Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:35, 30 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.
  • Removed this specific text, which had been added by an anon IP. Sunray (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)  Done
• 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)

Sorry, but it is not my personal theory that they were funded by corporate interests. Also there are mixed reports about it... here is one http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24076/pub_detail.asp

One difficulty with the MA’s assessment of ecosystems on the global scale is the limits or absence of data, which the MA forthrightly acknowledges:

Relatively few ecosystem services have been the focus of research and monitoring and, as a consequence, research findings and data are often inadequate for a detailed global assessment. Moreover, the data and information that are available are generally related to either the characteristics of the ecological system or the characteristics of the social system, not to the all-important interactions between these systems. Finally, the scientific and assessment tools and models available to undertake a cross-scale integrated assessment and to project future changes in ecosystem services are only now being developed. At this point the lay reader may scratch his head and wonder, just how, then, is the MA reaching these sweeping conclusions and offering projections for the year 2050? Are they just making it up?

Because of the age of this thing... even being 5 or 6 years old... lots of the facts and figures seem antiquated also. Here is an example of outdated U.N. information, compared to recently discovered and collated information. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7935159.stm ... recently added to the article. skip sievert (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misread my question. Do you have a reliable source stating that the report is biased due to its sponsorship? Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Calm down friend. I am not a conspiracy theory person. At all. This is a non-issue. I am not pressing this issue. Mostly the article has been changed as to over referencing the MEA material now. Whether the World Bank or the Rockefeller Foundation has strings attached to their money I have no idea... and do not care. Some people think the U.N. is great... and the wave of the future. Others hate it. Each have a multitude of reasons. Mostly you can find believers on both sides.... but this is not really the issue. The issue was that previously, in at least my opinion, the article was over reffing itself in a dump every thing into the laundry bin way to a certain thing... http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 - that has now changed in the article, so my suggestion is that this is a dead to more relative minor issue now. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

With no reliable source to back up your insinuations that the UN reports are biased, it's wasting people's time to push that barrow. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there some part of that is not my problem or issue that you are missing here? Have you noticed that what you are repeating is not in contention so much? More that the report is antique old information that was over reffed previously but is better now because other editors have removed some of the over reffing? I told you a couple of times that I was mainly complaining about the over reffing of the link... ok? My insinuations?... Obviously the U.N. report was financed... correct? No please, just stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass

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)

Copenhagen International Scientific Congress on Climate Change

This may be an important link to have in the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/stern-attacks-politicians-climate-change ... Here is an example of the information in it... His stark warning about the potentially "devastating" consequences of global warming came as scientists issued a desperate plea last night for world leaders to curb greenhouse gas emissions or face an ecological and social disaster. More than 2,500 climate experts from 80 countries at an emergency summit in Copenhagen said there is now "no excuse" for failing to act on global warming. A failure to agree strong carbon reduction targets at political negotiations this year could bring "abrupt or irreversible" shifts in climate that "will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with" etc.

I may find a place to insert some of this information later today... but if any one else thinks they may like to use this link... in context in the article, to information in the link... have at it. This looks like very stark and important information... and extremely overtly topical. skip sievert (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My view would be that we keep the sustainability article "long-term" and, following Paddy's recommendation, mostly reliable secondary sources (I am not saying this source is unreliable). It is one of the problems with sustainability that everything is constantly moving on all fronts - we will not be able to keep up with the latest information but can only hope to cover it in a general sense. I hope we have captured the fact that climate change might get worse. I think the climate change page is the place for this sort of announcement. Granitethighs (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Right... it contradicts older U.N. information. Pretty dramatically, it pretty much shows how outdated the U.N. material is. Science is science... that means facts. Facts are not opinion. Bolstering the article with facts... and sources that have variety.. is important. skip sievert (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Skip on this one - on balance. My call is that this is an important development, not at all the sort of thing that happens every day. The scientists at a (Skip please note) corporate sponsored conference closely linked to the UN have issued a separate scientific statement which is hard-hitting, scary and urgent and very well backed up by highly respected people. It throws the scale of action to date into sharp relief relative to the task ahead.

I've posted a question on the Climate Change page - it's not referenced there currently, and if it's worth including here it's worth including there, and they are presumably better placed to make the call about its relevance than I am.

I don't think the Guardian article is the correct reference - better to link to the scientists' statement directly here

I recognise that updating the article with every event in the constantly-moving field of Sustainability is an impossibility - though Nick and others managed almost real-time updates of Victorian Bushfires it was only for a few days, the topic was clearly defined and I'm not sure if they ate or slept much. BUT

Updates are helpful, certainly ones like this that are at least as important as the information already in the article.

So Skip, where in the article do you see it fitting best? Others, do you agree it should be added? Personally I think it belongs at the end of the History section and acknowledged again at the very end.--Travelplanner (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I suggest the climate change bit is where it should go. Granitethighs (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright... I put this very close to the end in the history section, a quote from it, some other aspect could enter the article lower down in the climate change area.

Environmental scientists (Copenhagen climate change summit 2009 Climate change report) Copenhagen Climate Council, issue a strongly worded statement:

"The climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts."http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/stern-attacks-politicians-climate-change - http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages/

Put this also in the global warming section of article reffed to same info...

Recently 2,500 climate experts from 80 countries at an emergency summit in Copenhagen (Copenhagen climate change summit 2009) Copenhagen Climate Council, issued a keynote statement that there is now "no excuse" for failing to act on global warming. A part of a statement issued argues that without strong strong carbon reduction targets at political negotiations this year, "abrupt or irreversible" shifts in climate that "will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with" may occur. - skip sievert (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Skip and for detailing the change on this page. I moved the quote forward a little in the first section to follow on from the climate change sentence and altered the wording a little to keep it short and simple. Also indented it a bit to make it clear. It is just slightly less than the 4 lines needed for a blockquote but long enough IMO to be separated from the continuous flow of the text. See if it looks OK and let me know if any of what I've done does not seem appropriate. I'm not sure about repeating the info but we do need something in the climate change slot. Granitethighs (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The addition looks good. But does anyone else think this subsection (21st century) needs a copyedit? The first sentence is a bit of a monster. Happy to put it up on a subpage and have a go, if others agree.--Travelplanner (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Go for it TP; that would be great. P.S. Any chance of the magic sustainability square going onto the diagram? Granitethighs (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Mostly it is just the first sentence that is awkward. Try rewriting it on the article. It is not such a big thing.

Redid a couple of the clunky sentences in the beginning of the 21st. century area.. New...More specific and detailed studies have led to an understanding and awareness of the importance of sustainability. Global awareness of the threat posed by the human-induced enhanced greenhouse effect, produced largely by forest clearing and the burning of fossil fuels, poses a threat to many species

Formerly it said... Old... Since the turn of the century, more specific and detailed initiatives have led to widespread understanding and awareness of the importance of sustainability prompted by a sudden global awareness of the threat posed by the human-induced enhanced greenhouse effect produced largely by forest clearing and the burning of fossil fuels. - skip sievert (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest in team

. Sunray (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the COI banner from the article. My comments on this "issue" are here--Travelplanner (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have also commented on the issue here. In addition, sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites are about as far from non-notable as the Milky Way from Triangulum. Nick carson (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably is better to leave the conflict of interest tag on as this is being gone over now on the notice board mentioned above... and it is their suggestion that a tag should be put on an article with this perception of conflict that is stated on the beginning info of that notice board. The article continues to reference a capital concern... a for profit book, that is authored by editor Granitethighs here by their own admission, and that was not disclosed as to give others a choice previously as to notability of said project or other issues. Here is the reff/note in the article ...note deleted by --Travelplanner (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)... skip sievert (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip I am happy to add the COI banner back if the outcome on the COI page supports your view. While 4 editors think it's a non-issue, and we have no external comment, surely the 1,000+ visitors to this page can be spared having it in their faces.

Note the requirements on the WP:COI page to "Please limit statements to 200 words or less. Long, drawn-out speeches may be ignored."

And seriously note the last point: "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline".

Cheers --Travelplanner (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

. Sunray (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok now we have an answer from user:EdJohnston which I will summarise as:

• This isn't a matter needing COI enforcement
• It's boring
• We have work to do on the article

Makes sense to me, can we get back to doing something useful?--Travelplanner (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that is over with yet. Lets not jump to conclusions. book is probably not a neutral presentation. It is all about the U.N. and all about his p.o.v. -- which has been injected into the article. Also some real aspects have come up about the presentation and over control of a closed circle of editors on what appears to be a mission. The article was a good B article before... It was over reffed with political and U.N. material as the team has edited it. I have tried to trim a little of that down. This is now an issue that has been made known by outside reviewers. skip sievert (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral presentation

As has been noted in the peer review and also in the recent conflict of interest discussion, the article seems to have lost its way as a neutral presentation of the different aspects of sustainability, and had become an exercise in ax grinding the pov of the U.N. and its associated bodies of studies and commissions, statements, etc. - Also because of, in my view, the over control of a team of editors here led by Sunray, and Travelplanner and Granitethighs, who also formatted his recently published book into the citations... and there was no discussion on notability of it or disclosure of his organization or authorship'... all of whom have all promoted and recently defended a probably non notable, very recently published book... written by one of those editors... it seems pretty apparent that this article for months has not really improved but has lapsed into a non neutral crusade of pointing and leading to information.

So... I have shortened some of the more trivial material in the article... stuff that may lead to over reffed U.N. material... and there still is some of that... also organizations that are corporate promoters of sustainability and I would ask if any members here of the team are involved in any outside aspects that could make for conflicts of interest could they discuss it next time? Some sections of the article which were preachy and calling Misplaced Pages readers to get involved in political/sociological aspects... were also edited down. Neutral presentation does not include for calling for political/sociological aspects as solutions and promotions in this context. skip sievert (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please present specific evidence to support your claims. There has been no ruling on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard and several editors have disagreed with your outrageous and vexatious claims. Sunray (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not try to provoke or be uncivil by describing real issues as you have done above. Removing a tag is not a good idea. The tag is to get other people to examine issues brought up. With a closed editing team controlled mostly by yourself as leader, very little outside input is coming into the editing here. skip sievert (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, these issues have been covered before; there is no leader, and description hardly constitutes provocation or uncivilised discussion, on the contrary. There are plenty of people aware of the issues and discussing them and anyone else can jump into the discussion at any time. The other thing I see keep popping up are requests for you to provide evidence to support your claims. Please don't dismiss the responses and comments of other editors on the basis that they have been helping edit the article or any suspicions you may have of them being biased. I for one am the least likely person I know to assess anything on any basis other than reality, fact, truth, etc. So if your claims can be proved to be true, I'll accept them no worries. How about you list your concerns here in dot points so we can adress each one? Nick carson (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston's final words on the subject at the COI Noticeboard were: "I do think that both articles would benefit from rewriting and should use a less promotional tone about sustainability, but that is not clearly a COI problem."

The peer review has identified specific concerns with the tone of the article, which we are working on. Please stop grinding on this and let us work with the outside reviewers to improve the article. Sunray (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Nick carson (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Restrictions: 1RR

OK, clearly there is a need to calm down the edit war here. A simple solution presents itself: Sr and Ss are both restricted to WP:1RR for the time being. Starting now, and previous reverts count William M. Connolley (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead section rewrite

Perhaps due to the nature of the team here and its interests the article has been problematic as to neutral presentation. This has been noted by outside observers. Reading the lead section of the article was confirmation. The U.N. is cited too much... and it was unclear sometimes that the U.N. opinion... and they are a political corporate sponsored organzation ... was being presented as fact or truth... I rephrased and redid for clarity and flow some passages of the lead... and I think now as the issue of neutral presentation is finally starting to be got at... it is safe to say that the former edit needed help... and still the U.N. material is over done... but at least it is shown where in my opinion this over sourcing is at least presenting. Below is a slight re editing of the lead which is more neutral and more illustrative of lack of p.o.v.... and this is now in the article.

Suggestion... instead of getting revert happy... lets edit the article for incremental improvement and neutral presentation... Also shunting off to a large number of sub pages does not seem to have been a really good way to edit this article because only the team members then seem involved.

New phrasing of lead

Sustainability, in a broad sense is the ability to maintain a certain process or state. The word 'sustainability' is 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 facet of life 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 possibly returning human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits is now problematic.

In 1989, the World Commission on Environment and Development convened by the United Nations in 1983, articulated their definition of sustainability: " the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” End -

Previous version replaced by the above

Sustainability, in a broad sense is the ability to maintain a certain process or state. 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 facet of life 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 human sustainability 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: " the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[4 End -

Best to read in context of given links in the article ... but this comparing gives an idea of the change. skip sievert (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, the lead section has undergone a 4-5 month collaborative rewrite as is of a better quality than it ever has been before, it may require very minor adjustments if anything. Nick carson (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Collaborative editing

People have signed up to a collaborative editing of this article. The present article is the result of a collaborative consensus and any substantial changes need to be considered and discussed by the editing team, otherwise reverting changes is in order. Issues of npov etc are also a matter of consensus. What is or is not a npov - is, in itself, a matter of opinion and one person does not have the right to override all the others without discussion. The article is still under development, it is under peer review and responsive to it. There is always room for improvement but due process is currently consensus.The lead has proved the most difficult section of the article and this is not surprising as it is meant to be a synthesis of the topic as a whole, the article itself, and also being factual, stimulating and imaginitively written. My own view is that we have a way to go. I have also developed a proposal for this section but I think all suggestions need careful collective scrutiny. I would also like to point out that the editing procedure was agreed some time ago and that diversions/disruptions simply extend the whole process in time. Best if we work together one job at a time? I also suggest changes to the Lead be discussed on the "Lead page" cited previously. This saves clutter. Granitethighs (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said GT. I agree with all your points. Sunray (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The editing team here has failed to produce a neutral article in many months of editing and talking about editing. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. There are guidelines. It is better to let others constructively edit the article for this reason and also the fact that the team seems to have too much in common as to what it considers worthy of inclusion. Doing a mass revert like Sunray just did is not really a good idea... that is not cooperative editing really... editing out something like Peak water in the water section seems to very much an exercise of trying to control who is editing rather than who is providing good information. Also in the lead what was attempted was to diminish the preachy tone... and focus without explaining who is saying what in regard to the U.N. skip sievert (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with GT and Sunray, any major changes, questions, issues, etc, need to be discussed in the article's talk page first. My primary interest in life is music, and I have pretty much ignored music and sustainability in this article, if anything. Nick carson (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As said the editing team has taken a B article and turned it into a non neutral promo of the U.N. - As a worker for the U.N. I think you may have a conflict of interest http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 - Granitethighs has linked and reffed his probably non notable book into the article... and Sunray reverts something like Peak water for who knows why. I posted the changes... no one discussed them... they just reverted. skip sievert (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, YOU made the initial changes. It is YOU who has the concern about the UN. Unless and until YOUR views are shared by the collaborative editing team, or there is concern expressed by peer review or other relevant "outside" comment then there is no reason for any adjustments. Granitethighs (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert says: "The editing team has failed to produce a neutral article." He has said this a number of times and in a number of different ways. He has failed to provide any evidence to support this claim.

In the past few weeks he has stated that the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment is not a reliable source and suffers from "corporate bias," alleged a conflict of interest on the part of Granitethighs, accused other editors of "UN bias" and made a number of other allegations. None of these claims has been substantiated.

The reliable source question was referred to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard . The MA was judged by the editors of that noticeboard to be a reliable source. The conflict of interest question was referred to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where an editor found that it was "not clearly a COI problem."

In the absence of any evidence to support these endless claims, they amount to nothing more than Skipsievert's personal point of view. Responding to them has proved incredibly time-consuming and is diverting editors' attention from editing the article, in the midst of a peer review. He does not accept the consensus of editors on this page and he evidently does not accept the opinions of outside reviewers. I think we can no longer respond to any of his allegations that are not supported by documentary evidence and reliable sources. Sunray (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Without clear documentary evidence these vague accusations lack credibility: we cannot afford to waste more time. Granitethighs (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well put Sunray and GT. Skip, such an inclusion should have been discussed beforehand, that is why it was reverted. Also, I do not work for the UN, I don't even get paid for doing anything other than selling computers, delivering pizzas and sometimes for making music. Nick carson (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The team is a fine construct. Lets not confuse that construct though with an ability to assume OWNership of the article. The team is a closed circle of like minded people apparently and this makes for a mono presentation of information in regard to certain things. Granitethighs book highlights the U.N. and he has injected U.N. material into the article to a degree that seems too much. I have never said that the http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx is not notable or could not be used as a link... only that it is linked to an absurd degree in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 .. pardon Nick, but this is not an admission that you are involved in the U.N.? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 to the point where you could be a little careful in regard to editing that subject?

Outside reviewers... from the conflict of interest board have noted that the article has neutrality problems..

At present both articles seem to be far from neutral, since they are promoting sustainability as an Obvious Good Thing, and then planning how to achieve it. (The editors seem to be enlisting Misplaced Pages as a partner in the crusade). If the articles were neutral and factual, they would just be giving a balanced account of what various proponents and opponents have said. It's hard to see this as a matter needing COI enforcement. The neutrality issues that remain are mostly a WP:Neutral point of view problem that could be solved by a change of tone, or by getting input from a broader range of editors. There has already been a concern about NPOV expressed in these peer review comments, under the heading 'Assertion versus verifiable fact.' EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC) end http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

Also... Sunray to say I outed an editor for reffing his book on this article Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites and this Sustainability article... and yes I do believe a really huge conflict of interest has occurred with Granitethighs, has proven untrue. I think it is a problem when an editor makes an entire article sourced by a book they wrote, and then does not disclose that on an article talk page. This guideline seems pretty clear http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Uw-coi It is also true that said editor outed himself. So the clique of editors here listed by name in this section here, seems to be overly in control of the content of this article in my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In responding to your comments, I would first remind you of the review and findings by Jehochman in December, which you agreed to. We continue to abide by those principles. I will respond, as briefly as possible, to your claims, above:

1. There is no "ownership" of the article. The editors who are working on the FA Project all signed up at the top of this page. Please note the open invitation to join.
2. You continue to maintain that GT has a conflict of interest, despite the fact that none was found by the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard . Unless you present a new finding on this matter, we cannot respond to these allegations further.
3. You continue to allege that Nick's involvement with the UN's Decade of Education for Sustainable Development may somehow bias the article. You have presented no evidence of this.
4. You state that the article has "neutrality problems" and refer to the comments of the peer review. These comments have been addressed by GT and me. The specific example given by the reviewer was a passage of text that had been added by an IP editor. At the time s/he added it, we asked for specific page numbers to be able to verify the reference. None were provided, and the text has since been removed. The peer reviewer also commented on the use of "we" and "our" (i.e., the tone of the article). This has also been addressed and will be the subject of further review.

I would like to draw your attention to one of Jehochman's findings:

• "Skipsievert should not frustrate consensus of the working group by posting lengthy or tangential comments, circular arguments or any similar tactics that amount to disruption"

I believe that the other editors and I have all demonstrated our willingness to respond to reasonable requests by you (but please keep them brief). The editors on this page have also demonstrated a willingness to discuss claims supported by evidence by you. I doubt that there is much more anyone can do. Please let us get on with the editing of this article. Sunray (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I brought the issue of team editing led by yourself to Jehochman's attention... he also said that I should be allowed to edit the article which you have prevented me from doing. I have brought up real issues. I have reported what I consider problems here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment - What you are referencing above is not in my view a fair way to present events on the article and I do think you have edited in this manner, in regard to issues brought up. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing as the team in general has in my view, relating to issues having been brought up. I have tried to make the article neutral and also to show where the U.N. is being used to over source material. Also pointed out that an editor sourced his for profit book here himself. That is a clear violation of C.O.I. and those are the rules.

Also from here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard ... At present both articles seem to be far from neutral, since they are promoting sustainability as an Obvious Good Thing, and then planning how to achieve it. (The editors seem to be enlisting Misplaced Pages as a partner in the crusade). If the articles were neutral and factual, they would just be giving a balanced account of what various proponents and opponents have said. It's hard to see this as a matter needing COI enforcement. The neutrality issues that remain are mostly a WP:Neutral point of view problem that could be solved by a change of tone, or by getting input from a broader range of editors. There has already been a concern about NPOV expressed in these peer review comments, under the heading 'Assertion versus verifiable fact.' EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC) End quote seems pretty clear to me... and your appraisal of this seems not really connected to what is going on in the article. skip sievert (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No one has prevented you from editing the article. In fact, you have made dozens of changes to the article in the last few weeks. i did, however revert a number of recent edits, in which you inserted a POV that was completely contrary to the consensus of other editors on this page. You will recall one of Jehochman's findings that "If edits are unhelpful, they can be reverted." I checked each one of your edits. Most inserted your POV that the UN should not be referred to. As I said above, your contention is contrary to the findings of the editors of the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Some of your edits were simply arbitrary stylistic changes, and one was in error: Your addition of the phrase "Peak water" into a sentence about the global water cycle which was a paraphrase of an article by Shiklamov. That article by Shiklamov does not refer to peak water. To do so would violate WP:VER.

Beyond that you repeat a number of other allegations that we have already responded to (some many times). I have nothing further to add. Sunray (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, at the time I wrote that on my userpage, we were still establishing the group, all we knew was that it was part of the UN's effort to educate the world on issues of sustainability. Once we had a name, built the website and became more organised, I updated the info on my userpage accordingly. Nick carson (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray your are misconstruing... by mistake my stance. Most inserted your POV that the UN should not be referred to. end quote Sunray. Not true.. my opinion is that the team has over used and over inserted related information because of the obvious pov of the team which in my view acts in detriment to neutral presentation and that the U.N. info. has spilled over through out the article in links and related ref/notes... quotes etc. Related U.N. information used a couple three times would be fine... but it is not used to neutral presentation effect currently in the article.skip sievert (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Obvious POV of the team." Sorry pal, I don't buy that. I do not have the same POV as Nick, GT or TP. You would need to show evidence of this and so far, you have not. I plan to drop this one now. You? Sunray (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Curtailing quality degredation in the rewritten article

Passionate about sustainability? For it? Against it? Got some valuable information to contribute? Before you click edit this page and jump in...

A group of WP editors have spent 4-5 months rewriting this article, and their still working on it, attempting to gain it Featured Article status. Since the major overall rewrite, a number of edits have been made by a number of different editors that have doubled up information, deleted valuable information, etc. These edits degrade the overall quality of the article, making it more and more difficult to improve upon it further. If you have any information to contribute or see anything that needs fixing or feel you can help in any way, please discuss it here first. This will enable us to maintain the quality of the article whilst simultaneously improving upon it, refining it, in our efforts to gain FA status.

There are a number of people watching it diligently, so any vandalism will disapear very quickly, plus, vandalism is old dude, it's all about Street Art now, didn't you know that? No one cares about vandalism anymore, and if you want to have fun, go to Uncyclopedia! Nick carson (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Amen, brother Nick. Given that one of the problem examples identified by the peer reviewer was some text that had been added by a driveby anon IP, I was wondering whether we should put the "under construction" template back on the article page for awhile, to get the article into final form for the FA submission. Sunray (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. I readded the text you've removed 3X - sorry, there was half a reference sitting in limbo in the main article and I checked what it was referring to and put it in. Much better without this. I'll get back to the references soon. Granitethighs (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a bad idea because of the past performance of the team as it relates to neutral presentation (U.N. over sourcing). The team has had so many multiple sub-pages going on that it may be difficult to figure out what is what. Also recently I noticed that a book was reintroduced into the article that was written by one of the team members. This is a conflict of interest or possibly just spam. The person in question works for the company also that had the book published. There is nothing notable about the book. Sources given in the book can be gone to and used instead of using a non notable book which was put into the article by a member of the team here and endorsed by all other members apparently. The book is a capital project.

It is noted that the team has worked on this article for not sure how long, and it is arguable that the article has not been much improved with their control of editing, (my opinion). It was a good B article before, it was written in general (my opinion), in a more neutral manner previously. skip sievert (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In response: 1) The observations about neutral language made by the peer reviewer have been addressed. 2) There has been no conflict interest found. You referred this to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard and they said that it was "not clearly a conflict of interest." 3) I have restored the citation to this book as I believe it to be a valuable and reliable source. Sunray (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with sourcing the article to a team members book here, that the other members of the team support. By the same token, it should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the author or other interested party is the creator of the Misplaced Pages article (mentioned elsewhere Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites) See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest

I assume you are speaking for the team here Sunray that you believe Granitethings book should be a part of the article. However, I think that the book is non-notable as it doesn't meet WP: Notability (books) though we are not discussing whether the book should be made into an article where the criteria is probably steeper. Because of that and the fact that the book was introduced into the article by the author of the book... a team member, I do think we have a classic case of spamming an article with a commercial book the sources of which could be used though. Sustainable Gardening (Paperback) Sustainable Gardening(Paperback) More About this Product List Price: $35.00 This is a hefty price. Where does the money go... or beyond that how is it that this book is notable? Another problem I have with all of this is that the author of the book also started an article Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites pretty much mono sourced to that book also http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites&diff=prev&oldid=277643838 - Primary sources, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

I would call this spamming or conflict of interest. Those are the rules. You can not introduce a book you have written on Misplaced Pages... in an article you created... and especially not when you introduce the material like an ordinary source without revealing the spam aspect of reffing your own book. skip sievert (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip if those are the rules, why was no conflict of interest found on the COI noticeboard? And if the book is "non-notable" why are you bringing this up on the talk page for a sustainability article when nobody has ever questioned sustainability being a notable subject? And if there is a rule saying you cannot introduce a book you have written in Misplaced Pages, where is this rule written down? And since when was "UN over-reffing" a recognised problem?

Most importantly when will you stop wasting everyone's time answering your discredited criticisms over and over again and let us get on with improving the article?--Travelplanner (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, you'll need to provide evidence for your claims. All assertions and discussion thereafter is a bit of a time waster. We've all got better things to do, so if you've got worries, suspicions, theories, work out the nuts and bolts and try to prove them as being fact. A quick tip, the CSIRO is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), it's the national government body for scientific research in Australia, not a company or other such private commercial entity. I've got theories/suspicions about Swire Shipping company, or someone advocating them, posting comments on the talk page of the 2009 Queensland oil spill article, but suspicions are all they are right now because I don't have sufficient information to say that it's fact. Nick carson (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagging section for spamming book

The section: Management of human consumption tag for spamming commercial book by editor and team member here) How is it that an entire area of the article is sourced to a commercial non notable book authored by a team member and endorsed by the editing team here? skip sievert (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The publisher is in effect, a scientific research arm of the Commonwealth of Australia. More evidence needs to be provided before any valid accusations of COI can be made. Any material published by the CSIRO is considered somewhat notable at the very least. Nick carson (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Nick has said. We need to base decisions on facts and evidence, not someone's POV. The guideline defines wikispam as "advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spamming." Skipsievert is referring to a citation that is a reliable source. Reviewing the criteria in the guideline there appears to be no justification for a spam tag and I've removed it. Sunray (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Granitethighs put the ref/link in the article to source non specifically an entire sub section of the article, which Sunray has again reverted back to Granitethighs book reffing. Granitethighs previously did not reveal he was the author of this book. He also used his book in another article Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites. This book of his may or may not be notable... but it was never discussed or revealed until it was exposed recently that he was sourcing information to his own published book. That seems conflicted... and it also seems like spam in the sense that a commercial book was used in an article by the person that wrote it. The author is also affiliated with the group involved in having the book published.

The book is not written about or reviewed anywhere except on commercial book selling sites. It may contain some interesting information, but much of that information was sourced outside of the book and put into the book... more info on this here Talk:Sustainable gardening. This issue I think violates some basic guidelines. I understand that a couple of editors here in the team support inclusion of the book in the article, but I do not because of reasons given. skip sievert (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

You have repeated this dozens of times. No one agrees with you. Your continued insistence on your POV in your talk page comments and edits amounts to disruptive editing (see next section). Please stop. Sunray (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The general tone of your communication is not helpful, nor is the replication of material below when a simple link would do. You asked for information regarding the spam tag. I have given it. I have not repeated this dozens of times. My talk page? What has that got to do with editing the article? We're here to help each other, not to assume bad faith and try to bash each other. skip sievert (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip, we asked for evidence, you need evidence, proof. Please don't search for points on which to argue. Your advice is excellent: "We're here to help each other, not to assume bad faith and try to bash each other." but are you following it? Nick carson (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to 'get the point'

• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
• WP:IDHT

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is an accepted rule when it is not.

The editing team has expressed the view that reasonable verified and substantiated requests will be given full consideration. However, IMO the recent spate of "refusing to get to the point", repeated "tagging" total disengagement with "consensus building", "ignoring of requests for explanations", "ignoring moderator suggestions", "rapid negative engagement with new contributors" all spell out the pattern of disruptive editing that has long-delayed completion of this collective effort, and it deserves disciplinary action. Granitethighs (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely concur that Skip's editing lately has met many if not all of the above criteria for disruptive editing.--Travelplanner (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd be willing of course to listen and discuss and devote time to any suspicions Skip has if he can provide some more information and proof on the assertions, but in the meantime it is disruptive. Last week, I extended an offer of transparency on his user talk page to discuss any issues he has with the editing team, etc, but he seems to have refused or just doesn't want to talk about the nuts and bolts. Nick carson (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from copy pasting long guidelines about articles and demeaning missives about other editors. A simple link or paragraph would do if a point is trying to be made. When a quarter of a page is devoted to something that is debatable anyway then Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves becomes a larger issue. skip sievert (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Offering transparent and honest discussion is not taunting or baiting. I have not seen any occurence of anyone pushing you to the point of breaching civility, on the contrary. Editors here are merely relaying the reality of the situation. The opportunity to talk/discuss your concerns and try and work through proving any suspicions you might have, stands. Nick carson (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice on adding material

On the advice of User:Granitethighs I am requesting the editors whether the following essay can be put in the article? This is a personal essay on my attempt to live sustainably. This essay was published in a leading Indian newspaper as main article. When I tried putting it in the article it was removed. I feel that after all the whole concept of sustainable living implies personal examples.

All the best. Ruralface (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources are an important aspect of a neutral encyclopedia article. The policy on reliable sources states: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This includes peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by a reputable publisher. Self-published sources are usually not acceptable. I have removed the reference to your article as it did not seem to meet the policy. Please let me know if I've missed something. Sunray (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen many articles in Wiki which have references to the newspaper articles. This essay of mine was also published in a leading English newspaper in India. The link to the newspaper article is at the bottom of the essay. I do understand that peer reviewed articles carry more authenticity but the whole basis of Wiki is to give as much knowledge as possible and an article published in a leading newspaper also is peer reviewed by the editors.

All the best. Ruralface (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a very wide subject to cover, my own view is that it does not really enhance an article on such a huge topic to include details at the level of your work, which however would be an excellent addition to the Sustainable living article.--Travelplanner (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TP, it would be better suited to the sustainable living article, however, it would be a good addition nonetheless in the External Links section of this article at the very least. Such personal stories are invaluable to people seeking more detailed and personalised information, perhaps not best suited for inclusion in a factual article on the subject, but highly valuable information regardless. Nick carson (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will add this as an external link. I will also try to put this in sustainable living. However my past attempts have been vandalised by some user. Part of the mistake was mine since I did not have an account.

All the best Ruralface (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The news article would have to be the link, though, not the self-published version, to meet the requirements for verification. Sunray (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that Ruralface has added the link to a newsletter which I believe he is publisher of. I've left him a note on his talk page indicating my concern that if we allow this link we run the risk of becoming a link farm (which the article has been in the past) with people adding links to their self-published articles and websites willy nilly. I think we should get advice on guidelines to apply to external links and will make that referral. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps if any, we should include only resource links or hubs themselves, rather than just individual pieces of information. Nick carson (talk) 12:07, 30 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