Talk:Weak and strong sustainability

Requested move 11 January 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved to Weak and strong sustainability. --BDD (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Strong vs Weak sustainability → Strong versus Weak sustainability – WP:ARTICLETITLE 174.3.125.23 (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose moving without fixing the capitalization error. Perhaps should be Strong versus weak sustainability, but I don't find the intended reference in WP:AT.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What about then Strong versus weak sustainability, with the lower case as you suggest?174.3.125.23 (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * I believe our usual titling pattern would be strong and weak sustainability. Or possibly weak and strong sustainability, which might be more mellifluous.  Powers T 01:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind either of these suggestions either, but lacking the specific reference to abbreviations/truncations in titles, I think it would be more intuitive that at least full words should be used in article titles, instead of "shortened" versions.174.3.125.23 (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It was your proposal. Are you not going to clarify what you meant by linking WP:AT?  Does it say or avoid abbreviations?  Or something else relevant?  Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:DEFINITE-Ambiguous abbreviations and WP:ACRONYMTITLE seem to be relevant.174.3.125.23 (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As suggested by User:LtPowers, the usual titling, I now believe as well, is weak and strong sustainability, instead of "one versus another". Article(s) speak about the topic, not how one concept is opposed to another.174.3.125.23 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, this article is smoke and mirrors. Something is sustainable or it is not. It lacks so many things that it is difficult to frame them. Nonetheless, whether the sustainability of something is weak or strong depends on its resiliency, proven over time. In my opinion, this article is little more than an argument supporting neo-liberalism than an article framing the issues objectively. So, for me, it does not pass the litmus quality test for a neutral articulation of issues in either the economic or environment categories. First, it lacks an academic grounding, as I could not find a single definition of "sustainability" to support the statement that "sustainable development and sustainability" are related but are "different concepts." Citation...and does the citation provide a definition? My research shows that as a "science" sustainability is only recently coming into its own, as a second generation of the learned are bringing new insights into play, or, at least, making the earlier insights more comprehensible. Second, "human capital" is used in this article in a way not used in classical economics, which is to view it as a resource from a largely demographic standpoint in terms of labour, sets of skills, or population. Here, it is framed with the capitalist representing human capital, being the "means of production" in the Marxist sense, using natural capital to help save the world! Not!


 * Thirdly, when less that 100 people out of billions of people control 90% of the world's wealth after 2000 years of human development, mostly accumulated through exploitation/extraction of public resources, such as hydrocarbons, precious stones and metals, resource wars, and taxation of the masses, etc. it is difficult to argue that anything like intergenerational sustainability for any single society or the planet has occurred except in one case study, that of Norway or its related neighbor, Iceland.


 * Consequently, at this juncture in history, unbridled capitalism is the winner and all efforts at achieving sustainability for future generations have been weak. And, certainly, it will make little difference how the article is titled if it can't find a home within the numerous pages already devoted to the topic. I think this latter should be the aim, but it will take a writer knowledgeable and interested in the subject to fulfil this recommendation. All for now. Afrothetics (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Weak and strong sustainability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120826053730/http://sustainablemeasures.com:80/Training/Indicators/WeakStrg.html to http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/Training/Indicators/WeakStrg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Sustainable Futures
— Assignment last updated by Manassa.Jada (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)