Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:36, 13 March 2009

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Environment B‑class

This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

FA project

In November 2008, we launched a project to bring this article to FA status. Here is the draft charter, process and sign-up sheet. New members are welcome. Just add your name at the bottom and let us know what you would like to do.

Goal

• To improve the Sustainability article to meet the featured article standard as assessed by Wikiproject Environment.

Process

• This will be a collaborative editing project. Decisions on article content will be made by consensus. Consensus decision-making is defined as: "a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections." When a vote is required, a two-thirds supermajority will be considered consensus.
• Participants working on the project will strive to be civil, assume good faith, focus on content, not contributors, and observe Wikiquette.

Sign-up

If you support this project and subscribe to the goals and process described above, please sign below indicating your skills, preferred role, and availability. Skills needed include: research, writing, editing, copyediting, graphics, FA criteria assessment, etc.

• Sunray (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC) - mediation, editing, article standards, verification of online sources; moderately available now (> 1 hr/da). Sunray's edits are in blue
• Granitethighs (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC) - research, writing, editing (1/2 to 1 hr/day). Granitethigh's edits are in green
• OhanaUnited 13:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC) - copyedit, checking for weasel words (various availability)
• Travelplanner (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC) - research (especially citations), editing (various availability). Travelplanner's edits are in purple
• Nick carson (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC) - writing, editing, copyediting (1 hr/day) Nick's edits are in red

Subpages

• Lead
• Definition
• History
• Description
• Measuring sustainability
• Application/Implementation Environmental management
• Application/Implementation/consumption Management of consumption
• Difficulties in the Application of Sustainability
• Current Efforts in Applying Sustainability
• Social material
• Economic material
• "leftover" material from copyedit, unlinked references etc
• Note: see outline below for descriptions and subpages.

Outline

This is a combination of several editors discussions on the best structure for content within the sustainability article, last updated in mid January 2009: Nick carson (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Scope and Definition - establish the various contexts in which sustainability is applied, starting from the most general and moving to the more particular, also discuss the other contexts in which it is applied
• History - a summarised history of the development of the concept of sustainability

Early civilizations

Emergence of industrial societies

Early 20th century

Mid 20th century: environmentalism

Late 20th century

21st century: global awareness

• Description - describe the current/present-day state and concepts of sustainability

Overview - may or may not be required as per quantity of content in this section

Key Principles and Concepts - outline the key principles and concepts of sustianability, environmentalism, progression, evolution, holism, etc

Sustainable Social Systems - social context description, social justice, community ownership, progressive sustained social systems, include links to relevant main articles

Sustainable Economic Systems - economic context description, progression of current economic systems, grassroots economics, underground economics, etc, include links to relevant main articles

Sustainable Resource Use - describe sustainable resource use and ecological contexts, may or may not require subsections, include links to relevant main articles

Water - sustainable water management

Energy - include subjects such as the sun, wind, geothermal, include links to main articles on renewable energy

Matierals - include concepts such as C2C, toxic material separation, sustainable materials, dealing with existing toxins & links to main articles

• Measuring Sustainability - include concepts such as Ecological Footprint and other methods of measuring sustainability
• Application/Implementation - describe the consensus as to how we can go about achieving sustainability, basically; how to put the concepts/description into practice, include links to main articles where appropriate

Water - discuss sustainable water use/management

Food and Agriculture - discuss the need for localised agriculture & food production

Energy - discuss how to transition our energy infrastructure to renewables, include links to main articles on renewable energy

Matierals - discuss the utilisation of appropriate materials, non-toxic, non-carcenogenic, etc

Waste - discuss utilising waste as food for other biological systems, reducing waste, consumerism

Population Control - discuss how to sustain the human population to cope with the available resources

Technology - discuss the need for investment in research of appropriate technology to make it a viable alternative

Social Systems - discuss education, changing habits, social justice, progression of current social/government systems

Urban Structure - discuss transit-oriented urban environments, localised services, eradication of private automobiles in urban areas, sustainable building

Economic Systems - discuss how to progress to better, more consistent, sustained economic systems

Protection and Regeneration of Biospheres - discuss preservation of remnant ecology undisturbed by human activity and how to rezone areas of land for regeneration of native ecology

• Difficulties in the Application of Sustainability - just summarise the difficulties in achieving sustainability, may require a few subsections, keep concise
• Current Efforts in Applying Sustainability - only include major international efforts where sustainable concepts are being put into practice, such as the UN decade for education of sustainable development, major cities being built (provided they are actually sustainable), and mention world-wide efforts such as sustainable forestry, aquaculture, etc
• See Also - organise so that the reader can navigate through the various topics and sub-topics within sustainability, should be a sizable section for a 'see also'

Further reading

Wkipedia guidelines below - Further reading

Contents: A list of recommended books, articles, or other publications that have not been used as sources and may provide useful background or further information. This section does not include publications that were used as reliable sources in writing this article; these should be cited as references. Websites and online publications are normally listed in the "External links" section instead of in this section, although editors occasionally prefer to merge very short lists of publications and external links into this section. To avoid unnecessary duplication of information, publications listed in any other section of the article should not be included in "Further reading". Location: This section is placed after the References section and before the External links section (if any). Format: This is a bulleted list, usually alphabetized, as explained in more detail at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (lists of works). Publications listed in this section are cited in the same reference style used by the rest of the article.

If people do not object I will cull the current list considerably, leaving only clearly relevant, reasonably accessible works that have not been quoted in the main article.Granitethighs (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Nick carson (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Last phase

I have tweaked the "last phase" things we need to do in the "to do" box to make it more systematic - there may be others. We just need to finish the "social" bit and then we are down to the final tidy-up. Nick, can we delete the remaining item in the first part of the list or do you think it still needs addressing? Have we left out anything critical - Nick you listed a number of things, moany of which have gone into side bars - anything else? Granitethighs (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had a bushfire-free day today, after visiting Yarra Glen, Steels Creek and St. Andrews over the last few days, talking to people, families, police and taking photos for WP, it all started getting pretty intense. So I've had a read over the article and I think we've covered the 'current efforts in applying sustainability' in the 'application/implementation' section. Social section is getting there. Nick carson (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sunray - you have been through this last phase of refining an article for assessment several times before. What do you suggest - is the "to do" list OK? Granitethighs (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:FACR is probably the best guide. I will copy it below for ease of reference. Once we have gone through the criteria and copyedited the article, we should be in a position to request an assessment. Perhaps we could divide up the chores. The "Notes" need attention: a) verification, where possible, and b) formatting conventions most commonly used by Misplaced Pages. Note that we don't necessarily have to use the templates, but the format for each kind of source (book, journal, report, news article, etc.) is given in the "Examples" columns of the table.

Anyone want to specialize in a particular area? GT, I notice you have begun to edit, which is great. TP you have expertise in researching citations. We still have some passages in need of cites. Want to have a go at that? Nick, you mention an interest in copyediting - that is always needed. I will look at the format of citations and do some copyediting. Perhaps we should all take a look at the "Advice from Wikipedians," below. Also, we should also each take a look at various Featured articles over the next few days for style and common conventions. I will be interested in how links are handled (especially "Main article" and "Further information" links). Oh yes, we should also take a look at length of FAs to know how much we need to edit down and use summary style.

We have used British spelling mostly in our re-write. We will need to ensure consistency throughout the article. We will also need a "commented-out note" asking people to stick with the one style. Sunray (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, following Sunrays suggestion I will re-read it all for consistency, non-repetition and uniformity of reference/citation presentation. I will also make notes in the "to do" box for things which I think we all need to consider. Granitethighs (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll also do a read through over the next few days, same as GT, make some notes. It'll help to get familiar with the article overall and perhaps serve as a precursor to working through the FAC. Nick carson (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured article criteria

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Misplaced Pages articles, it has the following attributes.

1. It is—
   • (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
   • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
   • (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
   • (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
   • (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
   • (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
   • (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
   • (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
3. Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

See also

• Misplaced Pages:Featured list criteria
• Misplaced Pages:Featured picture criteria
• Misplaced Pages:Featured portal criteria
• Misplaced Pages:Featured sound criteria
• Misplaced Pages:Featured topic criteria
• Misplaced Pages:Article development
• Misplaced Pages:The perfect article
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article advice

Advice from Wikipedians

• User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a
• User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them
• User:AndyZ/Suggestions
• User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA
• User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article
• User:Dweller/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates

The "See also" section

• WP:ALSO
• WP:SEEALSO

Just to help out with this (which I shall look at) - this is what WP has to say on the "See also" section: Contents: The "See also" (less commonly "Related topics") section provides internal links to related Misplaced Pages articles. "See also" is the most appropriate place to link a Portal with the {{portal}} template.

A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical "perfect article" are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. A "perfect" article then may not have a "See also" section at all, though some links may not naturally fit into the body of text and others may not be included due to size constraints. Links that would be included if the article were not kept relatively short for other reasons may thus be appropriate, though should be used in moderation, as always. These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links).

Location: The "See also" section, if used, follows the "Works" section, if used.

Format: The links should appear in a bulleted list. It is helpful to alphabetize the links if there are more than a few of them. Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent. For example:

• Related person made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005.

Granitethighs (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good to clarify this. I went through the "See also" section a while back with this guideline in mind and pruned it fairly severely. However, I'm not sure I eliminated all links that were contained in the text. Sunray (talk)

We should be weary of cutting it back too severely, I think if we use common sense, we'll discover that it would be wise to include certain important links in the see also section, even if they have already been used in the body. It is a very space-efficient and powerful way to link to important, interrelating and relevant information. Nick carson (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

We are getting feedback now. One reviewer has said: "my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability". I will try and follow the format of the first references in the lead and first section that have been checked by Sunray - and follow gradually through the whole document. Granitethighs (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can take the hint. I'm not going through the citations fast enough... I'll get right on it. Sunray (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Its OK, I wasn't pushing - we can share this task between us all. Granitethighs (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We now have feedback on the article at Sustainability. I'm not sure of procedure from here. I guess we incorporate all the suggestions and then submit again. Perhaps when this is done we also ask reviewers if FA is too ambitious? Should we tick items off like before when they are done? Granitethighs (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I very much appreciate Finetooth's comments. Clearly we have a ways to go yet!. Interestingly, though, his suggestions are very doable. I was struck by the example he gave of the "communities, households, and organizations" statement. That was something recently added by a driveby, anon editor. Perhaps we should restore the "under construction" tag until we are ready for the FA review. I think, given recent experience, it would be a good idea to work out additions of a paragraph or more on the talk page or subpages. Sunray (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it would be a good idea to tick off items as they are done. To facilitate that, I've moved the reviewers' comments here. Sunray (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks S for transferring Finetooth's comments - I'll have a go as soon as I can and tick em off. I agree about working on paragraph lengths on separate pages. Granitethighs (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability peer review March 2009 - reviewers' comments

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 22:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into this article about a complicated subject. It's a long way from FA, although it has potential. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

Layout

• The Manual of Style (MoS) advises against sandwiching text between two images. Many of the images in the existing article should be moved to avoid these text sandwiches.

I have moved images to avoid these clashes but I think the layout of text and images to achieve good page design can be improved. I am confused also by the fact that I assume each computer will display differently. Can we ask for assistance with this? Granitethighs (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Generally, except for the lead image, it's best to set the image size to "thumb" rather than forcing a specific pixel width.
• When an image is directional, as in the case of the dodo, it's best to position it so the reader's eye is directed into the text rather than out of the page. The dodo would be better positioned on the right.

I have positioned the DoDo to the right but am unsure about best right/left disposition of the remaining images.  Done

• MOS:SCROLL says, "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing."

Our "drop-down" side bars contain a lot of very useful links. I'm not sure what to do here - is the suggestion that we remove them? Granitethighs (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Generally, lists should be turned into straight prose.

I would not be enthusiastic about this - the lists we use state information succinctly and clearly. Flowing text with this info would be a hard read. Granitethighs (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotations

• The MoS suggests using blockquotes only for direct quotations of four lines or more. Shorter quotations should be embedded in the text inside normal quotation marks. The quotations should not be in italics.  Done
• Direct quotations need attribution within the text and not just in the footnotes. Otherwise, readers may mistake assertions for statements of fact. An example from the final section of the article is "People do not always vote in their self interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values." This should be embedded in the text, put in quotation marks, de-italicized, and attributed to George Lakoff with a dialogue saying "according to George Lakoff" or "George Lakoff said" or "in the words of George Lakoff" or something similar. Done

Assertion vs. verifiable fact

• It's important to make a clear distinction between what Misplaced Pages is presenting as verifiable fact and what an outside writer is advancing as an opinion. The distinction must not be blurred. An example of blurring appears in the first two sentences of the "Human settlements" section: "While sustainability is a major global issue, implementation must occur first within our communities, households, and organizations. The study of the interrelationships among these communities, households, and organizations must occur in order to determine a successful and quantifiable plan of action." If this is coming from Misplaced Pages, it violates NPOV. To avoid violating NPOV, it must be clearly labeled as the opinion of someone outside of Misplaced Pages. In addition, Misplaced Pages would not use "our" or similar pronouns in this way, partly for reasons related to NPOV. It's important to write as though seeing Earth from Mars, a detached reporter of verifiable events.
• Don't insert Misplaced Pages into the text as "we" or "us". I see several other places in the text that slip into "we" and "us" mode.  Done

Bolding

• Bolding is added automatically to the section heads. In the main text, it should be used only in the first line of the lead for the word "Sustainability". Otherwise it should be removed from all instances in the main text such as "Management of human consumption" in the "Implementation" section.  Done

Sourcing

• A good rule of thumb is to source every unusual claim, every direct quote, every statistic, and every paragraph. Although the article includes many citations, some sections have none.
• An example is the short "Chemicals" section.  Done

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Very helpful critique. Nick carson (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

MEA and over sourcing the United Nations

I have reduced the number of references to the MEA to seven. The MEA (hardly surprisingly) contains critical statistics and comments concerning the state of the biosphere. I cannot reduce the number more. You may want to get someone outside our group of editors to pass an opinion on whether or not this is overkill - or wait for further peer review. Granitethighs (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is only a small part of the over linking/sourcing to United Nations related material in the article. Not really sure how many times U.N. material related and reffed and sourced in the article but it goes way beyond just the obviousl MEA reffs. The MEA (hardly surprisingly) contains critical statistics and comments concerning the state of the biosphere. end... yes.. but they just collated information and did no actual research but relied on information and then put it together in a certain way with a pov. skip sievert (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, these scientists were selected as experts in their particular field to make submissions concerning their particular specialities. I cannot imagine external pressure being applied - there would have been a major outcry, especially as so many were involved. Misplaced Pages is sponsored by all sorts of people and organisations: does that mean that you and I are muzzled or forced into a particular POV? Probably the only way to resolve this issue re the UN is to get an independent outside view. I am perfectly happy for any reviewer to be told that this has been discussed by the team and is an unresolved issue on which we would appreciate comment. Granitethighs (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem with overlinking old U.N. related material is that a lot of it is out of date... and does not reflect research that is happening now... things like http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7935159.stm point out that much antiquated material presented by the U.N. is stale at best. This is why current science sourcing seems better... it also gets rid of the governmental political corporate aspect also that is baggage of U.N. presented material.

Another example... using the MEA to anon source something like ocean acidification instead of something up to date and cutting edge like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7936137.stm ... nothing can be learned really from the old MEA link which is ancient compared to this other information. Replacing most of these links is suggested, otherwise the article really does not give useful information and is not informative. Keep the section of MEA material... but spilling this link over through out the article, does not do the article information any favor as to sourcing/reffing and creative presentation of material. I see some of the MEA/U.N. refs have been eliminated... and that is a start... but many more need to go for credible and informative information presentation. Mostly the over use of that sourcing deprives the article of better education sources of information. skip sievert (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentally this is a difference of opinion about what is a Reliable Source - so I've posted it as a question here.

My own opinion is that MEA and other meta-analyses of multiple scientific work around the world and across decades is a far more reliable source than news or "cutting edge" scientific reports. There's so much published, and so much of it is contradictory or turns out to be BS after awhile, which of course is what creates the need for these major international meta-analyses in the first place. I don't see how it's possible to write an encyclopedia article, free of original research, without relying on high-level sources like the UN. That said, Skip's link on ocean acidification is easy to access online, readable and informative. Perhaps there's room for two types of "best" link; the most reliable source and the most readable?--Travelplanner (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Even in the extremely unlikely event of the MEA being BS, its influence is undeniable and it is essential that it be included in WP reportage such as this article. In specific reply to Skip: as I said before, because the report was a deliberate attempt to summarise the "state of the planet" in a biological sense, there is a lot of excellent summary information and statistics in it. That is why it is quoted 7 times. I agree with TP about trying to include all the latest gee whiz info from the radio and TV. Lets give this a rest now Skip, let an outsider or two have a say, so we can get on with getting the peer review suggestions done. Granitethighs (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The level of discussion in response to my reliable source question is pretty amazing, check it out.--Travelplanner (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing things G.T. so give it a rest... no... and who has over linked and over reffed the links in question mostly ???, so it is not appropriate to suggest others just ignore them. The U.N. stuff is quoted many more times than 7 in the article ... I am not talking about just the specific M.E.A. reff.

Thank you T.P., obviously you brought your opinion to the question of this in my opinion oversourcing of U.N. related material... and I doubt what they had to say supports the idea of using this link over much except where it is directly called for in relation to the U.N. - My favorite comment on the page is probably the first one ...

``It's a RS for the position of the UN. I wouldn't use it as a definitive source beyond that. THF (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)::

This fits pretty nearly with what I have been saying... and I do believe a concerted effort needs to be made at telling where the source is from... a kind of intro... or disclaimer... or before each use of the ref in the article ... beyond the specific area in the article that is built around the very U.N. M.E.A. information. Bottom line ...the U.N. is funded... many times from corporations and political special interest groups. As a primary source it is not really effective or good except to source itself as information it is presenting. skip sievert (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TP for making the referral to the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. I agree that the discussion was comprehensive. The verdict, below, is very clear and authoritative. Sunray (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Verdict of RS page concerning UN and MEA discussion

OK my understanding of the above advice (much appreciated) is:

• A large organisation like the UN needs will generate different types of information; political statements, consensus decisions, scientific reviews etc. Editors will need to make judgements as to whether a specific UN report is a reliable source for a specific statement.
• In the specific case of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment this is a reliable source. The relative weight to give to this source is an editorial judgement.
• The topic talk page is the right place to have the rest of this discussion.

Is that the gist of it?--Travelplanner (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

you nailed it. Dlabtot (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If there are ongoing issues over weight or COI that can't be resolved on the talk page, you could seek help at other venues (but not here, because this page is only for RS discussions). Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There never was an issue as to it being a reliable source. The issue was that it is oversourced and that as a source as stated above it works fine as a source of the U.N. --- Using it to source the kitchen sink as was being done throughout the article was not appropriate... for reasons mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_United_Nations_a_Reliable_Source.3F

Quote, from above. ``It's a RS for the position of the UN. I wouldn't use it as a definitive source beyond that. THF (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the number of sources that spill into the article of this is still excessive compared to the availability of different points of view... this is still an on going problem. skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Skipsievert. The statement you have quoted from User:THF is one editor's opinion among several. That statement was also made early in the discussion of the UN as a source in general, potentially including political statements, not just as a source of scientific reports. The discussion continued for some time after that statement and became more specific. The final consensus was that the UN's Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report is a reliable source and appropriate to use in this article. It is not as you say only "fine as a source of the U.N.", it is fine as a reliable scientific secondary source, not unlike a publication in a reputable science journal. There was also some agreement that unless other reliable sources disagreed with its findings, there is no need to explicitly state that the statements in the prose are sourced from the MEA (but the source would still need to be cited, as always). I would also say that in cases where the MEA has the most recent comprehensive scientific perspective on a given area of the article, it's natural that it will be quoted in that area. Of course, other secondary reliable sources (i.e. sources such as literature reviews) should also be given their due weight, especially if those sources reach different conclusions to the MEA. Primary sources, including "published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments" are always less preferable than secondary studies, and in the rare cases that they are used they should only be used descriptively and not intepreted by editors. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding use of MEA as a source

I'd like to make a suggestion regarding the concern of the over-use of the MEA report as a source in this article. I would suggest that every time the source is cited, a relevant quote from the report be given inside the reference. That is, the quote would not be visible in the prose of the article, but would be readable in the References section. This will ensure that every time the source is being cited against a statement, text in the source that supports the statement can easily viewed and so that readers and editors can decide for themselves whether the source is being used appropriately. Personally, I find this a useful approach for ensuring the most transparent possible use of sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea R.P.-. I never thought it was bad sourcing really... just overdone in extremis. It has improved since it was at its most overt http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 in the article. The team here is overly fond of it, I think... that would be to the detriment, I believe, if they are seeking good article status. Mostly it seems a perfect source for the section in the article entitled...Global human impact on biodiversity - Main article: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

A lot of the information originally in this report is outdated presently. Also because it is presented in a possible political... corporate context.. while also it may strive for neutral presentation in its findings... there is still that corporate sponsorship aspect. The article presently looks better without as much sourcing to this one thing. So... that seems like an improvement. It may still be over weighted though in the context of well rounded presentation in the beginning section in particular... my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We have no reliable sources raising doubt about possible bias of the MEA. When I searched for sources on the RS noticeboard I found that the MEA seemed to be well regarded. Unless you intend to provide reliable sources to back up your statements, I suggest that it would be pointless to continue insinuating that the report may be politically or "corporately" biased. So long as there is no evidence of such bias, that argument holds no water and seems especially implausable alongside your statement that the reliability of the source is not in question. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In terms of your concern of over-use of sources originating from the UN, I would note that the article cites over 150 sources and that many of them seem unrelated to the UN. I would also suggest that instead of making such a broad-brush criticism you focus on specific statements in the article that are currently referenced to UN sources that you believe would be better referenced to other sources, or that you believe can be shown to be outdated by referencing other sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless you intend to provide reliable sources to back up your statements, I suggest that it would be pointless to continue insinuating that the report may be politically or "corporately" biased. R.P. end quote..I assume you have not researched who funded them. Donors and in-kind contributors. I assume you have heard of the Rockefeller Foundation, USA and some of the other corporate contributors here such as the World Bank? These are strings attached... one could suppose... right? In terms of your concern of over-use of sources originating from the UN, I would note that the article cites over 150 sources and that many of them seem unrelated to the UN. Yes...? not my argument. Is there some part of this that bothers you??, that you want to defend here, from the previous version presented http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 I have said that the article is better now... because this load of Refs... has been reduced. As a link it works... never said it did not... just said it was previously over used.

The Board of the Millennium Assessment, on behalf of all those involved, would like to thank the following institutions for their support (as of December 2003): Donors

   * Global Environment Facility (GEF)
   * United Nations Foundation (UNF)
   * David and Lucille Packard Foundation, USA
   * The World Bank
   * United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
   * Government of Norway
   * Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN)
   * Swedish International Biodiversity Programme (SwedBio), Sweden
   * Rockefeller Foundation, USA
   * US National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA)
   * Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), UK
   * International Council for Science (ICSU), France
   * The Christensen Fund, USA
   * Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

End.

A small number of the donors listed...http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Donors.aspx -

I would also suggest that instead of making such a broad-brush criticism you focus on specific statements in the article that are currently referenced to UN sources that you believe would be better referenced to other sources, or that you believe can be shown to be outdated by referencing other sources. Check out the article edit history...R.P. I have tried to do this and others recently also have done this. skip sievert (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sponsorship does not demonstrate bias. Do you have a reliable source stating that the report is biased due to its sponsorship? If not, this is just a personal theory of yours and editors here should not be expected to give it any special credence. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved discussion on "Economic opportunity" to subpage

This discussion on this topic has been moved to the "Economic" subpage here Sunray (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Done a major edit on "economic" section on the subpage here. Please can we keep the edits and discussion of edits on subpages or it becomes unmanageable. A quick note here on the main page may be a good way to allay concerns about the transparency of this.--Travelplanner (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so this topic is not lost to the talk page... I think this is an important thing to deal with now in the article. The talk page is a confused mess also... that leads in circle currently. Here is a recent edit that can be scrutinized... I would think.

I do wonder why it is that this org is being interjected into the article at all http://www.solonline.org/aboutsol/history/

It appears to be a sponsored by a bunch of Corporations. I suggest dropping this whole section from the article (Economic opportunity) and the counterpoint from the article as I suspect something fishy about this whole injection of corporate media connected with very very little information that could be done to better effect... differently without fake corporate promo.

By 1995, the center consisted of 19 organizational partners including Amoco, AT&T, Chrysler, EDS, Federal Express, Ford Motor Company, Harley Davidson Motorcycle Company, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel Corporation, Lucent Technologies, Merck & Company, National Semi-Conductor, Pacific Bell, Philips, and the Quality Management Network (a consortium of healthcare organizations), Shell Oil Company, Texas Instruments, and US West. Working in partnership with researchers at MIT, a number of these companies undertook a variety of significant organizational experiments. Through these experiments, we have explored building learning capabilities in intact teams, developing new organizational learning infrastructures, transforming the assumptions and practices of executive leadership, and developing internal learning communities. Over time, some companies have involved thousands of people in these organizational experiments and they are a money donation outfit also... very much a corporate entity http://store-solonline.org/

On top of that their founder is a promotional speaker http://www.bigspeak.com/peter-senge.html

Can I note that people are being paid on the internet to inject corporate connectors... like this... and note that originally the posting had multiple companies included in the article edit? This smells funny to me, like corporate spamming the article with major corporation promoting right below the surface.

I say drop the ref to this corporate for profit non profit.

Also a cursory mention of this type of thing economic incentives, and trading of former externalities in financial markets (e.g. carbon trading, water trading etc.). is pointless and gratuitous, and the end section can be dropped entirely and if needed an actual critique of carbon trading could be made... but not this toss off which gets at nothing really about it. Carbon trading is highly controversial... and should not be bandied about without much more critical comment... as is trading water. Why are we advertising a corporation that advertises other corporations... probably for promo reasons? This seems like a very bad idea to pad the article with what some could say is fake money making non profit groups... that advertise corporations. skip sievert (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

1. This of course refers only to links related to the topic, not links that are incidental, e.g. linking to a jargon word in a sentence.
2. Cite error: The named reference sequence was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Requests for peer review
• B-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Peer review pages with semiautomated peer reviews