Talk:Sustainable gardening

History
Why was this edit reverted?

I removed some apparently extranous, unencyclopedic material (" Retrieved on: 2009-03-16.")

Apparently irrelevant biographical material "Permaculture has, for David Holmgren become a whole-of-life pursuit integrating permaculture principles within a whole-of-life philosophy as indicated by the title of his 2002 publication Permaculture, principles and pathways beyond sustainability.

And material about sustainable gardening Australia, and publication of a couple of books. It is not obvious that these are significant milestones in the global development of sustainable gardens/landscapes/etc. There is also no citation to sources that establish the historical significance of these observations.

If this material is significant to understanding sustainable ..., then its significance needs clarification, and it needs citation to WP:RS to establish that significance. Otherwise, it should be deleted. Zodon (talk) at 00:33, 16 March 2009.


 * Some background - "Sustainable ..." has followed on (more slowly)from the well-established Sustainable Agriculture. It has almost nothing to do with Sustainable architecture. The clumsy title is because "Sustainable gardening" will not serve the purposes of "Sustainable sites" or "Sustainable landscapes" and the affinity between these three is so great that if they were created separately then they would need merging. Permaculture has much in common with "Sustainable ..." but it does differ - I expressed this through the sentence you deleted ... although the wording is poor and I will re-express it. Reliable sources are cited that clearly establish the historical significance of the topic (see History section). The guidelines cited are for the American landscape industry; the whole article is well referenced could you expand on why a "Notability" sign has been appended. Could I also suggest you go to the Sustainability disambiguation page and browse the range of topics with "sustainable" in the title and also those starting off with "Sustainable". I think you will find possibly more than 100 far less notable than this article. That should keep you busy tagging for a while. Granitethighs (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing in your response makes it clear why the unsourced, etc. material that I deleted is significant to the history of sustainable gardens and should be in the article.
 * What does sustainable architecture have to do with anything? I said nothing about it, why did you? Zodon (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Zodon. I have modified the entry you deleted. It is now sourced using authoritative sources and emphasises historical significance. I agree, what has Sustainable architecture got to do with this discussion. I suggest we remove the tag proposing the merge with that article. Granitethighs (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no tag suggesting a merge with sustainable architecture. Note that landscape architecture is not the same thing as architecture.  Zodon (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See my comments under article Name. Granitethighs (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article name
As I noted at the merger discussion, the current article name Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites does not appear to be in common use. A Google search turned up no references to the phrase. As such, I added the notability tag because the particular combination of concepts here appeared to be of questionable notability and possibly an original synthesis.

Discussion here and in the above noted discussion, it appears that the intent of the article is to cover an area that has several names.
 * e.g., "Sustainable gardening" or "Sustainable gardens" or "Sustainable sites" or "Sustainable landscapes"

As I understand WP:NAME, a name for the article should be based on what reliable English language sources call the subject. Since there can only be one main name, the one most easily recognized should be used. Forming a name by stringing various terms together with conjunctions does not appear to be preferred naming, unless a combination of terms is in common usage.

Think the article should be named with the most commonly used term, with the others as redirects, rather than the current conjunction of terms.
 * I don't think meaning of "sustainable site" is clear, so would not favor that one.
 * Naming conventions say singular nouns, so if use one of those titles, should probably be "Sustainable garden" or "Sustainable landscape" Zodon (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the title "Sustainable gardening" would be well justified - trouble is it is extremely closely linked to "Sustainable landscape gardening", "Sustainable landscapes", "Sustainable sites" and probably a few others. Although "Sustainable landscape architecture" certainly differs from "Sustainable gardening" there are the common links and it could be merged. I would say "Sustainable gardening" has more "momentum" than "Sustainable landscape architecture". These approaches are all rapidly gaining in interest and will, later if not sooner, all be vying for a place in Wikipedia. I would also think that, at least "collectively" they warrant a WP entry. What I was doing with the title was trying to forestall an avalanche of "Sustainable ..." articles. By the way ... did you Google these different titles to get a feel for the interest they have generated? Granitethighs (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Number of pages in Google searches:
 * 182,000; 58,700
 * 87,900; 50,200;  46,500
 * 84,200; 35,300;
 * 12,500
 * 6,630
 * "Sustainable landscape gardening" 1,150;
 * Sustainable garden is the only one that seems to have enough searches to register in Google search trends (but none of them gives an outstanding showing there).
 * So sustainable sites appears to be most google hits - one would have to see if there are other phrases which might overlap (i.e. are they predominantly about this topic). As noted above I am not sure how readily recognized that title is.
 * Sustainable landscape appears a little ahead of sustainable gardening in Google hits, but sustainable garden is the only one of the terms that had enough hits to register in search trends.
 * Either of the garden ones would be fine by me - would "Sustainable garden" (per search trends, noun), or "Sustainable gardening" (more page hits, activity - since really can't say a garden per se is sustainable) be preferred? Zodon (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Addition: I didn't see the section below before I wrote the response above.  Suspect the different number of hits there vs. ones I found are because I used quotations to get pages including just the phrase, rather than pages that include those words.  (Without quotations you get any page that includes these words, probably less accurate representation of the topic of the page, e.g. "he sustained a severe shock when gardening," etc.)
 * In the expectation that the article will be renamed to one of these, I removed the notability template, since any of these topics seem likely to be notable. Zodon (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Sorry to have to jump into this discussion but Granitethighs above is in a marked conflict of interest... ^ a b c d e f Cross, R. & Spencer, R. (2009). Sustainable Gardens. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. ISBN 978-0-643-09422-2. Granitethighs is one of the people involved in this book promoted on Wikipedia. This then turns into something a little like this in context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VSCA -- skip sievert (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it is correct that I am a co-author of a book cited in this article. The question then becomes whether this is being used as either self promotion or whether it interferes with the objectivity of the article. WP:Coi states: A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. My interest here is in advancing the aims of Wikipedia as set out in the COI statement above, not in promoting my own interests. Granitethighs (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research and unverified claims
Could whoever placed this tag on the article substantiate the claims either here or by tagging the article appropriately. Otherwise the tag will be removed. Granitethighs (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you originated the article. The article features your book. This is not appropriate. As a new editor you may not know this. It is a conflict of interest to start a page featuring ones own work. It someone other than your self considers your work notable... and the group you work for to be the subject of promotion, then this information could be the basis of an article perhaps if it is thought to be notable. Since you authored the information which may be good or may not be good... it also may be original research, if it has not been widely discussed in other publications... this could lead to it being viewed as making unverified claims. Because of conflict issues. skip sievert (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does refer to the book. The issue of COI, however, is whether or not this is blatant self-promotion and/or whether the article is breaching NPOV, or whether the overall coverage is fair, and even-handed with RS. My interest is in developing a quality article for WP. Granitethighs (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have deleted two references, one to a book and one to a web site. The citation of the book and a commercial company are part of the history of this topic and therefore valuable as sources. Granitethighs (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets slow down here. I removed a ref/citation to your book yes and that relates to discussion on the talk page here. I also removed what appears to be a non profit/for profit website that promotes commercial companies. History of the topic? I don't think so. skip sievert (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just couple thoughts on COI/etc. My main concern with relation to the book so far would be for instance the indication of its publication as a significant event in the history of sustainable whatever. (as was indicated in a previous revision, which has since been removed).  Prudence might suggest that if the author wishes such a claim to be included they propose such a revision on talk page, citing outside evidence from WP:RS, and let other editors help determine if it seems significant, etc.
 * Citing the book might also raise problems of self published sources, but the author probably also has a really good bibliography, so may be able to deal with that by citing the sources the book drew from. Zodon (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-group
Just to summarise - please adjust if you think this is not accurate but be as brief as possible:


 * The notability of the article is disputed. GT has recommended searches on Google for "Sustainable gardens" (2.5 million hits), "Sustainable gardening" (6.5 million), "Sustainable landscapes" (8 million), "Sustainable landscape architecture" (1 million), "Sustainable sites" (27 million) and others. Also, that if the notability of this article is in question then there should also be notability issues with the large number of articles starting “Sustainable …” or those with “sustainable” or “sustainability” within the title.


 * The permaculture material has been reworded to bring it in line with Zodon’s comments.


 * The name of the article is a problem. Zordon has suggested “Sustainable garden” but GT thinks “Sustainable gardening” would work better. However, there are problems with the proliferation of closely related disciplines/topics that would not regard themselves as “gardening” i.e. the landscape industry and the landscape architecture community. "Sustainable landscapes" has 8 million hits on Google and "Sustainable sites" 27 million so these are a possibility. Any suggestions please?


 * If a merge is to occur then it has been suggested that Sustainable landscape architecture be merged with this article


 * There is discussion over whether the fact that an editor of the article is a co-author of a book referenced in the article is necessarily a COI. This has also been raised by the same editor in relation to the "Sustainability" article where an editor has written: This is a reliable source of a high quality. It is directly related to the article. There is no reason why GT shouldn't add it. However, just to be clear, I am now adding it as a citation. I have no connection to the authors of the book. Sunray (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Granitethighs (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A tag placed on the article claims the possibility of original research or unverified information. This will be removed unless these assertions are specifically substantiated -either on this page or through tagging in the article itself.


 * 1) ^ [5] Sustainable Gardening Australia web site. Retrieved on: 2009-03-16.
 * 2) ^ a b c d e f Cross, R. & Spencer, R. (2009). Sustainable Gardens. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. ISBN 978-0-643-09422-2. This is a few of the ref's you used from your book and these were used as the backbone of sourcing in the article previously. This opens the question of original research or unverified information, except by yourself. Since currently your book references are now off the article ... maybe the article can be rewritten to different effect. skip sievert (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Without question (and obviously) I am very interested in this topic. However, as with issues raised on the "Sustainability" talk page my interest is in contributing to neutral articles with reliable sources, not promoting my own interests. The COI guidelines state: Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. I can state categorically that advancing Wikipedia is my sole intention here. However, I can see that this intention might be misconstrued as a book that I have been associated with is referenced a number of times. I would be interested in any opinions on this matter. Granitethighs (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting link in that regard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-coi skip sievert (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving on
OK - to regroup again.
 * Suggest title is "Sustainable gardening" with others linked to this as redirects. Do you want to make the change Zodon - I'm not sure how this is done.
 * The COI issue has been discussed and was dismissed by all editors that commented on the noticeboard. However, Zodon's point above is noted and in replacing the material that was deleted this will be taken into account and, obviously can be further discussed.
 * Thanks for the "quotes" tip for Google hits.
 * No specific instances of original research or unverified claims have been cited so tag has been removed. Granitethighs (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Person above, please do not add your book which is a capital and commercial project to this article that you originated. That is a conflict of interest. Those are the rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-coi skip sievert (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * COI has been discussed at length on the noticeboard. The point by Zodon is taken. Now let's move on Granitethighs (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Will be working on this again shortly. Will try to keep my comments in the appropriate sections. Granitethighs (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge
I support no merge - keeping the Sustainable gardening and Sustainable landscape architecture articles separate, with this one focusing on the "project scale" of  'gardening-personal gardens-gardeners'  (in Category:Sustainable gardening). The '' 'landscape arch. design-master plan: philosophy-techniques-technology-landscape architects'  scale (in Category:Sustainable environmental design), and  'urban design-regional landscape planning-environmental designers-planners' '' scale (in Category:Sustainable urban planning) are for larger scaled projects at a less 'hands on—in the field' scale. In the wikipedia 'a work in progress' spirit, patience with current less distinguishable and lean articles on popular 'sustainability outdoors' search topics may be needed until 'we editors' expand them. Thanks---cheers--- Look2See1  t a l k →  18:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge
I agree: there would only be a case for merging sustainable landscape architecture with sustainable gardening if gardening and landscape architecture were the same thing, which they are not. Garden designers are almost exclusively concerned with gardens. Landscape architects are are little concerned with gardens but are also involved with a wide range of other land uses: agriculture, forestry, transport, urbanization etc. They are not the only professionals concerned with these land uses but they make a significant contribution and it is often directed at making these land uses more sustainable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.175.216 (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The topics are too dissimilar. The articles should be separate. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Of the 13 sources, only 1 is about home gardening specifically, most are about agriculture, a few are about designing parks and larger grounds. The single source about home gardening is a book written by the editor (so COI). Not only that, the sustainable landscaping article is completely about home gardens. Furthermore there is also a Sustainable landscape architecture article which should be merged with this. My vote is merging all three articles under this title, as "landscape" has too many ambiguous meanings at present, but am not wedded to the title. Leo Breman (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Sustainable planting is a confused article mostly about home gardening which should also be merged with this. Leo Breman (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A new pair of eyes
I have read the talk pages of both articles, and agree that the articles should not be merged. The scope of landscape gardening is wider than 'gardening' as it is normally conceived. Both articles are in good shape now and don't overlap much in content and coverage (if at all). --Greenmaven (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding sources and new section
Hello! I was looking through this article and noticed that all of the references are from 2012 or earlier. I think it would be beneficial to add sources that are more current, as there has been more information published on the topic since then, and am thinking of doing research soon to add more current information. Also, I am curious if anyone has any opinion on the idea of adding a section that focuses on the practical implementation of sustainable gardening. This article does a great job of outlining philosophies and theory surrounding sustainable gardening, but I think it would be beneficial to add a section on the successes or failures of this form of gardening in practice, using real-life examples. Does anyone have ideas on whether this is a good idea, or suggestions for how to implement a section like this successfully? Thanks! Wags1234 (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleting sources and much of this
See my comment as to merging this article above. If we define this as gardening at a home scale, per posters on this talk page above, only a single reference is about the subject matter, the rest is about large scale projects or agriculture, or doesn't belong here at all. The only reference about this subject matter is a book of questionable notability written by the guy who wrote most of this article. So I am going through this deleting or moving stuff elsewhere, in possible preparation of a merge. Cheers,  Leo Breman (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse
— Assignment last updated by Kmdavis7 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)