaced with excerpts. EMsmile (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up the first 600 words a little more, removed a duplicate paragraph and hoisted sustainable development overlap to the top.
 * Can we get help sinking some of the 30 usages of "Sustainable Development" into Sustainable development article.
 * Paragraph 5 "Moving towards sustainability can involve social challenges..." needs to be moved to a more appropriate heading
 * There are many other places where details could be moved into their sub-articles as EMsmile suggests.
 * TheKevlar 22:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 22:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)
 * Let's discuss here what the lead should entail: It should be a summary of the article. In my opinion it should start with the most important current understanding of sustainability, NOT the Latin original meaning (hence I have moved that Latin meaning down to the main text). I think the first paragraph of the lead is quite good now. But we need to summarise also the last quarter of the article, in the 4th paragraph of the lead. We could still do that later though. I have moved that paragraph that started with "Moving towards sustainability can involve social challenges..." out of the lead to the main text under stakeholder responses. Am not totally sure if it fits there though, it needs urther work and references. Regarding your other two points I will reply to them in separate sections just now. (my comment above about details and culling was referring to the November 21 version, not the current version!) EMsmile (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead section as it now have no sence because it is said in the first sentence that this is a goal without saying what is the goal. Therfore a reader will not understand what it is.

Sustainability has very clear definition. Generally this mean the ability to existing constantly reffering to humanity and biosphere. I writed the definition of the UN :"meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It was deleted because it was "that of sustainable developpment". In the site of the UN it was the definition of sustainability but in the document that was cited it was really the definition of sustainable developpment.

Therfore I propose to use the definition in the source cited in the first line "the long-term viability of a community, set of social institutions, or societal practice. In general, sustainability is understood as a form of intergenerational ethics in which the environmental and economic actions taken by present persons do not diminish the opportunities of future persons to enjoy similar levels of wealth, utility, or welfare."

If this looks to you too long or too much close to the definition of sustainable devoppment lets puth the beginning: "the long-term viability of a community, set of social institutions, or societal practice."

It must be repaired because as for now the article did not meet the goal of wikipedia: providing knowledge and reliable information. @EMsmile

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I had overlooked your comment on the talk page so far but I've just deleted your change to the first sentence. We had discussed the first paragraph of the lead in detail here as part of the Good Article reassessment. A decision was made there to keep the first sentence really brief and simple and then to expand on it further in the rest of the lead. You had suggested "the long-term viability of a community, set of social institutions, or societal practice." which is the definition by Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't think that definition is helpful at all because it just replaces one term (sustainability) with another ill-defined term (viability). Also I disagree with your statement that "Sustainability has very clear definition". It doesn't. See the section on "current usage" and the publication by Ben Purvis which we have cited many times because it's very good. We say there: "sustainability is a fuzzy or vague concept". EMsmile (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is sad that you do not invited me to these dicussions. Howevere, there is still no consensus on this issue because I am completely not agree.
 * Susatainability has enough clear definition for being presented in the page. As I have already writed the most repectfull sources like britannica, UN think that there is a definition and "one or even several studies that says other things still did not means that there is a consensus or a majority on this therfore both views should be presented: we should give the most popular definition and than explain that not all agree with it."
 * Otherwices it is an Undue weight.
 * Ben Purvis is still not the entire scientific community.
 * Also as I has writed in the other section in this talk page. When we write than there is not really such thing sustainabiliry "This is also the perfect grownd to environment inaction and Climate change denial. Why really act on climate and environment, why trying to reach sustainability if there is not such thing and the page on sustainability only deal with "dimensions'?" Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean with "It is sad that you do not invited me to these discussions". The discussion took place in the open here and was linked to from this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability#Discussion_about_the_first_paragraph_of_the_lead . Did you overlook that when it took place? Nowhere do we write that "When we write than there is not really such thing sustainabiliry"?? What we do say is that is a concept that is somewhat vague. Ben Purvis is not the only one who said that, he summarised the literatures in his article. I am getting rather fatigued with these discussions that you and I are having here. We need a third and fourth person who can help us here. I've been thinking whom to ping to join in but it's hard to come up with obvious people (many of the earlier editors of this article have stopped Wikipedia editing it seems).  EMsmile (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I say only that maybe you should ping me when you dicsussed that.
 * Yes I think that is someone without Phd, that do not hear about sustanability before, will read the article he will think that there is not such thing "Sustainability".
 * It is writed that this is vague and unclear world buzzword and no where is said what is this - the ability of humanity and bioshpere to exist contantly. It is some goal but no one is know what it is. This is not what the science says (as there is diagreement about this and the most respectful bodies like the UN, britanica think that there is an definition so the 2 point of view should be presented) and a perfect recept for inaction.
 * The first lines in britannica can somewhat explain about it. We can write "According to Britanica..."
 * I will return to the discussion in Sunday. If it is your rest day write later but please not too much. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The section on "Approaches by different stakeholders"
I have now removed the paragraph that had the heading "scientists" because I don't think it fitted here. I've moved it to human impact on the environment. These "warning letters" are about the impact that humans have on the environment, not about the concept of sustainability. This is the paragraph that I moved: "Warnings by the scientific community There are many publications from the scientific community to warn everyone about growing threats to sustainability, in particular threats to "environmental sustainability". The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity in 1992 begins with: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course". About 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including most Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, signed this warning letter. The letter mentions severe damage to the atmosphere, oceans, ecosystems, soil productivity, and more. It said that if humanity wants to prevent the damage, steps need to be taken: better use of resources, abandonment of fossil fuels, stabilization of human population, elimination of poverty and more. More warning letters were signed in 2017 and 2019 by thousands of scientists from over 150 countries which called again to reduce overconsumption (including eating less meat), reducing fossil fuels use and other resources and so forth. " EMsmile (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should agree that this Wikipedia article is not supposed to be some sort of advocacy piece, pushing people to live more sustainably. It would be nice if people did that but it's not the role of Wikipedia. Our role is to inform and provide facts. Here in this article we provide the facts about the normative concept that sustainability is. There are other articles that deal more with implementations like sustainable living, sustainable development and so forth. EMsmile (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Addition to the section on scientific community?
I have removed this recently added text block because I think it doesn't fit into this kind of high level article about sustainability. If we started to add each and any report to this section, it could become too long and arbitrary. The content doesn't even mention sustainability but is probably mainly only about environmental aspects. Might fit better into another Wikipedia article (maybe in sustainable development?): "* In 2022 a report called "Stockholm+50: Unlocking a Better Future" was published by a team of scientists, analyzing the changes made from the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 and giving recommendations for the future. The key messages are; "Redefine the relationship between humans and nature, achieve lasting prosperity for all, and invest in a better future.". In addition, youth researchers issued a youth version of the report, called: "Charting a Youth Vision for a Just and Sustainable Future" also making some recommendations. The key messages are: "Health well being and communal solidarity, living in harmony with nature, international solidarity-living as one global family, a world when all humans are equal. " EMsmile (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I propose to create an article dedicated to the report (to both reports). I think this report deserve it and deserve being mentioned in this page.

Did you read it or at least go over the text? It summarizes the achievments and non achievments in the domain of sustainability in the latest 50 years.

It differs from many other reports exactly by its dealing with environment and sustainability as a whole and not in specific topic like pollution or forest cutting. It propose strategic solutions referring to global society as a whole.

What do you think? Can you help me with it please? @Sadads @EMsmile

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a publication like this should get its own Wikipedia article. Perhaps later in a few years when it's had an impact or broader reception but not now. I haven't read it yet but only glanced over it but nothing jumped at me about the theoretical concept of sustainability that would have to be included in the high level sustainability article. Perhaps some key statements from the publication could be added to sustainable development which I see as the more "applied" topic. EMsmile (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also did not read it all but I checked it for 40-50 minutes. It has at least 6 specific characteristics. I will write it here and if you will find another report in the latest years with those 6 characteristics I will agree with you. If not, I stay with my opinion - it should have it own page and deserve being mentioned in the page sustainability.. @Sadads
 * Deal not with 1 planetary boundary, not with 3, but with the ecological - social crisis as a whole.
 * Present concrete ways how to solve it not only general recommendations.
 * Includes a report that represent the view of the youth scientific society.
 * Includes reccomendations to move beyond GDP, global peace, and ways how to achieve it: for example passing from emphasis on products to emphasis on functions.
 * Includes reccomendation about technology as a whole - how to make it more environmental.
 * Includes lessons from Covid-19. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I had another look at the SEI publication and could not find specific useful content that should be included in this article. This article is an overview of the theoretical construct of "sustainability". It is not a "call to action" or advocacy piece like the SEI publication is. The publication talks a lot about "sustainability goals" and "sustainable development goals" so you might be able to cite it at sustainable development goals or at sustainable development. But even there I don't think it is providing us with relevant information on what those things are, what the barriers are and what approaches are used by people to overcome them etc. - And I think we're having a similar discussion about WP:Recentism and WP:primary sources with another editor who - like you - likes to add content from recently published documents to a range of articles. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prototyperspective#Research_literature_is_very_large and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change_mitigation#Explanation/discussion_of_large_edit EMsmile (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not a publication, but 2 important scientific reports having direct connection to the theme of the page.

Even in the page of the report without entering to the reports themself there are more specific context referring to sustainability then in the 3 other articles in the section about scientific communities. The 3 others are letters not reports, more a call to action or advocacy piece and refer mostly only to some aspects of environmental sustainability (climate change biodiversity losses etc.) while this report refer to all 3 dimensions as a whole: environmental, societal and economic - this is emphasised in the "adult" report demands.

This did not say that the other sources should go because a large parts of the source here like in all environmental pages can be defined as call to action. IPCC reports about mitigation for example.

The section is about "Approaches by different stakeholders"/"Scientific community", therfore in my opinion it has here even more rights than the 3 allready existing sources. All the 4 deal directly with this without them people will not understand what are the approach of sciewntific communities.

Certainly it should have some place in the pages sustainable development goals or at sustainable development but also a shorter mention here: 3 lines are enough in my opinion.

If you see it more carefully you will se that all the page is about "what those things are, what the barriers are and what approaches are used by people to overcome them etc." One of the section of the adult report is justly dedicated to different barriers.

About WP:Recentism and WP:primary sources. I am not going to add any report in this section. But I did not see such report like this in the latest years. I can of course search secondary sources also but the other sources in this section are also can be defined as primary sources.

I am asking you before answering to read the page for see what I writed here.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the report it "was written to provide a scientific basis for the UN international meeting the UN conference, held in Stockholm on 2–3 June 2022. It is intended to stimulate an informed debate on why change towards a sustainable future is not happening at pace with the challenges humans and the planet face, and guide leaders to actions they can take now, informed by relevant science." The conference wasdedicated to the 50 birthday of the conference at 1972. The conference was designed to check what was done in the domain of sustainability in this 50 years. If you see the list of autors and contributors in the youth and adult reports you will see that it represent well the opinion of the bodies dealing with sustainability...

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you putting that paragraph back in for the third time now despite no consensus being reached. As per WP:ONUS, you first need to find consensus for inclusion. So if nobody else joins the discussion, the status quo should remain. To make it clearer, I have shortened the section on "scientific consensus" now and took out the bullet point list. The bullet points looked like an invitation to add more and more. So it's better not to even start such a list. I think the section can be shortened further because it's all about "environmental sustainability" only, not about sustainability in general. Perhaps your focus should rather be on the article human impact on the environment? EMsmile (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the report because you did not responded to my reaction. Therfore I thaught that you have no objections. I waited 3 days. Imagin a situation in wich If someone objected and than decided to stop editing wiipedia. Have I wait forever untill he will respond?
 * The paragraph have more rights to be presented in the section than the other sources (also included by me earlier) as they are only lettres not reports and deal with several most urgent aspects not with all the issues.
 * Sustainability is more important than "human impact on environment" because it shows that the threat is existential.
 * The tree dimension of sustainability are linked to the environmental aspect because society and economy collapse when the environment collapse. Our economy and society are unsustainable because they destroy the environment. And this is what the article must show.
 * As you know Wikipedia is designed to all. People with PhD have other sources so it is even more important that other people will understand it. In Italy for example pupils learn "sustainability" and maybe they will go to this article as they now that the english wikipedia is larger. In other countries also this is regarded as one of the main termes. They should get clear understsnding what is sustainability.
 * The article should explain that sustainability is the possibility of humanity to exist, threats, and the solution. As for now the artyicle do not do it. It says that there is not relly such thing "sustainability" what is NOT what the science says ( britannica generally represent the scientific consensus and she says that there is a definition one or even several studies that says other things still did not means that there is a consensus or a majority on this therfore both views should be presented: we should give the most popular definition and than explain that not all agree with it.
 * This is also the perfect grownd to environment inaction and Climate change denial. Why really act on climate and environment, why trying to reach sustainability if there is not such thing and the page on sustainability only deal with "dimensions'?
 * I agree that the section and the page itself should not be too long. I think for example that the many detailes about environmental threats should be removed: it should be given a short description of the 9 planetary boudaries, main causes of environmental destruction and measurment.
 * About the scientific section I think that 3 lettres and 1 report specifically designed to explain the opinion of the scientific community is not too long If there will be too much reports in the future we can shorten it or use some sign that shows that the section is too long.
 * I worked hurd on improving that article several years ago. Now I see that from one side there are improvments ( the page is shorter now) but from other much of my work is destroyed. I do not remember that someone asked me about the change made. This is not good in my opinion. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The earlier version of the sustainability article (last year) was actually very bad. This was not the fault of anyone in particular, Wikipedia articles are always a works in progress. I think the new version is so much better. I've worked on this over the course of several weeks and months, and each of my edits is explained in the edit summary. Everyone had the opportunity to object, and some people did (see the earlier discussion with Femke as part of the good article reassessment). I didn't do this on my own but with several other experts, mainly Christian Berg who wrote an excellent book on this matter which summarises the scientific literature. I have the book here as a pdf file, I can ask him if it's OK if I send it to you by e-mail. I have cited his book often because it is really very well researched and was a good foundation to reworking this article. EMsmile (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Christian Berg is User:Seemountain by the way (we've been in touch by e-mail and he said he's fine to have his name shown).EMsmile (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting the discussion about the structure
The text below refers to the structure discussion from November 21 (see above on this talk page). EMsmile (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with Seemountain and User:EMsmile about this structure but I have some improvments. First we should define what is sustainability - Definition, section 1 (1 Definitions and common /contemporary use, 3 Dimensions of Sustainability ). Than we should write about the threats to sustainability - Threats, section 2 (5.1 Barriers to sustainability 2.1 Planetary Boundaries 2.2 Environmental /ecological footprint /carbon Footprint 2.3 Carrying capacity  2.4 Resilience

2.5 Industrial metabolism)
 * Than we should pass to solutions - Implementing Sustainability, section 3 (5 Implementing Sustainability ), firstly about the 3 ways to reach it turning around the I = PAT formule because the main discussion is about it. Also we should give about 15 most popular solutions for that people that do not heard about it before, will get some basic guidance.


 * Only after it we should go to position of NGO, science business and government - Responses/reactions from different stakeholders section 4 (4 Responses/reactions from different stakeholders)


 * This is because environment page should go by: explanation, problem, solution. You can see it for example in the page Climate change. This is how it is the easier to understand in my opinion.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We can discuss the structure of course (even though I think the current structure is pretty good now). But to start with, this is NOT an environment page. I think this is where a lot of our disagreements come from. You keep pushing the environmental angle. I see sustainability as a "normative concept", almost like a philosophical construct. There is no such thing as "implementing sustainability" as it's something to strive towards (including many trade-offs), not a fixed position. So your concept of "explanation, problem, solution" doesn't fit here. Perhaps the article sustainable development is closer to what you have in mind (it also gets much more pageviews by the way). EMsmile (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion Sustainability is certainly an environment page even the most important of them in Wikipedia. It is not deal only with environment: it includes also economy and more. But climate change also include it and it is an environment page.
 * The word development in my opinion is not going well with sustainability as it represent an approach based not on good or bad but on some process not controlled by humans (developing countries = meaning all countries mast follow the way of the west more technology etc must "develop" if they want or not) that means how much more complicate tchnology and GDP. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussions about possible shortening
I also support shortening the article. He wasreally to long in october 2021 and even now it is a little too long.

But in my opinion the article has another problem: he miss the most important information about the topic and concentrated on the not so importants things.

The page "Sustainability" in my opinion is one of the most important pages in Wikipedia and the most important in the environmental domain.

It is the most summary page: Climate change is in fact a subdivision of Sustainability like effect of climate change is a subdivision of climate change.

Therfore it should be short and give the needed information.

That is what it must include in my opinion:

DEFINITION:

Explanation what does it means in termes comprehensible for people that are not specialists in the issue. For examole: "the ability to exist constantly. In the 21 century reffers generally to humanity and biosphere". The sources like Britannica or Oxford dictionary say it clearly only in another words (long terme viability etc). Short history of the term. 3 dimensions

THREATS:

The threats to Sustainabilty. short description of the planetary boundaries (2 lines per boundary no more), carrying capasity, ecological footprint (2 lines per term). Explanation of major underlining causes (economy politics social - all together 5-6 lines)

SOLUTIONS:

Explanation of the debate around I=PAT. Presentation of the major views of each path. For example under "affluence" you should mention steady state economy. 3-4 lines to each of the 3 pathes. Below I think should be presented 15 basic solution as basic guide for those who are not specialist, samply as links: for example Reforestation.

In that section should be included sub-section about "sustainable developpment" but it must include a mention about the criticism of ther conception.

POSITION OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS:

4 sections with short explanation about the position of: governments, bussiness, scientists (must include at least several words from the latest report Stockholm+50 specifically designated to help understsnd how reach sustainability), NGO. 4 lines per section. That is all.

-

As it is now the page did not explain what it is sustainability. It says that sustainability is some goal that no one is know what it is. This is a perfect recipe for inaction and Climate change denial.

As I see for example Oxford university it has a definition of "the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level." If you search google for Sustainability definition it came first. Mcgill university define it as "meeting our own needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". While Britannica define it as " the long-term viability of a community, set of social institutions, or societal practice. In general, sustainability is understood as a form of intergenerational ethics in which the environmental and economic actions taken by present persons do not diminish the opportunities of future persons to enjoy similar levels of wealth, utility, or welfare."

If you want to cite exactly I think the Britannica definition is the best.

I passed over the publication of Ben Purvis. He criticize the approach of the "3 dimensions" as it present economical growth as the solution to environmental crisis.

I agree with this: we should not focus on the 3 dimensions but on the definition as "the ability to exist for long time of humanity".

The page have not section about science position. I added it but it was deleted even though it is neccesary: it shows what scientists think about sustainability and how to achieve it. Certainly it can be mentioned in the page Human impact on the environment but also shortly here exactly as the information: "climate change exacerbate wildfires" appeare in the pages "climate change and "effects of climate change".

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In the report Stockholm+50: Unlocking a Better Future. which I think must be included in the page it is writed that Sustainability must become a norme. It will be difficult if the Wikipedia refuse to say what it is (the ability of humanity to exist constantly or for a very long time very simple).

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * From other side there is maybe too much content about the dimensions for example, this can be shortened. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on several aspects:


 * You said: The page "Sustainability" in my opinion is one of the most important pages in Wikipedia and the most important in the environmental domain.. My opinion: It is not the most important Wikipedia article. If I had to choose, I would say climate change is the most important article, but others would say Ukraine is most important or Bill Gates or whatever. You can see from the pageviews which of the articles the Wikipedia readers find most important, and "sustainability" is not one of them. It's anyway futile to try and determine what is "more important" on Wikipedia than another topic.
 * You said: The miss the most important information about the topic and concentrated on the not so importants things.. and we should not focus on the 3 dimensions. In my opinion, the 3 dimensions is absolutely central to the definition of sustainability. For you, sustainability is reduced to the environmental dimensions, that's why you keep equating sustainability to climate change. In the scientific literature, the 3 dimensions are elaborated in detail as can be seen from the two publications that are cited a lot in this article: the one by Ben Purvis and the one by Christian Berg (I recommend that you read the Purvis publication fully, not just pass over it; it is very good and summarises the literature very well).
 * You said: I passed over the publication of Ben Purvis. He criticize the approach of the "3 dimensions" as it present economical growth as the solution to environmental crisis. - he doesn't "criticise the approach of 3 dimensions" but he reviews the literature and shows that there are discussions over trade-offs between the different dimensions. These discussions and trade-offs need to be explained in the article and that's currently included. I don't see why this should be shortened.
 * The Wikipedia article does explain what sustainability is. Please stop saying that Wikipedia refuse to say what it is as it's simply not true. It does require the reader to read beyond the first sentence of the lead but that should be acceptable. The section on "current usage" explains very well how the term sustainability is currently used.
 * The "science position" about sustainability is scattered throughout the article, i.e. by citing scientific publications. I don't think we need more publications in the section "Approaches by different stakeholders" which is more about government, private sector and individuals.
 * I think a lot of the content that you want to add should rather be at sustainable living which will be the more practical article.
 * If you think the section on the 3 dimensions should be shortened then which paragraphs exactly do you think need to be taken out? EMsmile (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Trying to attract more editors to this page by pinging some people
Hello all, I am pinging a few people here who I hope are interested in sustainability. We need your help. In the last few weeks, there seems to be endless debates between me and User:אלכסנדר סעודה. It's going round and round in circles and we seem to be unable to agree on most things, and it's getting frustrating for both of us. Please help. I know it's hard to wade through all the previous discussions here on the talk page. But perhaps you could give your overall opinion whether you think the new (shorter) version and structure of this article is better than the one from October 2021, i.e. before I and User:ASRASR got stuck into it. This is the link to the 9 October 2021 version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&oldid=1048968444. So I am pinging people from WikiProject Climate Change and some who were involved in the good article reassessment: User:sadads, User:Chidgk1, User:Femkemilene, User:Clayoquot, User:NewsAndEventsGuy, User:PlanetCare, User:C.J. Griffin, User:Aircorn, User:RCraig09, User:Bluerasberry, User:Arcahaeoindris, User:buidhe, User:Jusdafax, User:Bruce1ee, User:Hanif Al Husaini, User:Jusdafax. - Thanks in advance. EMsmile (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Interestingly, the sub-article sustainable development gets far higher page views than this one (about double). It's not yet in good shape. Would love to get stuck into that one as well once I have more bandwidth again. EMsmile (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Shorter is better I think the question here is a choice between
 * special:permalink/1048968444 9 October 2021 version
 * special:permalink/1094794028 24 June 2022 version
 * Wikipedia has a certain audience which wants to use this content in a certain way. One of the audience needs is summarizing content to an appropriate amount. At Article size there is a guide that says over 60 kB of readable prose should be divided, and starting at 40k diving for length becomes a possibility if there are other issues. The 2021 version was 73kb. The 2022 version is 29kb.
 * Whatever other discussions are happening about layout and content, article size is an overriding concern, and the 2022 version is closer to the correct amount of content than the 2021 version. If you need a direction to take the conversation, come to agreement about what must be included given the size constraints.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  16:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Shorter is better. More concise enables readers to more easily absorb the most important info about the topic; details belong in sub-articles. Another thing I like about the 2022 version is use of more informative graphics and avoidance of images that don't communicate much and are primarily for decoration. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the article being shorter, so long as material is not being deleted and instead moved to other articles. It seems this is what you are doing, so I'm not opposed to it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi  Bluerasberry , t, C.J. Griffin thank you for taking the time to comment here. Much appreciated. (This page has 612 page watchers but not many of those participate here, sadly). So I think there is broad consensus that the June 22 version is better than the October 21 version, at least based on length and also based on the images used. But is it just length alone? If you could take another look at the type of language and content, could you please tell me if you would agree with me (or not?) that the October version was deviating too far from the core topic, had a lot of tangential, waffly content. Some of that I was able to move to sub-articles, some I deleted. My question in short therefore is: is the current version encyclopedic in style? Does it use reliable sources to satisfy WP:verify? I am very concerned that the changes that User:אלכסנדר סעודה has been proposing on this talk page in the last few days would turn the article into a "how to" guide (how to live more sustainably) which is not Wikipedia's role as per WP:How-to. We're not here to advocate and lobby (no matter how strongly we feel about the importance of sustainable living, climate change...). Some of that user's ideas might fit at sustainable living or human impact on the environment even though those articles should not become "how to" guides either. Is the current version too "academic" and "science-y" though (I don't think so but I am asking you). Does it have too much on "The scientific discussions about the philosophical meaning of sustainability"? I think not but would appreciate additional opinions of people. EMsmile (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Content about how to live sustainably, insofar as it's encyclopedic, should be mainly covered at sustainable living. I don't know the sources well enough to judge WP:VERIFY for either version of the aricle. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Shorter is better from my perspective too. The old version, although well sourced and written, has plenty of superfluous content that is already covered in other articles, and some that do not relate to the core topic (a list proposed by Jared Diamond? Really?). Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)