Talk:Sustainability/Lead

Archive
Archive 1: Early drafts/discussion Archive 2: Arriving at version for main page

Latest clean copy (current version)
Sustainability, in general terms, is the ability to maintain balance of a certain process or state in any system. It is now most frequently used in connection with biological and human systems. In an ecological context, sustainability can be defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.

Sustainability has become a complex term that can be applied to almost every system on Earth, particularly the many different levels of biological organization, such as; wetlands, prairies and forests and is expressed in human organization concepts, such as; eco-municipalities, sustainable cities, and human activities and disciplines, such as; sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture and renewable energy.

For humans to live sustainably, the Earth's resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished. However, there is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to return human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits.

Since the 1980s, the idea of sustainable human well-being has become increasingly associated with the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres. In 1989, the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) articulated what has now become a widely accepted definition of sustainability: "[to meet] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

GT Edit of copy from main page
Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure by maintaining or supporting a process or state over the long term, of maintaining a certain process or state although the word is now frequently used specifically in connection with biological and human systems.

In an ecological context, sustainability can be defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. However, it the term sustainability has become a wideranging term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth over any spatial or temporal scale. So, for example, it can be used for different kinds of biological organization from like wetlands, to  or forests, or and is expressed in human organization like concepts, such as; ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities, and human activities and disciplines like, such as; sustainable agriculture and sustainable architecture, and even the overall carrying capacity of planet Earth as the the human population increases. renewable energy.

Since the 1980s, the idea of human sustainability has become increasingly associated with the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to: “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This definition is from the United Nations Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future and it has been widely adopted as a broad definition of human sustainability on Earth.

For humans to live sustainably there must be sufficient biophysical resources, after human harvesting, to maintain healthy and diverse living systems. There is now clear scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to return human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits.

Copyedit
This was the hardest section to write and will I expect be the hardest to find references for.

My "big thought" on this section is that the best leads mirror the flow of the article, such that the structure of the lead is a microcosm of the structure of the article. Not at all sure whether this is achievable or necessary in this case, although given everything we've said about processes operating at different scales, it would be kind of cool.--Travelplanner (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead is the part that concerns me most - I think we can tweak the rest. I have tried to edit it into something I find more acceptable than the present version but it still needs to be more "engaging" and reflect the article content better than at present. TP you suggest a brief "overview" - what about it - feel free to be cool! If you dont want to launch straight in then maybe just brief notes to see how it looks and feels. Please feel free to re-edit my new suggestions too. As Sunray says, "direct but civil" seems a useful rule for productive editorial collaboration. Its interesting though, after a while you seem to get an understanding of how other editors are approaching the task. The last sentence could be a kind of lead-in to a summary of what is to follow.Granitethighs (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that Ecovillage From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Ecovillages) is a non notable term and a non notable neologism or if notable is a backwater word that is not in use or not a good connector article. That article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. It may be a project by an editor and have undue weight in the article. After all... there is no such thing really... and it is a projection. Right off the bat... credibility is lost in the beginning of the lead going to a article that is not really sourced and not really notable. skip sievert (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The quality of the current Wikipedia article on the topic of ecovillages is not the issue. The issue is verifiability; and we can't verify something through an internal wikilink anyway.


 * I volunteered to assist in finding references, but I'm not quite clear what we're trying to verify in this paragraph;
 * 1. is there a concept called "ecovillage"? (easy to verify);
 * 2. do such communities aspire to be sustainable? (almost as easy)
 * 3. are there examples of ecovillages which are measurably more sustainable than similar communities without such aspirations? (verifiable)
 * 4. are all communities that claim to be eco-villages sustainable? (impossible to verify).
 * I think what's being claimed here is somewhere between 2) and 3) but was hoping to collect references for this section last, because it's sooo difficult....--Travelplanner (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile GT, I wonder if there's a way of reinforcing the "different spatial scales" idea by having two images in the lead; the "blue marble" stays of course but is there an image that speaks to you of sustainability on the scale of small ecosystems?--Travelplanner (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Last look
I have had another go at the lead (see green and blue edits below the current version) because I felt there were hiccups in flow and content. I have used "endure" because it means "to last" and seems to me to be the simplest synonym of the word "sustainable" but this is a matter of taste - if you do not like it please say so. (I know Skip sees the word as unduly "poetic" - but surely we speak of endurance in a simple way). The other point is to ask if we have met all the requirements for a Lead. I dont know how we summarise the whole article in 3-4 paragraphs but perhaps someone has word skills that can make it more flowing and suggest more of the article content. I like TP's idea of a good pic that exemplifies sustainability on a small scale so we combine the large (blue planet) and small scale together in one opening pic. Finally, I realise I'm the only one to ask for another look at this Lead so if you've had enough now, that's fine we can leave it in its current state. Granitethighs (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * GT asks if we have met all the requirements for a lead. These are summarized in WP:LEAD, as follows:


 * "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead..."


 * Another important criterion is plain language:
 * "Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic.


 * Does our lead achieve that? Does GT's redraft move us in that direction? Certainly, I think we could improve on the current lead. And I do think that GT's re-draft moves towards a better overview of the article. However, one of the problems of the current lead is its readability level which comes out as "college graduate." In short, it is hardly "plain language." GT's redraft doesn't improve readability (in fact, it moves slightly in the opposite direction). So I would say, that we have some work to do to make major improvements to the lead. I'm up for that if others are. Sunray (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What was wrong with "Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure." as an opening sentence? Skip I recall you had a problem with this sentence, but to me it's a perfect starting point - simple to understand, neutral and it makes you want to read on.--Travelplanner (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it too, a lot in fact - we have the choice of "in a broad sense" or "in general terms" to go with it. I like "in a broad sense" for precision, but it is less user-friendly. Please keep going TP. Granitethighs (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * PS I've been looking for awhile for some sort of quote or reference regarding sustainability at different scales - no ref is needed in the lead I don't think but it would be helpful to have one later on. Still no great success but here's a quote that captures the the global scale well - "The system of life on this planet is so astoundingly complex that it was a long time before man even realized that it was a system at all and that it wasn't something that was just there." (Douglas Adams)--Travelplanner (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit

 * OK I've had a go at lowering the reading age, have done my best not to change the substance relative to GT's latest version above, but I had to reorder things a lot. I stripped out all the references as I found it easier to work on the flow without them, we can add them back once we've got this right...--Travelplanner (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure. in general terms, is the ability to maintain balance of a certain process or state in any system. The word is frequently used to describe the capacity of biological systems to remain diverse and productive over time. Human systems can also be sustainable if natural resources are used at a rate less than the rate at which allowed to they regenerate faster than they are used.

Sustainability has become a wide-ranging term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, from a local to a global scale. Complex biological systems, including wetlands and forests, are examples of sustainability. So too are the invisible cycles that redistribute oxygen, nitrogen and carbon through living and nonliving systems. As the earth’s human population has increased, the extent of forests and wetlands has reduced and the balance of natural cycles has changed.

Efforts to reduce the consumption of organize so as to use resources and the production of waste more sustainably include ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities. The disciplines of sustainable agriculture and sustainable architecture, and the development of new green technologies and renewable energy are ways of applying science to become more sustainable.

There is now clear strong scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably. and that an unprecedented Clearly a major collective effort is needed to return human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits. Since the 1980s, the idea of human sustainability has become associated with is increasingly seen as the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to: “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”


 * Thanks TP - I can see what you are trying to do - it flows much better but some of the logical connections and nuances of meaning have been lost IMO. My preference would be for a style somewhere between this and the version you were working from - with material to flesh out connections to the meat in the rest of the article. Sunray, could you have a go now? Between us we can nail this I'm sure. Granitethighs (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the first sentence as is. The other version is anthropomorphic, confusing and idiosyncratic to G.T.... and it does not reflect any mainstream commentary as to definition. This works and works well Sustainability, in general terms, is the ability to maintain balance of a certain process or state in any system. It is not a capacity to endure. Enduring is a human emotion and totally inappropriate in this context. This is a very basic observation. The word (endure) is frequently used to describe the capacity of biological systems to remain diverse and productive over time. Not true. Ridiculously not true. Please do not make this very basic and glaring edit misapplication. skip sievert (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I like what TP has done. It definitely improves readability and provides a good overview of the article. The lead sentence that we have previously agreed to seems better to me. Otherwise, I've just made a few tweaks. Sunray (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I ask you to consider that in the opening we move from the most general senses of sustainability (i.e. “to last” or somesuch) to the current and most widely used sense today (“human sustainability” or somesuch). For the very first sentence then I suggest we start off on as neutral, general and "mainstream" ground as possible which means essentially Dictionary stuff. The following outline captures the major dictionary senses of the verb to sustain - and hence the word sustainability:


 * (intrans.) To endure, keep in being, or continue in a certain state.
 * (trans.) To maintain or keep in existence (something e.g. an object, action or process).
 * (trans.) To provide for or nourish (something).
 * (trans.) To experience, receive or suffer (something -an injury, etc.).
 * (trans.) To confirm, prove or corroborate (something, as in to sustain an objection' or a 'sustained argument'; in a court of law an objection is ruled as sustained or overruled).
 * (trans.) To support hold up, bear the weight of, or keep from falling (something).

My preference based on the above would then be close to:

“Sustainability, in general terms, is the capacity to maintain, endure or support.”

Our current sentence, I feel, is rather long and complicated and although I know why the word “balance” is in there I think it is distracting. What about (or a variation on) the following:

“Sustainability, in general terms, is the capacity to maintain or support a certain process or state indefinitely.”

Skip has criticized the “indefinitely” as superfluous but it conveys well the idea of sustaining as something that is continuing or lasting. I will let this matter rest now and move on to the rest. What do you think? Granitethighs (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That version is anthropomorphic, confusing and idiosyncratic and it does not reflect any mainstream commentary as to definition of environmental or earth issues in regard to the subject. It is not a capacity to endure. That is an expression that relates to humans suffering through something. Enduring is a human emotion and totally inappropriate in this context. A very basic misapplication. Indefinitely has no place there either. There is no indefinitely in the earth system. Everything changes... nothing immortal, all existential.


 * Balance is the word also... not faster than they are used in the lead... If they are allowed to regenerate in a state of balance, or maintaining balance. That is basic. Balance. If something generates faster than they are used that is the same as ecological destruction or collapse also for different reasons. That sentence in nonsensical as written now. skip sievert (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. "Endure" has several senses too. The one I think most people are familiar with is simply "to last" - the universe has endured for 14 billion years. It need have absolutely nothing to do with human emotions - you are applying the word in a narrow sense - as in "he was enduring pain". That point made you should be able to see that neither of the above suggestions has any necessary anthropomorphic connotations. Now, how are the words support, endure and maintain (the key words) idiosyncratic? They are simple words that recur frequently in dictionary definitions: to describe them as such is unnecessarily provocative. Your next point is relevant because it shows that you have assumed immediately that the article is about "environmental or earth issues". I agree but I think we need to establish this more slowly from where the reader will start - which is not necessarily at that point. I will not go into a philosophical diatribe on the word "balance" except to say I think it is problematic in several ways (not least of which is that you can sustain a condition that is not in balance). "Indefinitely" as I suggested is a matter of taste. Clearly you do not like it, that's fine. I think if we had  "Sustainability, in general terms, is the capacity to maintain, endure or support" this precludes the need for a complicated addition like "the ability to maintain balance of a certain process or state in any system" which is unnecessarily complicated, if indeed it is needed at all. Finally, what on earth does "Balance is the word also... not faster than they are used in the lead... If they are allowed to regenerate in a state of balance, or maintaining balance. That is basic. Balance. If something generates faster than they are used that is the same as ecological destruction or collapse also for different reasons. mean? I agree that this sentence is nonsensical as written.Granitethighs (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I get what you are saying GT. The "capacity to endure" does seem like a simple way of conveying a general notion of what sustainability is. I also agree that it is not necessarily anthropomorphic. The more I look at what we've got now, I think that a simpler formulation would be better for the lead sentence. However, I would like to keep the notion of balance in the lead somewhere. "Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources" seems to me to be an important component of what we are talking about in the article. Sunray (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks SR. On the "balance" thing I'm a bit wary because there is a debate that, on the one hand we seem to have a balanced biosphere (we speak about the "balance of nature") that is self-maintaining (Gaia) but on the other hand when looked at over any significant time frame the biosphere has changed vastly with many organisms coming and going, groups ascending and becoming extinct. Ecosystems coming and going. Climate and biogeochemical cycles changing vastly, life emerging and clearly in the future, the world doomed to cook as it gets absorbed into the Sun. This school of thought doesn't see a balance at all, just change. I suppose the basic question is what is in balance with what? What we are actually trying to say it seems to me is that we need to maintain nature in a condition that will not significantly threaten our (or its, or future generations) well-being. Is "balance" the appropriate word here? I just think the Lead needs to be totally transparent. Perhaps I've misunderstood? Granitethighs (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of spacial self-organization in plant communities and the resulting "balance" of a mature forest, steppe or wetland. But what some refer to as 'balance' may actually just be slower change. We do speak to that in the next paragraph and the way TP has worded it gets the point across. Balance may be an anthropomorphic idea. Sunray (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I comment about this discussion on the main talk page. Basically, I support what we had previously for the opening sentence. I'll offer my thoughts on the rest of the lead asap. Nick carson (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've switched back to the change to the lead sentence proposed by GT. Skip is not happy with the word "endure" but has indicated he will stand aside. So, any other comments before we put it up? Sunray (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes... read the comment below. This is a poorly thought out word choice and it starts the article out with a thud. Don't put it up. skip sievert (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Penultimate draft
Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure. However, In ecology, the word is increasingly used to describe s the way biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. and the potential For human s systems it is the potential to prosper into the future provided when natural resources are allowed to regenerate faster than they are being used.

Sustainability has become a wide-ranging term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, from a local to a global scale and over various time periods. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable complex biological systems. The So too are the Life-supporting invisible chemical cycles that redistribute water, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon through the world's living and nonliving systems. These have sustained life for billions of years. As the earth’s human population has increased there has been a reduction in the extent of natural ecosystems have declined. forests and wetlands has reduced and a The change in the balance of natural cycles that is having has had a negative impact on both humans and other living systems.

There is now abundant scientific evidence indicating that humanity is living unsustainably. Clearly a major collective effort is needed to return Indications are clear that the return of human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits will require major collective effort. Since the 1980s, human sustainability has been increasingly seen as implied the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to: “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Efforts to live more sustainably can take many forms from reorganising our living conditions (e.g.ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), reappraising economic sectors (sustainable agriculture), or work practices (sustainable architecture), using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy), to adjustments in our individual lifestyles.

Comments

 * The green text looks worse than it is - I've not made that many changes just tried to keep the logic clear. I have moved the "ways to be more sustainable" paragraph to the end because it is "positive" and follows the order of the main article with its "transition" bit at the end. Thanks TP for making it simpler and SR for keeping things moving along and keeping a steady eye on things (not to mention the great editing and doing that last pass). I was brought up on the "whatever can be said can be said simply" principle and I think it holds. I get immediately suspicious when text is "unnecessarily" obscure and I think this opening now covers a lot of complex ground in a few simple words. I've been looking at FA articles and most of them do not have any citations in the Lead - I think we can possibly be the same here, what do you think? Finally, I wont ask for any more to be gone over. You might want to adjust the changes I've made but I think I've had my chance now, thanks for being patient and revisiting the Lead when we were so close to submission. Hope you think it was worthwhile. Granitethighs (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the logic is clearer and I like the switching of the last two paragraphs. Unfortunately it has gone back up in readability level. I think this is mostly attributable to bigger words and longer sentences. I liked the elegant simplicity of the previous version of the second paragraph. It had the virtue of crystalising the idea of sustainability without sounding text-bookish. I thought it met the "brilliant prose" description of the FA criteria &mdash; so I'd like to restore that. I shall have another go at the rest.  We make progress slowly at times, but in the end, I am sure it will be worth it. :) Sunray (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the first paragraph. Though the changes are relatively small, they dramatically improve the readability level. I must retire now, but will continue tomorrow, unless there are objections. Sunray (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine - it is the last bit so we can keep tweaking provided we have the stamina. I'm game. Granitethighs (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is pretty ridiculous for reasons mentioned... Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure... not only does it not make sense it is idiosyncratic and misinformed as to the actual idea, though you all find it endearing. Capacity to endure in this context is a nonsense phrase. skip sievert (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You mentioned this on the main talk page and said I do not understand your objection. I asked you to support what you are saying with references. Would you be willing to do that now, please? Sunray (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all sure why one word could lead to so many words of discussion. The first two paragraphs now lead from the simple "capacity to endure" (in the sense of "last through time") then GT's bit about biological systems (what if we weren't worried about reading age would be called "dynamic equilibrium"), then some examples (wetlands, forests, the carbon cycle) in the next paragraph which again speak to dynamic equilibrium without the jargon.  The point of the lead is just that, to lead someone into reading the article - starting simple and introducing complex ideas in stages.  To me it works - Skip doesn't like it, but his suggestions amount to leaping straight to the complex ideas first.


 * I quite liked my second paragraph, some of the flow has been lost in GT's changes and the sentences got a lot longer, and if there is a change in meaning it's a subtle one.


 * From the third paragraph on, the above version looks great.--Travelplanner (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks TP. I completely agree with your interpretation of the way the article "leads in" to its main emphasis - I understand Skips point but think he has misunderstood the way the article moves from the very general sense of sustainability to a more particular one. To do otherwise would be misleading unless we specifically define what we are dealing with immediately as a specific sense of the word sustainability. Much better the way we have gone I think. We are now getting close. Paragraph 2 seems to be problematic, we need a bit of work on this and then we are close to consensus. TP your version read as follows:
 * "Sustainability has become a wide-ranging term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, from a local to a global scale. Complex biological systems including wetlands and forests are examples of sustainability. So too are the invisible cycles that redistribute oxygen, nitrogen and carbon through living and nonliving systems. As the earth’s human population has increased, the extent of forests and wetlands has reduced and the balance of natural cycles has changed." I felt that within this were several intuitive leaps that a reader might misunderstand. First (in "big words") I think it is important to indicate that sustainability can be understood in both spatial and temporal dimensions so I included the temporal bit. Second, to say "wetlands and forests are examples of sustainability" is not true unless the particular forests and wetlands are indeed "self"-sustaining. I tried to address this in the rewrite. Thirdly, the "invisible cycles" are, to my mind a fundamental indicator that we (humanity) are disturbing, to our own detriment, what once seemed like a balanced system. I tried to convey this in the rewrite, obviously rather clumsily as both TP and SR have indicated its too "heavy". TP you've got a way with the words here, if you can take in my points I'll be quiet and we'll be just about done wont we? Granitethighs (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm done. I like TP's point about the transition from the simple to the more complex. Readability has improved overall. A good lead, I think. Sunray (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at the last paragraph. It is a run-on sentence and throws a lot of information at the reader. I was wondering whether it would be more accessible if we put it in list form, along these lines:


 * Becoming sustainable has many aspects:
 * Using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy)
 * Reappraising economic sectors (green building, sustainable agriculture)
 * Changing work practices (sustainable architecture),
 * Creating new types of human settlements (ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities)
 * Making fundamental adjustments to individual lifestyles.

Sunray (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a bit clumsy as it stands isn't it? I remember reading that bulleted lists are discouraged in articles in general, especially in Leads. We might have to face this under review because we have one notable one on "global goals". I dont think we would get away with it - so, I agree, we need to address your point and express this last paragraph in a more digestible way. I'll have a think too. Granitethighs (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are lots of FAs with lists of this nature. I think that it is open lists that are deprecated. However, I think you are right about bullets not being used in the lead. We could do it like this:


 * Becoming sustainable has many aspects, including: a) using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy), b) reappraising economic sectors (green building, sustainable agriculture) c) changing work practices (sustainable architecture), d) creating new types of human settlements (ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities) and, e) making fundamental adjustments to individual lifestyles.


 * I'm not sure that this is any easier to read, though. Perhaps we could get our peer reviewer to comment. I will do that. Sunray (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph
Just a couple of points - if possible I would like TP to have a go at my suggestions for para 3 when I asked about the current wording ... "Sustainability has become a wide-ranging term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, from a local to a global scale. Complex biological systems including wetlands and forests are examples of sustainability. So too are the invisible cycles that redistribute oxygen, nitrogen and carbon through living and nonliving systems. As the earth’s human population has increased, the extent of forests and wetlands has reduced and the balance of natural cycles has changed." I felt that within this were several intuitive leaps that a reader might misunderstand. First (in "big words") I think it is important to indicate that sustainability can be understood in both spatial and temporal dimensions so I included the temporal bit. Second, to say "wetlands and forests are examples of sustainability" is not true unless the particular forests and wetlands are indeed "self"-sustaining. I tried to address this in the rewrite. Thirdly, the "invisible cycles" are, to my mind a fundamental indicator that we (humanity) are disturbing, to our own detriment, what once seemed like a balanced system - they are not IMO "examples of sustainability". I tried to convey this in the rewrite, obviously rather clumsily as both TP and SR have indicated its too "heavy". I would like TP to have a go at this if possible please. Also have we resolved the way to present the last paragraph? Granitethighs (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Spatial" and "temporal" are not particularly big words, but they are not commonly used by most non-scientists. What did you think of TP's argument that we need to bring the reader gently into this subject? With respect to your second question: Are there examples of wetlands or forests that are not self-sustaining, if water sources are not cut off? Short of planetary catastrophe that interferes with photosynthesis, will not O, C and N cycles continue perpetually? The fact that these cycles have been affected by human intervention is indeed an indicator that we may be heading for just such a catastrophe. It seems to me that it is not the cycles themselves that are an indicator of unsustainability it is their modification. In sum, I'm not understanding your objection. If the reader reads on, s/he will learn more about all this. It seems to me that the art of the lead is to encourage this process. I like that paragraph the way it is and, if it is to be modified, I would like to hear more about why. Would you be willing to oblige before anyone has another go at it? Sunray (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I dont know what to do except edit what is there into a form that I think expresses the situation more clearly (and less ambiguously) than the current version. I have done this in red. Of course feel free to change this back if you dont think it is self-explanatory. I'm more than happy to explain more what I am trying to do if that is necessary. I have to get some sleep - its still a bit clumsy but see what you think. Granitethighs (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bravo, GT. I like the way you have clarified the text without dramatically altering its readability. With a few tweaks, it will have as high a readability score - perhaps not as poetic, but nevertheless, readily understandable. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks SR, as you say it just needs a few tweaks to make it flow more evenly now. Could you and TP (where is she?) please have a go? Granitethighs (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweaking done. Sunray (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuing discussion about the lead sentence
The lead sentence does not relate to the subject. It is really pretty lame as to getting across any kind of meaning. ''I understand Skips point but think he has misunderstood the way the article moves from the very general sense of sustainability to a more particular one. To do otherwise would be misleading unless we specifically define what we are dealing with immediately as a specific sense of the word sustainability.''... G.T. - We are not here to be leading or misleading. This is not a flowery abstracted writing project. Enduring is a very very poor word choice... and sets a nonsense tone then for the information that follows. Credibility? No. Anthropomorphic nonsense... Yes. skip sievert (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How does the lead sentence not relate to the subject? Surely it defines sustainability in a general way. Why do you say that "enduring is a very poor word choice"? That is an opinion. Why does the proposed lead not have credibility? How is it anthropomorphic? Would you be able to provide some reference other than your personal opinion? Sunray (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, here is one example - there are many others . Needless to say, your tone is, as usual, uncompromising and tendentious. It is hard not to conclude that you are simply being deliberately disruptive. Of course, we can debate this point but expressions like "flowery abstracted writing project", "nonsense tone", "anthropomorphic nonsense", "pretty lame" are not helpful - although they do raise a grin I must admit, like coming across the thrashed dead horses for the first time - this being a case in point.  Granitethighs (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the citation, GT. I found the title of the book apt. We are, after all, trying to find the most accessible lead sentence. I would like to keep on track here, if possible. If Skip documents his concern let's deal with it. If not, let's move on. Sunray (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you find a better connector than The Complete Idiot's Guide to Saving the Environment which looks like a total piece of junk writing project someone hacked their way through? . This is your source for the sentence? That is really sad. That is a dimestore hack novel... for bored beach goers. Wow... that is where the sentence is from?


 * Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure. Endure what? Document my concern? My concern is that this is what I said it was. It means less than nothing... is not really descriptive or illustrating of anything except human emotion. Is lack of sustainability a capacity not to endure? Endure what? Is lack of sustainability unendurable for the earth? Frivolously requesting citations for obvious or well known information or misapplying words... does it really need documenting? Untested facts or arguments, original research that presents word usage based on your own experience, or your own ideas, theories, or arguments, even when these are based on established facts, are not allowed, according to Wikipedia policy. At least in the complete idiots guide they at least have an illustrative and developed sentence unlike here. skip sievert (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely a lack of sustainability would be the lack of capacity to endure. You go on to ask "endure what?" This seems to be mixing the transitive and intransitive forms of the verb (again). The problem, as I see it Skip, is that what you have been saying is merely your POV. To continue to insist on your POV without presenting any facts based on reliable sources, is nothing but disruption. GT has presented dictionary definitions and other sources. My dictionary says endure is a synonym for sustain. TP points out that the proposed lead is accessible to readers and does what a good lead should do. You have presented nothing based on fact or a reliable source. Time to drop that stick now. Back away. Sunray (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok... then go ahead and use The complete idiots guide version at least it explains the context of the word. It sure is a poor way to relate anything. The version in the article right now is simple and direct and does not rely on obscure meanings. skip sievert (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As this discussion is continuing I’ll throw in the following for feedback. Sustainability is a noun derived from the Middle English (1250–1300) verb suste(i)nen, Old French sustenir, and Latin sustinēre, to sustain. Its roots are sub- from below + tenēre, to hold, derived in turn from the Indo-European root ten. Of the approximately 10 senses of the word the key ones appear to be to support, maintain or endure (or similar words). To endure (intrans), in possibly simpler terms, is to last. Is it conventional to put word derivations in WP article Leads? Maybe this is an occasion when it is appropriate? Is it sufficient to just say Sustainability is the capacity to endure or do we need to hint at other senses? As “endure” is a problem in Skip’s mind, could we say Sustainability is the capacity to last (cant get much more straightforward than that)? I am happy as we are but are any of these points worth considering? Granitethighs (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * GT: You have researched the word and no one has presented any contrary evidence. You say you're happy, TP is in favour, as am I. Skip is not in favour but has said "go ahead." I'm ready to close this discussion and move the text to the article. Sunray (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip is not in favour but has said "go ahead."..S.R... end quote. Not true. Don't go ahead with the endure sentence as written. It is not effective or illustrative as written. I said, if you must, use the Idiots guide you linked for ref/noting but at least use their wording in a similar way as it is illustrative of better sentence structure and marginally understandable which the current sentence is not. As written now it does not work. skip sievert (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, we know your point of view. just document your case and we will consider it. Sunray (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The following section contains the current version for a last look before uploading to the article. Sunray (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Current proposed draft
Alternate first line...

>Sustainability, can mean creating or maintaining conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, permitting the social, economic, and other requirements of the present and future generations to continue without environmental destruction.

Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure. In ecology, the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. For humans it is the potential to prosper into the future when for long-term improvements to wellbeing, which in turn depend on the wellbeing of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resources. are allowed to regenerate faster than they are used.

Sustainability has become a wide-ranging term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, from a local to a global scale and over various time periods. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. Invisible chemical cycles redistribute water, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon through the world's living and nonliving systems, and have sustained life for many millions of years. As the earth’s human population has increased, natural ecosystems have declined and changes in the balance of natural cycles has had a negative impact on both humans and on other living systems.

There is now abundant scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably. Returning human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits will require a major collective effort. Since the 1980s, human sustainability has implied the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to: “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Efforts to live more sustainably can take many forms from reorganising living conditions (e.g.ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), reappraising economic sectors (green building, sustainable agriculture), or work practices (sustainable architecture), using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy), to adjustments in individual lifestyles.

Comments on the edit above

 * Comment... Not a good sentence above in lead... confused as to meaning. Does not make sense... endure what? Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure. This sounds like either nonsense or gibberish. The team here is using a human emotive term. It does not apply.

Example of a good way to say something as to subject... the way it is written now in the article, which was gotten at by consensus... Sustainability, in general terms, is the ability to maintain balance of a certain process or state in any system.... It is simple and makes sense, unlike the current beginning. skip sievert (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a new consensus. Please respect that. Sunray (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really. If you'll check it, you'll find that consensus is achieved when there is general agreement. I do not agree with the sentence as to it being well thought out or even much more than a gibberrishy or nonsense way of making a statement, that means virtually nothing. It is not appropriate in the lead. skip sievert (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not unanimity. We have established groundrules for determining consensus on the sustainability talk pages. You didn't sign-on to them. But we still apply them. So far you have been a lone voice and have opposed almost everything agreed to by the other editors. We will continue to read what you say and, if it is based on sources and evidence, will treat it seriously. However, to continually insist on your point of view is disruptive. Sources, please. Sunray (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You want me to give you sources for a comment the team conjectured that does not make sense? I don't think so. Are you enjoying the name calling or disinformation of saying disruptive out of context Sunray? Lone voice... hardly... a new editor complained recently on oversourcing a pov on the main article... and other editors have been driven away because of ownership issues you and a couple of others with shared pov promote. Also the team is not a part of Wiki guidelines and it has created problems by preventing others from editing the article with outside information. You have blatantly violated the terms of this unofficial attempt at mediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jehochman/Archive_11#Proposed_findings - skip sievert (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No your contention in this section pertains to the lead (not other editors). I have made several requests for you to back up your claims with sources. So far you have failed to do that. Sunray (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done a few tiny tweaks to GT's excellent edit - as they are shuffles rather than insertions I couldn't mark them well. Sorry Sunray, I made one sentence longer - but readability isn't absolutely calculated by those indices...


 * One sentence requires a bit of thought..."For humans it is the potential to prosper into the future when natural resources are allowed to regenerate faster than they are used." Two problems with this sentence; one is "are allowed to" which may unintentionally imply "allowed by humans" and the other regarding "natural resources...regenerate faster than they are used" which is a necessary but not sufficient condition of sustainability; humans also cannot thrive without biodiversity, beauty and a spiritual connection to place and to nonhuman creatures.


 * I think I said ages ago that defining sustainability in terms of natural resources was equivalent to saying "loving your mother means treating her sufficiently well that she continues to give you stuff"?


 * I'd like to suggest "For humans, it is the potential for long-term improvements to wellbeing, which in turn depends on the wellbeing of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resources."


 * Also, the reference to "billions of years" in the second paragraph may be out of place, as natural cycles of carbon, water etc. have undergone dramatic changes on this sort of timescale (of course) whereas we are trying to emphasise their stability in any sort of human timescale. Again, not sure what the exact edit is to best reflect this.


 * Again, well done GT and sorry for not being around much to help, --Travelplanner (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the "For humans..." sentence. I think your suggested addition would be an improvement. Sunray (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made the changes you have suggested in the first paragraph. With respect to "billions of years," I think we would be safe to substitute "millions" for "billions." Cells resembling prokaryotes appeared somewhere between 3900 - 2500 million years ago and, despite glaciation and extinction events, life has been continuously sustained since. Sunray (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made minor tweaks - removed comma after ecology in second sentence and fused two short sentences with an "and" to help the flow IMO (revert this if you like - I'm not fussed). Would "many millions" be a suitable compromise? I am happy with it now - IMO we dont need any citations except possibly for the Brundtland quote. Thanks for your praise TP, I'll take any amount you are handing out, but you and SR have kept it readable and it is without doubt much better for it. Can we put it up? What next? Granitethighs (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the first sentence hoping that maybe common sense can prevail. It reads better in context with the rest. Comments? skip sievert (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Skip, the former sentence was the consensus. Granitethighs (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sustainability, in general terms, is the ability to maintain balance of a certain process or state in any system.

Is this really simple, obvious, uncomplicated and succinct? Does it engage the reader? Some comments:


 * The flow or syntax seems strange to me – shouldn’t it be “the” balance.
 * It is not absolutely clear or easy to follow – it reads like a dry physics definition.
 * Skip you don’t like anthropomorphisms but “ability” is a human attribute, that is why we chose “capacity” precisely because it is not anthropomorphic.
 * IMO the capacity of any system to last, endure or keep going does not  necessarily entail “balancing” anything – it may or may not be true but I feel  it needs justification. A luxury of space we cannot afford here.
 * “A certain process or state” could surely be less wordy – in fact, is it     necessary at all? Isn’t absolutely everything a certain process or state?      Its probably superfluous or redundant.
 * Again, even if we accept “A certain process or state” doesn’t “in any system” become superfluous or redundant. Surely, it really does not need to be said at all.

Skip you might not think any of these points are relevant but they are all nuances of complication that are totally overcome by a simple statement like “Sustainability, in a general sense, is the capacity to endure.” Which establishes the degree of generality which we feel is necessary at the opening of the Lead. Granitethighs (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Ability in this context is not anthropomorphic. A plane has the wing lift ability to raise itself off the ground or it does not. People do not think of planes as enduring... if they maintain flight.


 * Dry physics may be better than ability to endure. At least it gets at the point. The article probably should have been named Human sustainability... part of the problem with the article is that its unfocused in subject.


 * In any system... was added by another editor and seems alright as it expands the article a little to include chemical ... biological... etc. systems... as the article goes on to do. Oceans.... Bird populations... - Systems, is a good word... as the new editor stressed... the article needs more systems thinking.


 * Balance can not be a bad word choice here. The basis of most any and all concepts of sustainability are connected with balance.


 * I go back to endure what? If it was a nice simple phrase I would say fine... but it is not. Sustainability is probably a human construct as we think of it... and as human constructs go it is further muddied by using a strange and out of context word like endure... in an odd chopped off sentence that goes clunk. skip sievert (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple of last comments. "Ability" in my dictionary has several senses, all but one of these relate directly to humans and the only one that doesn't ("Sufficient power, capacity (to do something)" has human implications. Finally, please look up the words transitive and intransitive. We are using the word "endure" intransitively (otherwise we would say what was being endured). Incidentally, using the word intransitively is common practice. I think this is probably the fourth time this has been pointed out to you. Granitethighs (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying the word sustainability means the ability to endure... does not make sense.


 * en⋅dure

/ɛnˈdʊər, -ˈdyʊər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [en-door, -dyoor] Show IPA verb, -dured, -dur⋅ing. –verb (used with object) 1. 	to hold out against; sustain without impairment or yielding; undergo: to endure great financial pressures with equanimity. 2. 	to bear without resistance or with patience; tolerate: I cannot endure your insults any longer. 3. 	to admit of; allow; bear: His poetry is such that it will not endure a superficial reading. –verb (used without object) 4. 	to continue to exist; last: These words will endure as long as people live who love freedom. 5. 	to support adverse force or influence of any kind; suffer without yielding; suffer patiently: Even in the darkest ages humanity has endured. 6. 	to have or gain continued or lasting acknowledgment or recognition, as of worth, merit or greatness: His plays have endured for more than three centuries. Dictionary. skip sievert (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not make sense to you. I have bolded the relevant bit that you obviously missed.

Used intransitively: Granitethighs (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * verb (used without object i.e. intransitively) - to continue to exist; last.
 * Definition: continue; be durable Synonyms: abide, be, be left, be long lived, be timeless, bide, carry on, carry through, cling, exist, go on, hang on*, have no end, hold, hold on, hold out, keep on, last, linger, live, live on, never say die, outlast, outlive, perdure, persist, prevail, remain, ride out*, run on, stand, stay, stay on, stick to, superannuate, survive, sustain, wear, wear on, wear well. Roget’s Thesaurus
 * Wiktionary’s first entry as an intransitive verb – to last.


 * Thanks for that comprehensive documentation, GT. From his comments, Skip seemed to be unclear on the difference between transitive and intransitive. Skip: is that clear now? Sunray (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Still a poor word choice in the context of the subject 4. to continue to exist; last: These words will endure as long as people live who love freedom. So even stretching it to that context is not really a good example. skip sievert (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be objecting to the example. However, the example only illustrates the meaning. The word, in its intransitive use, means "to last" and is a synonym for "sustain." As it is not good form to use a word in its own definition (e.g. "capacity to sustain"), would you be able to come up with a better word? Sunray (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It just seems like a clunker way to start off the article... because it is not informative. This at least says something... Sustainability has many definitions but the basic principles and concepts remain constant: balancing a growing economy, protection for the environment, and social responsibility, so they together lead to an improved quality of life for ourselves and future generations.


 * That is not bad though above here, but... I would leave out growing in the sentence, since we are dead ended currently in that direction, so it is a little old fashioned, but the basic idea is right, and informative also ... Here is that definition So maybe change the one line to balancing an economy instead of balancing a growing economy. Just about anything is better than the current sentence which dead ends itself as to direction or intent.


 * This would also work and work well from the same webpage as the link above... Sustainable" means to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations Two suggestions. Probably the second here is the better. It is simple and gets to the point... and does not depend on an abstraction of wording. skip sievert (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your giving some suggested alternatives. That seems a more constructive approach. I have two concerns about those examples: 1) they are both wordy, and, 2) they are quotes.


 * WP:LEAD states: 'If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." I think that the proposed lead sentence does that. It is short and highly readable. It must be borne in mind that the very next sentence adds the ecological dimension and the one following that introduces the human aspect.


 * Regarding the use of quotes: The FA criteria require "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections." That's summarizes, not quotes. Sunray (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bartlett paper, for all its impressive table of contents does not seem to be especially insightful when read in detail: it is also distinctly dated and he has an axe to grind (I like his axe but that is beside the point) - I think we do a much better job. A couple of observations:- he says he will supply an unambiguous definition of sustainability (which IMO puts up warning signs immediately because we cannot define words by fiat) but then doesn’t do so – or perhaps I missed it. In wrestling with what sustainability is he comes up with phrases like: “We must accept the idea that "sustainable" has to mean "for an unspecified long period of time." and “Most important here is the acknowledgment that "sustainable" means "into the distant future". This is precisely where we start in the article with the “endure” thing and also the reason why we do so IMO. Our opening sentence IMO need not aim to be a “definition”, more a “summary”. A subtle distinction I know but we deal with definitions later and an attempt at definition can become quickly very unwieldy. I do not like the scrambled and confusing mish-mash of ideas suggested (above) by the US EPA. However, I am happy to keep discussing options. If we want simple readability then I would be happy with “Sustainability, in a general sense, is the capacity to last”. My favourite is “Sustainability, in a general sense, is the capacity to support, maintain or endure” but that seems to have got the thumbs down. I’d even accept a simpler version of the pre-endure sentence you like Skip but it would need to take at least some account of the objections I have listed. Needless to say, and inevitably, Bartlett’s account includes the UN, Brundtland, Agenda 21 etc. in fact there is a lot of the kind of material in there that you seem to have objected to Skip. When people look up “Sustainability” on the web the opening sentence in the WP article is often what they get to read - maybe we try and fuse both general and particular ideas if that is possible but it would have to be very simple? Granitethighs (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the lead is ready to go up. This business with the word "endure" has dragged on and on, and consumed time which could have been spent much more valuably, time to accept the majority view and move on...--Travelplanner (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If people accepted the majority view then society would not contain alternative views. So... no that is authoritarian. Also G.T. did you actually read the Bartlett material? No. Needless to say, and inevitably, Bartlett’s account includes the UN, Brundtland, Agenda 21 etc.... Bartlett is not a fan of any of these groups and considers them not particularly good information... but that goes against the pov of the team here. Same narrow perspective over and over is not illuminating of alternative ideas, even mainstream ones like Barlett.


 * I gave you two good examples of better wording... and no they can be re written and do not have to be quotes... they are just examples of good writing.


 * Endure is the wrong word. It does not endure itself to thinking about the subject and is not apt in describing the subject. It really is awful, as is the sentence which chops off at the end, while using it. skip sievert (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We have essentially reached consensus on this. However, Skip if you can find something that is simple, summary and engaging I will change. You have TP's excellent "simple" writing style to emulate. I would prefer if it wasn't a quote or a definition taken from somewhere - simple summary I feel is the key. With respect, your two suggestions are too elaborate and wordy, I agree with SR on that. Also we have an immediate hurdle to cross - I think the article must start with no pre-conceptions as to what sustainability is about - we cannot assume the reader is immediately in tune with the article - so perhaps break them in gently. Anyway, good luck. Granitethighs (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That sound very condescending to the Wikipedia audience, as to a reader. Break them in gently...? Sorry that sounds absurd.


 * As to quotes I just got through saying that the quotes I presented do not have to be quotes and could just be mined and reformatted.


 * Sustainability has many definitions but the basic principles and concepts remain constant: balancing a growing economy, protection for the environment, and social responsibility, so they together lead to an improved quality of life for ourselves and future generations.


 * Sustainable" means to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations Two suggestions. They could be picked apart and combined or edited any which way. What is important is that this actually has the elements of something in it and touches on those elements with some main ideas. skip sievert (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't read GT's remarks as being condescending to our readership. On this page we have discussed the importance of readability. The lead paragraph currently in the article has a readability level of 10.9 on the Flesch Reading Ease scale, which means that one has to read at a college graduate level to be able to comprehend it. The proposed lead paragraph has a readability level of 38, which means that someone with high school education can readily understand it. That's not ideal, but it is a heck of a lot better. The lead sentence contributes to that readability.


 * The quote you have given, above, is, essentially, a reworking of Brundtland's definition. Without some context it would be open to criticism for its naivety (as Brundtland's was). GT has invited you to convert those quotes to something simple and engaging. Would you be able to present something along those lines? Sunray (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I could easily rewrite the entire article to good effect in about half an hour... what is your point to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times, except to wear down more serious editors and be an advocate or expert, in an odd kind of way, on the teams more niche POV advocacy?


 * Sustainability, can mean creating or maintaining conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, permitting the social, economic, and other requirements of the present and future generations to continue without environmental destruction.


 * There.


 * Simple... gets the point across. Endure sounds like a new type of Viagra needs invention that can keep the earth humping along between injections.


 * Skip by stating you can easily rewrite the entire article to good effect in half an hour you have insulted every person who has contributed, including yourself.


 * Your suggested sentence is not an improvement at all.--Travelplanner (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is a 100% improvement. Sustainability, can mean creating or maintaining conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, permitting the social, economic, and other requirements of the present and future generations to continue without environmental destruction.


 * Saying something is not an improvement at all, is also pretty empty rhetorical commentary devoid of any meaningful editorial aspects. I was kidding about a rewrite... that would take at least an hour. As to insulting anyone, I do not think so, least of all me. skip sievert (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * At present the lead starts by considering sustainability at its most general, moves to an ecological sense leading up to "human sustainabiity". This is a flow of ideas of increasing complexity and it can be readily understood. Skip seems the only person who has a strong problem with "endure" and suggested alternatives to this word such as "to last", "maintain" "support" etc do not seem to be popular. As discussion has become unproductive and Skip's suggestion has not enthused editors I suggest we now draw a close and put up the suggested new version. Granitethighs (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes let's put it up. Skip you are entitled to your opinions, but if nobody else shares them you can't impose them.  This whole business with "endure" has been unendurable.--Travelplanner (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure (Not really, this is an odd ball definition). In ecology, the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time (That is ok). For humans it is the potential to prosper into the future when for long-term improvements to wellbeing, which in turn depend on the wellbeing of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resources (This sounds oddly judgmental?? what is meant by 'long term improvements' to well being?... what is responsible use???) are allowed to regenerate faster than they are used. (Balancing  of resource to the environment could be argued just as well).


 * This hodge podge of disconnectedness above should not probably be used at all.


 * This is simple and gets all the ideas across without some pov lecture about values. Sustainability, can mean creating or maintaining conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, permitting the social, economic, and other requirements of the present and future generations to continue without environmental destruction. skip sievert (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip this is a lead: "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;"


 * In answer to your points above (leaving out endure, which others have covered better than I) the detail in the subsequent sections makes very clear that humans depend on the wellbeing of the natural world. I find it baffling that you can criticise the use of "wellbeing" or "responsible use of natural resources" as poorly defined and then propose "productive harmony" as an alternative.  Productive harmony is not explained in detail in subsequent sections, but both human wellbeing and responsible use are.


 * Your proposed text scores worse for readability, lacks the quality of "leading" from simpler to more complex concepts, and introduces new concepts which go nowhere including "Productive harmony" "other requirements" and "environmental destruction". But you think it is much better and "not a pov lecture about values"??


 * We are at an impasse here. The question is, who judges quality?  I think the quality of the original is much better than the quality of your suggested alternative.  You think otherwise.  What now??--Travelplanner (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mine is simpler but also has some flair. It is a composite of several definitions also. Endure does not connect to anything really. Style is also important. My version is more expressive and thought engaging. skip sievert (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We have consensus, with one dissenter. Skip, has not convinced anyone about the word "endure" and hasn't provided an alternative to the lead paragraph that is simpler or more readable (his latest proposal scores much lower on readability level). We have discussed this ad infinitum. Since all editors but Skip agree on the version presented in the previous section, I am going to put it into the article. Sunray (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Others will make the same observation, as it is so poor. A sentence like that used now would score high on readability... because it is a little like See Jane run... Jane is chasing Spot the dog. Consensus in a totally pov sign up team is not really consensus either, and it does prevent other editors from the article. skip sievert (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see if anyone does raise questions about it. Your remarks about the "totally POV sign up 'team'" are not about content. I thought we agreed to not personalize things. Sunray (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)