Talk:Sustainability/Archive 35

Removed a text block about IPAT formula that was too simplistic and poorly sourced
I've just removed this text block in relation with the IPAT formula. The IPAT formula is still mentioned elsewhere in this article, it also has it's own sub-article; so it's not completely deleted but it's now given less weight. The text block here was too simplistic, very poorly sourced (the refs were more related to climate change than sustainability in general). I was prompted to make this change based on feedback by content expert Dr. Lisa M.B. Harrington. She wrote to me (I had asked her to review the article): "I don’t think this section is very well developed/thought out. Would cut entirely, or greatly modify." and "Paragraph does not belong here at all." and "Really? Reference?? I doubt that there is a conscious connection to IPAT on the part of governments.  IPAT, while known amongst academics, is at this point a rather old concept and not something the general public (or politicians) latches on to." I've also noticed that newer publications about sustainability do not refer to the IPAT formula. They might refer to over consumption and affluence, yes, but not to that "formula". This is the text block in question (some of it was reworked by myself earlier in the year, trying to make it fit; but I just don't think that it fits; also the wording "many think that" is not great and not supported by the refs used, see WP:weasle): A model to express human impact on the environment is called the "I = PAT formula" which was developed in the 1970s. This formulation attempts to explain human impact on the environment in terms of three components: population numbers (abbreviated as "P"), levels of consumption, abbreviated as "A" for "affluence"), and impact per unit of resource use (abbreviated as "T" for "technology", because this impact depends on the technology used). The equation states that environmental impact is proportional to population, affluence and technology. In that context, policies for reaching environmental sustainability can be grouped into the following three categories (most governments and international organizations use all three approaches, though they may disagree on which deserves the most priority): EMsmile (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Population: Many think that the most effective means of achieving sustainability is population control, by improving access to birth control and education for girls.
 * 2) Affluence: Many also believe that sustainability cannot be achieved without reducing consumption. This theory is represented in the idea of a steady-state economy, meaning an economy without growth. A method in this category includes increasing energy efficiency. In 2020, scientific research published by the World Economic Forum determined that affluence is the biggest threat to sustainability.
 * 3) Technology: Still others hold that the most promising path to sustainability is new technology. This theory may be seen as a form of technological optimism. One example for this category is transitioning to renewable energy. Other methods to achieve sustainability that are associated with this category include climate engineering or genetic engineering.EMsmile (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This reduce the worth of the page as today also the conversation about how reach sustainability goes around this formula. Today some point to the effects ofmining for the materialsneeded for renewable energy, so the question is is the right way is to change the energy source or reduce the amount of energy used?
 * The expresion "many think that" refers to a fact in this case: some are proponent of one view and some of another.
 * I whould simply search a better sources. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As Lisa Harrington rightly pointed out "I don’t think this section is very well developed/thought out. Would cut entirely, or greatly modify." and "Paragraph does not belong here at all." and "Really?  Reference?? I doubt that there is a conscious connection to IPAT on the part of governments.  IPAT, while known amongst academics, is at this point a rather old concept and not something the general public (or politicians) latches on to.". This is the reason why I took it out. On closer inspection it really was too simplistic and very poorly sourced. Also similar content is already included in other parts of the article. I sometimes wonder if you have read the article in its entirety in detail as you tend you repeat over and over the same stuff? Please review in particular these sections which already contain the required information about consumption, changes needed etc:

EMsmile (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 5 Types of sustainability barriers
 * 6 Sustainability transition
 * 6.1 Action principles
 * 6.2 Example steps
 * 7 Options for overcoming barriers
 * 7.1 Decoupling economic growth from environmental deterioration
 * 7.2 Government action and local governance
 * 7.3 More effective governance for global issues
 * And like I said, Wikipedia does not condone using "many think that" unless the source that is uses says exactly that! Have you read here?: WP:weasle. I feel that I keep telling you about Wikipedia conventions but you just gloss over them if they don't match with your preferences. EMsmile (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I read the article many times. The information presented in the section about I=PAT formula is included partly in the sections that you have mentioned but it is spreaded between them in a fashion that makes difficult to understand the conversations and the different points of view about the solutions. It whould better to put it in the beginning of the section about solutions for explaining the division because the arguing between the "system change" and "technological change" continue.
 * I disagree with Lisa: I think this section is well developed and and thought on. If not I can search better sources. Better references.
 * The sources do mention that part of the experts prefer one way and part another, so we can write it.
 * About the rules of Wikipedia: you said that you can not write something that you do not have consensus about. As I do not agree about the removal of the I=PAT section I ask to return it to its place untill we will find agreement. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Where exactly have you read: "Many think that the most effective means of achieving sustainability is population control" and where exactly have you read "Many also believe that sustainability cannot be achieved without reducing consumption" and where "Still others hold that the most promising path to sustainability is new technology." I think the fact that there are different approaches and transitions to reach sustainability is well explained in the existing Wikipedia article. So I don't think we need to give more space to a concept called IPAT that is not widely referenced in the literature anymore. It would be WP:UNDUE. The information that different routes need to be taken and combined is well explained in the article. We need population control AND technology advances AND reducing consumption. Nobody in their right mind would argue that only one of those three pathways would be sufficient. Show me a recent publication that would argue that ONLY one is needed, not the other. This is all well explained in the article already, see e.g. here: Some example steps humanity can take to transition to (environmental) sustainability include: maintaining nature's ecosystem services, reducing food waste, promoting dietary shifts towards mostly plant-based foods, further reducing fertility rates and thus population growth, promoting new green technologies and adopting renewable energy sources while phasing out subsidies to energy production through fossil fuels. These steps were listed in an update to the 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity. This update or "second warning to humanity" was signed by around 15,000 scientists in 2017. You seem to favour repetition of the same content over and over in the article. I do not. EMsmile (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And with regards to consensus, I am trying my best to reach consensus with you and to compromise whereever I can. Most of the recent edits to the article I've only made because of your suggestions (some of them were good, no doubt, and I think the new structure is better now). However, I feel reaching consensus has to go both ways (you need to compromise as well) and has to also include other editors as well. The fact that only you and I are arguing here is sad!! I wonder if the others are put off by walls of text, repetition and sometimes waffle, opinions and gut feelings. Perhaps they feel they would be wasting their time if they participated on this talk page. I also feel that 95% of the contributions we've had here on the talk page have gone towards agreeing with me. Same with the content experts that I had approached: Tom Kuhlman, Christian Berg, Ben Purvis and now Lisa Harrington. And still you ignore their opinions and advice and keep pushing for your own opinions. How can we reach consensus if you think that only your opinion is right? Can you take on board what the others are saying? - Anyway, no hard feelings please. I just find the process frustrating and I feel that I should step back now and give others room and time to respond as well. It can't be right that only you and I care about this article so deeply. EMsmile (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And I am trying to compromise. Therefore, I have added a bit more information about IPAT back in. It now says: The "IPAT formula", which was developed in the 1970s, states that environmental impact of humans is proportional to human population, affluence and technology. Therefore, to decrease environmental impact and to increase sustainability, routes such as human population control, reducing consumption and affluence (e.g. reducing energy consumption), and developing innovative or green technologies (e.g. renewable energy) would all be beneficial in that respect.. Can you live with that? I think it summarise the previous content quite well without saying "some people say this", "some people say that" which would only be confusing. EMsmile (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I cause frustration. This is not intentionally.
 * I am trying to answer with some time intervals for do not make to much pressure.
 * I try to reach compromise and reach consensus as many things that were this before and was deleted or removed stayed so.
 * Certainly if you are tired you can gives to other to responde.
 * The expression "many thinks" or "some thinks" refers for example to the title of the second source in the removed block: " "The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn't telling you about""
 * This already means that there are disagreement: some think in one way and others think in another.
 * in the text you can read: "Despite the effectiveness of these four measures, neither the textbooks in Canadian schools nor government reports or websites in the European Union, the United States, Canada, or Australia highlight these choices, possibly because most of them require such extreme changes in lifestyle."
 * In the third reference in the text you can read:
 * " The report also posits that it might be time to rethink traditional ideas about supply and demand"
 * "In capitalist societies, the theory goes that consumer need drives the rest of the economy – businesses will only produce things for which there is a demand. But the reality of 21st-century global capitalism is a little more complex than that – some economists argue that growth itself is the problem."
 * What means that there are disagreements, there is no full consensus in what way it is preferable to go, what way should get more emphasis. And some even completely deny some ways. In that case for being as close as much to the objective reality we need to write: "many experts think" or "part of the scientists thinks", "there is some disagreement between scientists in the issue of" etc.
 * Of course we should mention that most prefere to go by all the 3.
 * The Formula I=PAT is widely used in the litterature about sustainability as it shown here This study mention many studies about this folmula including writed in the latest years.
 * Why I want to put this formula in the beginning of the section about solutions?
 * Because as I know there are only 3 wide-known ways to reach sustainability: reduce consumption, reduce population and add more compicated technology. Concrete steps (energy efficiency, reforestation renewable energy, etc.) are part of it.
 * In the section "Example steps" are written some of the steps but someone can ask: Why dietary changes are mentioned and plastic reduction not?
 * The 3 ways encompass all existing steps for reaching sustainability and shows the difference between say "technology change" and "systen change" approaches.
 * The barriers who stop us from reaching sustainability are linked to the construction of capitalist society that wants to increase consumption. Unequal distribution of resources lead to poverty that increases birth rate.
 * Main obstacle for reaching sustainability is that poorer countries want compensation from the rich for the damage already caused by climate change and for the economic stress caused by the transition (partly because it reduce consumption). They want to grow economies for end poverty increasing GHG by the way. But we already have more than enough and if we agree to reduce overconsumption we can share resources and solve this problem.
 * I want that the average man who wants to understand what is sustainability maybe after he firstly heard this term, will understand the main ways. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The barriers who stop us from reaching sustainability are linked to the construction of capitalist society that wants to increase consumption. Unequal distribution of resources lead to poverty that increases birth rate.
 * Main obstacle for reaching sustainability is that poorer countries want compensation from the rich for the damage already caused by climate change and for the economic stress caused by the transition (partly because it reduce consumption). They want to grow economies for end poverty increasing GHG by the way. But we already have more than enough and if we agree to reduce overconsumption we can share resources and solve this problem.
 * I want that the average man who wants to understand what is sustainability maybe after he firstly heard this term, will understand the main ways. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Do we really need to aim for sixth grader? I don't think so but how to improve readability.
I want to pick up on something that you've said a few times, User:אלכסנדר סעודה: "We must provide information that will be clear not only to a professor but also to a sixth grader." This is not Wikipedia policy. Obviously we want to write in a style that is as understandable as possible. But I wouldn't expect children to understand everything in this article. See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable In general, I think it would be young adults (high school graduates onwards) that should be able to understand this article. I agree that this article currently has still too many complicated, long sentences, too many quotes, difficult words, passive voice. Therefore it's readability score is currently low. This is where perhaps the WP:GOCE review can help. But if we keep making content changes then we cannot ask for the GOCE review. The article first needs to be stable first for some weeks. - If you're specifically interested in helping sixth graders you might find the Wikipedia project "simple English" interesting. I don't know how widely it is read and used (probably not so much) but this is how the sustainability article looks on the simple English Wikipedia: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability EMsmile (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * In the rules about technicals articles understandable it is writed "The content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience."
 * The same is writed in the main body of the article.
 * What means: write as simple as possible but no more than it is possible: do not oversimplify.
 * I think the page Sustainability even can not be described as fully "technically".
 * I think "high school graduates" of course read Wikipedia but they have many other sources also.
 * I think about the average men who go in the street consider for example "for who I will vote in the elections"?, heard something about sustainability and want to know about it. I do not think they will read so much simple english Wikipedia because they know english well.
 * I think Wikipedia should be understandable for that kind of people. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well good luck in achieving that! Compare with the article on climate change. This is a featured article in Wikipedia so it's regarded as the best of the best. Do you think a "woman on the street" will understand everything that is in the article? I don't think so. It's not easy to write technical & scientific content at a level that "everyone" can understand it. Nevertheless, folks will understand some of the content and get the gist of it. I always try to improve readability of any Wikipedia article that I come across but it's very hard, especially on topics such as sustainability or sustainable development. But perhaps we can get help from the people at WP:GOCE. Once this article is stable for a few weeks, I plan to approach them. EMsmile (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For very broad articles like this, I tend to aim for an lede that is understandable to 15 year olds (EXPLAINLEAD), and a body that is understandable for a typical 17-year old. The readability score of the article is now 29, which is comparable to your typical difficult academic article. You really need to go a few levels down (GOCE will help with this, but please ask for an experienced copyeditor). Femke (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Femke. So we don't have to try to aim for a sixth grader (which would be 11 years old!), unlike the proposal by User:אלכסנדר סעודה. I invite anyone who's reading this talk page to help with improving readability (but without distorting content of course). I find it hard to do it myself as I was involved in a lot of the content that was added, taking from academic publications - it's not always easy to convert this into simpler language when you're too closely involved. Also with regards to the reading scores that come from the Flesch-Kincaid scores (like this WebFX tool) they "punish" you for using words with many syllables. So a word such as "sustainability" will pull down the score more then a word such as "climate change" would. Anyway, all I am saying is to everyone: "please help with improving the readability score!", aiming for 15 to 17 year olds. EMsmile (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I think we should keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide (WP:NOTHOWTO). Here I am referring to User:אלכסנדר סעודה who I think would prefer if this article gave a heap of instructions on "how to live a more sustainable live". This is not the purpose of the article. It does include some examples of sustainability transitions that could lead to more sustainability but it is not trying to be a how-to guide. For readers who want that, they can easily find this kind of information by typing "how can I live more sustainably" into a Google search field. It brings up loads of content. But for people who wonder "what does sustainability really mean? Where does it come from? Why is it not being achieved? What are the trade-offs?", the Wikipedia article should provide answers. EMsmile (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Removed my own sentence about the most important and essential dimension of sustainability
I've removed this sentence which I had recently added: "For this reason, and in line with the concept of "strong sustainability", the environmental dimension can be regarded as a condicio sine qua non - making it the most important and essential dimension of sustainability." I like the statement and think it should be right but I couldn't find a reference for it. Instead, I have now added a quote from a book by Klaus Bossmann which says something quite similar: "This so called weak version of sustainability is popular among governments, and business, but profoundly wrong and not even weak, as there is no alternative to preserving the earth’s ecological integrity." (probably also the "sina qua non" was too technical, I just have just said "indispensable and essential "). EMsmile (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Degrowth
I've said before I'm a bit concerned that the article uses framing from environmental economics rather than using framing that fits in both environmental and ecological economics. Examples I mentioned before is that it uses externalities in Wikivoice (cited to a book about environmental economics), and putting possibly undue emphasis on price and markets as policy levers, to the detriment of others (mainly regulation).

Another example of this that we don't mention degrowth, only eco-economic decoupling. Again, I'm no expert in sustainability, but I'm not convinced the article is NPOV. A few sources that could possibly be used:. Femke (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. If you have time and expertise in this area, I'd welcome you adding content about this. I take it you are referring to this section on the economic aspects?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Economic_sustainability . I'll also look at the refs that you mentioned but it's not my area of expertise so I would struggle to pull out the right content. The content that is currently in this section is partly what I found when I came to this article and partly as per the edits of Tom Kuhlman and Christian Berg whom I had e-mailed as content experts. Also, could you please clarify which sentence(s) are not good with respect to WP:Wikivoice? I am happy to rework any of them just let me know the specific problem sentences, thanks. EMsmile (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I was mainly thinking about the framing in the lead. The article has become too difficult for me to add to. Femke (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it (degrowth) a bit more. I thought the article on degrowth would help me but it's got a lot of issues on its own (tagged with essay-like). For now, I've just done this: added a link to degrowth. We can also add a sentence that compares decoupling with degrowth (in the context of sustainability), need to research a bit to find a suitable ref. The article degrowth has multiple issues. From my superficial reading it seems to me that degrowth is more related (and in contrast to) sustainable development not so much sustainability. If we think the economic-ecological decoupling needs to be contrasted more with degrowth (in this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Decoupling_economic_growth_from_environmental_deterioration), I think that would be good. Just need to find the right refs. We can also change the section heading to "Decoupling and degrowth" perhaps. EMsmile (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done some work on this yesterday mainly in the section that is now called "issues around economic growth". I've also "toned down" the emphasis on decoupling, explaining while decoupling is theoretically nice, it seems to hardly work in practice. I am not sure if "degrowth" still needs to be brought into the picture more or if that's a whole separate topic/philosophy that is dealt with in degrowth (I looked at degrwoth to see if I could find references that talk about degrwoth in the context of the sustainability discourse but nothing jumped at me, whereas the article on eco-economic decoupling was more useful. Anyhow, would you say the NPOV issues that you had spotted are now reduced? (it's hard to keep this focused an on topic as each of the sub-topics leads to a whole rabbit whole, bunch of other literature etc.) EMsmile (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is why I put the text block about I=PAT that was deleted (see above in the talk page): for show that you can deal with technology (decoupling) and with consumption reduction. It is important to note that if you share resources youcan end poverty without additional economic growth and stop population growth in the same stepbecause fertility rate decline when children mortality decline.


 * The key word about consumtion is in my opinion not degrowth but Steady-state economy because this mean degrowth for the over consumers and growth for those who consume to little. Degrowth does not mean reach zero but reach the best level of consumption. This have strong academic support - economists at least from Adam Smith supported it and several nobel laureats signed the petition for transition to steady state economy. --Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it is all quite well covered now. About the IPAT formula, we have this text block which I think it good and sufficient: The "IPAT formula", which was developed in the 1970s, states that environmental impact of humans is proportional to human population, affluence and technology. Therefore, to decrease environmental impact and to increase sustainability, routes such as human population control, reducing consumption and affluence (e.g. reducing energy consumption), and developing innovative or green technologies (e.g. renewable energy) would all be beneficial. In other words, the broad aim would be to have fewer consumers and less environmental footprint per consumer or person.. A link to the Wikipedia article on Steady-state economy is also provided. At some point you need to realise that one article (on sustainability) cannot cover everything in great depth, from poverty reduction to population control, to Steady-state economy to wealth tax. All these things have their own Wikipedia articles so in a true encyclopedia they are all connected but you draw lines with regards to the amount of detail you add for each of the related sub-topics. Even IPAT has its own article (I = PAT). Unless you have specific text modifications that you wish to propose for certain sentences, paragraphs or sections, then I think this article is for now good enough and should now undergo the WP:GOCE process. EMsmile (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is god enough for go to the WP:GOCE process. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Copy editing started
Feel free to join in. Let's get this done! Horsesizedduck (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Horsesizedduck, thanks for doing this important copy editing work! What are your observations and thought processes so far? I see that you are deleting some sentences, probably with the aim of reducing repetition and "academic language"? If you can, please state in the edit histories the reasons, especially when deleting sentences. I like your work so far; it'll greatly improve readability of the article, I am sure. EMsmile (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @EMsmile Thank you for responding (link to guild of copy editors page here)! I've mostly moved sentences around, deleted only a few I found odd or difficult to understand. Do tell me if you wish to reinsert them and we'll see how it can be done.
 * About the article, I think it has a good bedrock of material to work with, but the problems I've found most concerning were:
 * The general organization of ideas throughout the text, with a feeling of disconnect between consecutive sentences in the lede and (mostly) in the first sections
 * A fixation on restating ideas that have already been introduced, without adding anything new. these are the sentences I've been moving/deleting
 * I must also state that some issues in real life have kept me from progressing as I'd like -- I was hoping to have this finished today, but finding time to work here is difficult. Horsesizedduck (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanations! When reviewing your edits they usually looked like deletions to me even if you were just moving things from A to B (it's not so clear in the mark-up). For the remainder could you please indicate a bit more in the edit summary whether something is deleted (and why) or if it's just moved. I am sure it's all perfectly justified, it would just help me follow along more easily. Thanks! - With regards to the lead, I found it hard to write it very nicely as it's meant to be a summary of the entire article. That's why the logical flow in the lead is not great but it's just one statement after the other. I'm not too sure how to improve on that, given that we have about 4 paragraphs to summarise the main content of the entire article. EMsmile (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @EMsmile As it has been over a day since I last edited, and I can't find the time to do this properly, I'm going to drop this, step aside, and let someone else take over. I hope what I did was satisfactory, and I will be available to continue helping here if needed, but I think the article might get more expert attention now if it isn't held up by me. Horsesizedduck (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a pity! I think there is no great rush (it's hard to find interested editors for this topic), so if you find time here and there over the coming days/weeks to continue with the review, please do. EMsmile (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added some replies to your hidden comments. Should we bring them to the talk page? In particular I don't think that the section called "trade offs" would need to be cut. Why would you want to cut it out? EMsmile (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Worked on a section that I have now called "Discussion about hierarchy"
I found two good publications that I've now used to provide more content about why the environmental dimension should have special status in all this. One is from a 2022 publication which was a huge literature review. The chapter on "planetary integrity" was very enlightening (I have also used it a lot for the SDG article). The other is a landmark publication by Klaus Bosselmann from 2010 which used the term "ecological integrity". It has been cited a lot by other authors later, e.g. in the 2022 report that I mentioned just before. They are both open access which is handy. - I think this new content will help to address some concerns raised earlier on this talk page which said that the environmental dimension is the foundation for everything. EMsmile (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Question about caption for the image in the lead
Hi User:Wmtwmt I see you have changed the caption for the image in the lead with this edit summary: "Revised the caption of a figure to cause three representations of sustainability to be equally valid rather than one being "typical" and the others "alternative". All three representations are well-represented in scholarly literature and other contexts." The original caption for this open access paper was: "Left, typical representation of sustainability as three intersecting circles. Right, alternative depictions: literal ‘pillars’ and a concentric circles approach" So from that literature reviews, the finding was that the intersecting circles image is the most common/typical one. That's also my impression, although of course it's hard to prove something like that. The image with the 3 literal pillars is rather rare, I would say as everyone knows that the 3 dimensions overlap and sometimes contradict each other, leading to the need for trade-offs. I would be tempted to change the caption to indicate that the representation with the 3 intersecting circles is more typical than the other two, using the reference number 1 (Ben Purvis) as a source for this statement. Could we reach consensus about that or to do you feel strongly about it? Maybe you even have other publications at your finger tips that I haven't yet cited for this article? - Also, do you have any other comments about this article? (asking because you hadn't edited this article before) EMsmile (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking about this question. Over the last couple days I did a little digging into the scholarly literature and other online representations of sustainability, and my sense is that the concentric model, the intersecting circles/Venn diagram model, and the pillars (or the structurally similar three-legged stool) model are all fairly common, but for different reasons. My understanding is that the concentric model (also called the "strong model" here https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/2015/2015) most accurately represents the real relationship among the three concepts, and is increasingly being used in scholarly literature. The intersecting model (called the "weak model" in that same article) is also frequently used, often in business contexts.  And the pillars/stool model is still present in many places on the internet, but often for historical reasons.
 * https://ijair.org/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/IJAIR_2975_FINAL.pdf
 * (All three)
 * https://sustainabilityadvantage.com/2010/07/20/3-sustainability-models/
 * (Concentric and intersecting but not pillars)
 * https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Concentric-circle-model-of-the-three-pillars-of-sustainability_fig1_326167693
 * (Concentric and intersecting but not pillars)
 * My sense, over the past 15 years or so, is that the intersecting circles and the three legged stool/pillars models used to be the dominant representations, but that in more recent years, the concentric circles model has been increasing in relevance since it more accurately reflects the real relationship among the three topics (essentially, if the economy collapses it does not mean that society or the environment will collapse, but if the environment collapses, society and the economy will too, since they are dependent on it). Simultaneously, the three legged stool/pillars model is falling out of favor (but still well-represented online).
 * If I were writing this article on my own as a scientist, I would primarily highlight the concentric model, since it most accurately reflects the relationship among economy/society/environment (and therefore I would have only that model in the top image, and then perhaps include all three models later on in the article). But I can see the value of including all three as a documentation of different representations of this concept, and of historical understandings of sustainability, so I understand if it's better to keep all three.  But having the caption call the Venn diagram version "typical" and the others "alternative" doesn't seem right to me, and just editing the caption seems like the least interventionist way to address it, being a relative newcomer to the space.
 * Happy to chat more about it, though. Thank you for all your work documenting this and other topics in Wikipedia! Wmtwmt (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Wmtwmt, thanks for this interesting reply. I broadly agree with your findings and perceptions. Now how do we harness that for the Wikipedia article, given that we are not allowed to do WP:original research and we need WP:reliable sources for everything and also provide a balanced view as per WP:DUE. The three publications/websites that you found are interesting but I wouldn't class them as very "reliable" in the Wikipedia sense. Better are literature reviews in peer reviewed journals, or books from well respected authors and so forth. Either way, I've modified the caption of the figure in the lead to give a subtle emphasis to the nested circles diagram (by the way, I would call it "nested circles" not "concentric circles" as they're not really concentric. The new caption now reads: Visual representations of sustainability and its three dimensions: Left, sustainability as three intersecting circles. Right top, a nested circles approach. Right bottom, literal 'pillars'. The schematic with the nested circles emphasizes a hierarchy of the dimensions, putting "environment" as the foundation for the other two.. EMsmile (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! This all sounds great.  And I completely agree that "nested" is correct and "concentric" is wrong.  Thanks for mentioning it! Wmtwmt (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have suggestions on how we could integrate some of your findings into the section that I've called: discussion about hierarchy? Do we perhaps even need a new section called "Development of visual depictions of sustainability"? We'd need reliable sources for anything that we add.EMsmile (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I really like the "discussion about hierarchy" section! I think it does a really great job of presenting important ideas.  Thank you for writing it! Wmtwmt (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, please also look at two related articles that I've been working on recently, perhaps you could help there as well?: Sustainable Development Goals and sustainable development. Especially the latter one still needs a lot of conceptual work to improve it. EMsmile (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the invitation to contribute. It's very useful to know where contributions would be helpful.  I'll try to take a look in the next week or two.  Thanks again! Wmtwmt (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikilink with trade off
Hi User:Gobonobo: you took out the wikilink for trade off. I suggest to put it back in because even though it's a "common term" it's actually not easily understood by everyone. I think it's more complex than what people might think. Also, non-native English speakers might not be so familiar with the term. Since we have a good Wikipedia article for trade off, I think we might as well link to it in 1-3 places. EMsmile (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem, but that article is not really that good. Also, see MOS:LINKONCE regarding guidance on linking terms multiple times. gobonobo  + c 11:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Yea, it's not yet great but hopefully will improve in future (?). It gets around 380 pageviews per day. It would be good if the trade off article had a link to or mention of the sustainability article. Regarding overlinking, I think it's fair to link from the lead, then when it first appears in the article, and perhaps one more time towards the second half of the article if it's a long article (most people don't read articles from start to end but may jump in right at the middle or somewhere else...). EMsmile (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Louisiana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)