Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:19, 23 August 2008

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

REWRITE SUGGESTION

There are several appeals on Misplaced Pages for a re-write or total reorganisation of this article. I am willing (with trepidation) to carry out this task but it will certainly entail a substantial reorganisation of the material to fit in more with the conventions of Encyclopaedia articles and formal citation of sources. I realise that this might cause concern. It may be possible to post a preview of the article somewhere to allow comment and feedback - but I dont know how to do this.

Anyway, at present my proposal is to replace the current article with the new one on 1 July 2008. If this causes offence or upsets protocols please let me know. Granitethighs (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What appeals for a re-write? Could you please indicate what/where they are? I would like to know what you are proposing by way of a re-write. Would you be able to present your proposal here before starting? I would like to ensure that we have consensus for major changes. Sunray (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sunray - sorry about the abruptness, I'm new to Misplaced Pages and not sure of the protocols - yes I understand your concern and have also been contacted by admin OhanaUnited for the same reasons. What am I proposing? Well, firstly sustainability,it seems to me, has now become really big in education and society and has taken on so many different faces that it is hard to make sense of it all - everything from climate change to ethical eating. On the political front there is obviously a lot of divergence in views on what can and cannot be done, how it ought to be done, what the causes are, how to define sustainability and so on. So I think the first job is to provide a structure for all this information and discussion. I would like to set up a page that allows people to feed into the various streams of sustainability that now exist. So, secondly, I would like to make the huge number of resources available on Misplaced Pages more transparent - so there would be sub-lists of topics linked to main topics and so on. These are the main ideas. I think the current page is fine but a bit preoccupied with problems of general definition and philosophy. I must admit that, although I think this is an absolutely necessary debate, there are also now a whole swag of sustainability action groups and efforts going on that could get more coverage. There is a little bit more could be said about emerging sustainability science too. I hope this gives you a feel for the flavour of a potential rewrite. I do not want to wade in and take over - a lot of work has gone on before which I fully acknowledge. After communication with OhanaUnited I suggest that in about mid July I put up at User:Granitethighs/Sustainability a sample page to see what everyone thinks. That could stay there for, say, a month so that everyone could put it through the wringer and see whether it is going to be useful. After a month we could decide whether to add it with major modification, put it up on the main page for editing, abandon it altogether - or whatever. In any case nothing will be altered on Misplaced Pages Sustainability at present without the opportunity for everyone to have input so-to-speak. How does that sound Sunray - what do you reckon? Granitethighs (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sustainable Politics

I think there should be a link to an article on sustainable politics (as well as a whole other article about it). Of course, it's sort of all opinion since no one knows what is sustainable and what is not, but I think we can all understand that the system we have now is not sustainable. A parliamentary system coupled with directly democratic aspects might be the best candidate; something akin to Switzerland's system, maybe. Their lack of involvement in any war since 1815 could be seen as a property of sustainability. Anybody wanting to start up a new article should take this into consideration. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, two other editors keep scrubbing this from External links. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Story of Stuff This 20-minute video gives quick explanations of sustainability, externalizing, perceived obsolescence, and other related concepts that many people find hard to grasp. (It's become so popular that viewing it takes longer than 20 minutes to allow for "buffering". Free Range Studios put it on YouTube in 6 individual segments starting with the Introduction, identified as item: OqZMTY4V7Ts.)

Sustainability versus Sustainable Development

There is a major problem with this article: The heading says "Sustainability" but the content is almost exclusively about "Sustainable Development" ala the Brundtland Report. Although it flags that there is some discrepancy between the two concepts, it nonetheless goes ahead and treats them as though they were the same thing. From very soon after the publication of the Brundtland report the distinction between the two was noted. Visvanathan, for instance, noted that where sustainability was an ethical concept about caring for the earth and leaving it in a condition suitable for coming generations, development is a managerial concept, a specific approach to controlling the earth. By conflating the two concepts, inserting a 'criticisms' section becomes highly problematic, and I think this is reflected in some of the other discussion topics. 'Sustainable Development' has been heavily criticised by many authors and social actors who are interested in making sure society and the environment can endure into the future (i.e. many people with an interest in sustainability). I am recommending that this article be renamed 'Sustainable Development', and a another article on the concept of sustainability be written, which pays due attention to its ambiguities, and the numerous approaches that have been taken to defining it. There is no reason why the Brundtland paradigm should be privileged in this way: An article on 'Sustainability' should be about the concept, not only the current, dominant global approach to that concept Prometheus912 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be a unilateral re-write by Granitethighs, who apparently threw out the former article and substituted the current version. I do not see any consensus for these changes and want to understand more about how/why they came about. Sunray (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, you had close to 2 months to voice your concerns. You only dropped by and discuss once, and not coming back to review what Granitethighs said. There is no "under the table" deals or anything. How are we supposed to know you're unsatisfied if you don't say anything? We don't have psychic power to read your minds. If you didn't vote in a poll to elect a government then you can't complain that the government is badly chosen. Sunray, answer me honestly, which version is written better? The old version or the new version? And addressing Prometheus912's comments, the beginning sounds like sustainable development, but have you scrolled down a little bit further to see what other contents are there? Surely overfishing and species extinction are not sustainable development, eh? I am also letting Granitethighs to know about this and to respond. OhanaUnited 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To describe the new article as "a unilateral re-write by Granitethighs, who apparently threw out the former article" seems unfair to say the least after the article had been flagged on the Wikiproject page and on display for so long. It was put there specifically for discussion and to find out if there were any improvements, changes or concerns (including removing it altogether). However, on the points made by Prometheus - I went to great lengths to point out the ambiguities and divergences of opinion. I think to describe the article as being about sustainable development only is simply a misrepresentation of what is written - try re-reading the notes to the opening sentence, the discussion of the definition of sustainability, the reporting of the views of environmentalists and other points elsewhere. I think there is sufficient in this article to make it usefully different from the "sustainable development" article. As I said before, I think that there are few people who would currently consider sustainability to be a debate about definition and ambiguity, it is also about "doing". I feel I have done justice to the philosophical debate and added enough to make this article a worthwhile contribution for those looking for a broad overview of the issues and ideas related to sustainability and who are looking for a way forward: it does not accept the Sustainable Development agenda lock stock and barrel. I think a separate article on sustainability emphasising ambiguities and interpretations would be unproductive and not strictly part of Wikipedias role. Such a proposal should go through the same process as this current rewrite. Granitethighs (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well to take a middle ground I think the difference needs to be made a little more explicit from the outset, not merely dealt with in a footnote, and it should be better reflected in the structure of the article. Having re-read the article I still think that although incentives outside the SD paradigm are mentioned, that paradigm still receives more focus than it ought, especially in the introducing paragraphs, which as we know "frame" the issue. When I have time I will try to make my criticisms more explicit and be a bit more specific in what I would like to see here.Prometheus912 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Will look forward to your feedback when you are ready Granitethighs (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While I admit that I missed Granitethighs invitation to visit his sandbox page re-write of this article, I wonder who did visit that page to discuss the rewrite. Other than OhanaUnited, did anyone comment? Would you be able to direct me to the discussion?

I will make two brief comments on the current version.

With respect to content, I think that Prometheus912 has put forward an argument that should not just be brushed aside. The opening sentence of the current version states: "Sustainability – as an international program committed to the provision of a secure environmental, social and economic future..." What international program? There is no citation, but there is a link to sustainable development. That conflates the two terms. There already is an article on sustainable development. Where is the reference that explains this approach? It seems that the re-write begins with a serious problem of original research.

With respect to process: Where is the former version? Unless an article goes through the AfD process, how can it simply disappear? For this kind of action, surely there should have been an AfD or an RfC. We had an article that was contributed to by dozens of editors over the years. While there were some concerns about it, there was, in my view, nothing that could not have been fixed. The former article did illuminate the subject. What we have now does not conform to WP policy and guidelines in a variety of ways. I will stop at that for now, in the hope that someone can answer the questions I've asked above. Sunray (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I used a function called "move over existed page". If you want to, I can email you the raw wiki markup of the version before the move which then you can insert back sections where you think it's appropriate to keep (with inline citations, of course). OhanaUnited 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My request is to restore the previous versions and page history. The current article would become the current version and the old article would be there for comparison. My reason for the request is based on the premise that previous versions and page history should not be eliminated. It will be impossible to compare versions without this. This is fundamental to Misplaced Pages. Here's how the help page on page history puts it:

"All editable pages on Misplaced Pages have an associated page history, which consists of the old versions of the wikitext, as well as a record of the date and time (in UTC) of every edit, the username or IP address of the user who wrote it, and their edit summary..."

As I said above, I know of no sanctioned method of deleting previous versions and page history short of the deletion policy and AfD process. Have I missed something here? If not, would you be willing to restore the former versions and page history? Sunray (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

All are not lost. Nothing is permanently deleted in Misplaced Pages. (EVER!) They're just invisible to non-admins now. I'll email you the last version prior to the overwrite so that you can decide on which things to put back in. I think Granitethighs did a good job writing it to include broader scope, proper referencing, and follow style guidelines so it doesn't deserve to revert all the way back to the old stage and wasted all his efforts. Let's combine them together to get the best of both worlds, ok? OhanaUnited 03:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear. I am requesting that the old version (plus all previous versions) and the page history be restored. I think that we need to do this by the numbers. If Granitethighs wants to place his version as the most recent version, that's fine. Then we can discuss it here and work on consensus. I am talking about making any agreed on changes to the article in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy and practice. Sunray (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to Sunray and Prometheus a number of points need to be made – I would like Sunray’s views on the following:

1. The word sustainability, in common usage, means, essentially "to maintain a certain state or condition indefinitely". Clearly this is not what is intended by either the current or previous article. So what does it mean in these articles? Here is the problem of definition and it seems to me that the reality is that, regardless of claims to the contrary, the use of the word sustainability in relation to environmental issues stems essentially from the program for sustainable development. That is not to say that there are no other views as to what sustainability is (the current article is at pains to point this out) but it does mean that the usage of the word cannot be simply excised from this history. Maybe the opening sentence can be re-worded more clearly (although this is not as simple as might first appear). A fair reading of the current text (especially the section on Definition) should totally convince the reader that there is certainly no conflation of terms in intent – even if the opening sentence does convey that impression (which is debatable).

2. I am amazed that there is suddenly such concern with precision (now) when the original article lacked precision so much. Included here would be the lack of citations and therefore the tendency for statements to become unsubstantiated assertions; repetition; a lack of clarity in exactly where the discussion was going and more – not least of which (because of the lack of citation) it was far more open to the criticism of being “original research” than the current article.

3. Apart from the above fine points of distinction there is the simple reality that a lot of students, general public, and users of Misplaced Pages will be looking for information on all sorts of issues that are often connected by the media, and other players, with the notion of sustainability – everything from overfishing to climate change, ethical consumerism to vegetarianism, population, biodiversity loss and much, much, more. The previous article payed limited attention to this vast range of issues and became bogged down in a sterile academic debate of little value to those searching for useful information on the concept of sustainability. I think the Wikipedian users deserve better than this. The present article contains a huge number of links on a wide range of topics so that readers will be able to follow up and research their own interests. It will also lead people to areas that they might find useful in living more sustainable lives.

4. There was no attempt to open up all this information in the previous article. Why should the addition of this information cause this concern?

This rewrite was an honest attempt to build on what was written before: the information in the previous article was not ignored but reorganised and included. It was also an attempt to open up the complexity of the idea of sustainability for people to explore themselves rather than close it down in unproductive semantic and ideological debate. As OhanaUnited pointed out it seems self-evident that the rewrite has much to commend it over its predecessor. Yes, I wrote it, so it is a simple matter to simply put that assessment down to bias. But I fail to see how simply reverting to the previous version is a productive way forward – Misplaced Pages would be the loser. Also, although I strongly believe in vigorous debate I do not have the time for an extended defence of the current kind in future. The process of changing the articles is another matter. I have been a Wikipedian for only a few months so am not used to the procedures – perhaps that too could be considered. However, the change was clearly flagged nearly two months ago. It is on the Wikiproject page in capitals (which I now know is “shouting” so I would not do that again). To imply that this was in any way an underhand deal is to clearly misrepresent the facts. Every opportunity was given for comment over this period – if people chose not to comment then so be it. As it says in Misplaced Pages:Consensus "silence implies consent". Granitethighs (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that that your changes were, as you say, "an honest attempt to build on what was written before." I would be happy to discuss this with you, but I am patiently waiting for a response to my request to OhanaUnited. The former article needs to be undeleted before we can begin to discuss the changes. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have to revert back to the old version before you can discuss changes? Why do you persist doing so? I even compromised my position by emailing you the complete old version via your email so you can choose whatever part you want back and insert it. Surely that's disruptive. Sorry, I won't undelete it if you want to push your POV that the old article is better than new version. I have provided all the information you need to state your point in the article. Sunray, you don't seem to understand how to compromise, instead wants everyone to follow your own way. You need to drop the "my way or the highway attitude". OhanaUnited 13:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"If you want to push your POV..." My POV does not enter into the request I have made. You chose a way of switching to Granitethigh's version that made previous versions and page history no longer accessible to editors. I am requesting that this be corrected. That is all right now. Whether or not the article is written from a neutral point of view (and individual editor's POV's related to the subject) can be discussed once the article is restored. By the way, civility is an important standard that we need to keep in mind. Would you be able to avoid making critical comments or judgments about my attitude? Sunray (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made a request to restore the former article and page history here. Sunray (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, OhanaUnited, for restoring the historical record. Sunray (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Great job

Wow! Thanks guys. This is a tremendous improvement. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you find makes it an improvement? Sunray (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aghast

I have not been here for a while but I used the previous version while working on a sustainability article for the Czech Wiki. I am completely flabbergasted regarding what happened here.

Sustainability is most empathically NOT "an international program (whatever that means)." It is a concept that informs human behavior. In addition, some of the sections talk a great deal about what is unsustainable, forgetting to tell us about what is sustainable. Thirdly, the article is huge and unwieldy. I am beginning to suspect that Misplaced Pages will soon need another tag as the opposite of "stub" -- I propose "bloat."

I am joining the voices here for a rethinking of this whole rewrite. If Granitethighs wants to have an article on some "international program" why not create it without ruining what was here? Granitethighs, if you want to redo things, why not do it by section so that people have a chance to respond in increments? Finally, to throw out all the work that was here that people created over a number of years seems pretty darn rude. V.B. (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We incorporated a lot of concepts from the old version and included in the new version. The portion that was not covered in the new version is the "Weak versus strong sustainability", which is only 3 short paragraphs. Rewrite does not necessarily mean remove all contents. It could be copyedit, rephrase, adding/modifying info, etc. We further explain the items in the "See also" section by combining a few of them and give one short section dedicated to them (e.g. Agenda 21, biodiversity, species extinction). Articles should be broad in its coverage (requirements for GA), if not comprehensive (requirements for FA). I don't think any articles should be labeled as bloat or similar terms. OhanaUnited 01:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong and weak sustainability is included in the Production, Consumption and Technology section - I made a point of including this discussion as it occupied so much of the previous article, but it is certainly much more brief. This rewrite was flagged a long time ago (as can be seen here) and plenty of time left for a response was allowed. The new version was on display for well over a month. Where was all the indignation then? To say that the old article was "thrown out" is simply untrue, there was ample opportunity for comment. The previous article was deficient in all sorts of ways - as someone else pointed out(see above) there was no mention of sustainability science to this could be added sustainability accounting, sustainability governance and a whole host of other issues totally unaddressed, a list too long to detail here but would become apparent with a read of the new and old articles. The new article has forged links to a whole range of issues and aspects of sustainability that were totally ignored in the previous article. I cannot understand how anyone could not regard the new article as more user-friendly, useful, and informative than the previous one: there are people out there in the world who need help to come to grips with sustainability so that they can make a contribution themselves. An extended debate about strong vs weak sustainability is hardly likely to inspire a new generation to lead more sustainable lives. To describe this attempt to open up the subject of sustainability to the world as "bloated" takes my breath away. People who think they can suddenly define sustainability in a clear way that everyone will instantly understand have obviously spent little time with the subject. Sustainable development is an international program - is that confusing? And yes, sustainability is not the same as sustainable development. I have already said this could be better stated - but that is easier said than done. I suggest a careful read of both articles, one after the other. If, in all conscience, you think the former article was "better" or that the new article did not take account of the issues raised in the first article then I'm happy to pick up my bat and find a different game with some other folks (generally known as spitting the dummy). Granitethighs (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize re "bloat." It's just my pet peeve re Wiki recently, what with the endless proliferation of templates, and some articles getting downright unwieldy. Scratch that.

As for the rest: Well then. Let's start from the beginning.

The word sustainability, meaning "to maintain a certain state or condition indefinitely" is being used in this article in a restricted sense.

What does this sentence mean? And why does the main article on sustainability use the term in restricted sense? (I think it would be mighty strange if the main article on say, horse, began by telling people "horse" is herein used in a restricted sense.) Please explain. V.B. (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a valid concern, IMO. I see other problems with the lead. Perhaps we should list them here. Sunray (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. A dictionary definition of sustainability would be along the lines of "to maintain a certain state or condition indefinitely". Problem is both the old article and its rewrite are about a particular kind (sense) of sustainability. So, for example, it would not make sense to talk of strong sustainability and weak sustainability in the context of the dictionary definition. That is because the sustainability being talked about is not to do with sustainability in a general sense but sustainability in relation to environmental and other factors (depending on your point of view). It might be an idea to use a disambiguation page but I avoided that because that might involve a definition, which would put the cat among the pigeons, as we see from the heated discussion going on now - we can all argue about that until we are blue in the face. We all think we know what we are talking about until someone else has a suggestion. I chose to simply refer to this basic difficulty of definition and to suggest reasons why this was the case. Right at the beginning of the article it needed to be somehow indicated that the article following was not about "sustainability" of common usage (but about sustainability in a special sense). Hope that explains why it was done - perhaps there is a better way. That's all I could think of at the time so the reader is prepared. Granitethighs (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The definition used by the old version was: "Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely." Personally, I prefer to say something like this: "Sustainability is the ability to sustain a way of life indefinitely (within the given limits of life on Earth)." Because the ability to sustain life the crux of the whole concept, is it not? V.B. (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved the links from the intro section down to the bottom of the section so that we can discuss them last. I would like to see the whole intro to skip the sustainable development stuff, and just focus on the concept of sustainability (in the sense of ecological sustainability). I don't think any pre-explanations are needed (I mean by this the very first sentence). Maybe the term came from sust. dev. documents, but maybe not, maybe it came from the permaculturists or some such. In any case, it is not the provenance of the governments or NGOs. V.B. (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with major changes to this article

Some editors have expressed dismay at the major changes to the article since July 12. The changes were made primarily by one editor, Granitethighs. They were made in good faith and he obviously has a passion for the subject. However, several concerns have been raised and there will likely need to be considerable discussion about the changes.

Before we start, I would like to call attention to the talkheader at the top of the page. WP is a collaborative editing project and we need to be respectful to work together. Editorial decisions are made by consensus. We should all bear in mind that most editors have the best interests of WP in mind. We come to any given subject from different perspectives. Somehow that always seems to work, and WP has been astonishingly successful in achieving its goals. Granitethighs will need to steel himself to some of the criticism that will be directed towards his changes. It is not personal. He will need to bear in mind that others know as much about the subject as he does and some will know much more than he does about editing Misplaced Pages.

We might be wise to revert to the former article and discuss his proposed changes in detail. However, he did attempt to get discussion going some time ago and waited over a month for comments. It seems that many who frequent the article were not aware he was doing that. The reason for this is that probably that major changes are usually discussed on the talk page of the article, rather than in a sandbox. There were thus a limited number of posts to the article talk page that would have alerted editors to the impending changes. Nevertheless, he did try to alert people and he did do a lot of work on the article itself. For some reason, few editors seemed to pick up on what was happening. However, because of the work he has put into this, an alternative might be to leave the current version in place and discuss his changes section by section. Are there any comments on this? I apologize for this long post. I will try hard to keep my future comments to the bare minimum necessary. Sunray (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's easy enough to find the old version in the archives.

P.S. Not everyone notices changes to one of their articles of interest right away. Fortunately, Wiki allows us to deal with the changes as we come to them. That's part of its genius.V.B. (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sunray - for what it is worth, this seems a considered and fair approach. With respect though, a statement of intent was clearly laid out on the Talk page of the article itself; it was also flagged on the talk page of the appropriate Wikiproject group; surely enough time was allowed for feedback. It should be clear from the discussion at the time that the re-write was not a take-over bid but just that, a re-write, to bring out the issues discussed in the old article and to bring in some more. Adding a sentence here and there would not have achieved this. I am new to Misplaced Pages and realise that what I have done has upset a few people. My question is ... what else should I have done? I am fully aware that Misplaced Pages is about collective effort and consensus. I put the ideas into the ring and there was not a single response. Misplaced Pages:Consensus says "In essence, silence implies consent". And now, suddenly people imply a great injustice has been done. As you will understand, my vote on your suggestion would be to go through the article as it stands a section at a time. Clearly the opening needs some work and, as always, I welcome suggestions for improvement Granitethighs (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC) PS VB I have answered your question (see above) Granitethighs (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Granitethighs: nobody is implying a great injustice has been done. I feel the article has been "highjacked" into the fold of "sustainable development" which is simply unacceptable to me. But I am more than willing to work here together until we find a better way. The old article was kinda all over the place, and I am glad that there is effort underway to make it better. V.B. (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Second that. Granitethighs, please do not take offense. As I pointed out, you evidently did what you did in good faith. The fact is, though, your approach did not involve much collaboration. As to silence implying consensus: This only applies in the moment of time that the silence occurs. Here's a segment from the essay (WP:SILENCE) referred to in a link from the WP:CON policy:

"Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when you try to build on it.

In wiki-editing, it is difficult to get positive affirmation for your edits. (Disaffirmation comes with a revert.) No matter how many people on a talk page say they support an edit; it is only when your changes are reverted or substantially changed that you learn that you did not, in fact, have full consensus.

Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, you can assume that silence implies consensus. You can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is."

As V.B. says, "Wiki allows us to deal with the changes as we come to them." Sunray (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks VB, that sounds good (comments at top). Amazing though it might seem I am keen that sustainable development doesn't get center stage either. Problem is that word sustainability which, for better or worse, I strongly suspect came out of the sustainable development agenda ... but that does not mean that it has to be used to mean the same thing. I'll try to get that opening sentence or two clearer because it is obviously a problem - or you could edit it or suggest to me ways of re-expressing it that would be acceptable Granitethighs (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I already did... :-) See above, previous thread.V.B. (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of revision

I have copied the current points for discussion here so that we can follow the thread. The definition used by the old version was: "Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely." Personally, I prefer to say something like this: "Sustainability is the ability to sustain a way of life indefinitely (within the given limits of life on Earth)." Because the ability to sustain life the crux of the whole concept, is it not? V.B. (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I moved the links from the intro section down to the bottom of the section so that we can discuss them last. I would like to see the whole intro to skip the sustainable development stuff, and just focus on the concept of sustainability (in the sense of ecological sustainability). I don't think any pre-explanations are needed (I mean by this the very first sentence). Maybe the term came from sust. dev. documents, but maybe not, maybe it came from the permaculturists or some such. In any case, it is not the provenance of the governments or NGOs. V.B. (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The definition given in the old article was OK as a dictionary definition of sustainability in a general sense, but the article went on to develop its own themes - discussing weak and strong sustainability, environment and population issues etc. and this alters what you are actually talking about. To opt immediately for environmental sustainability suits me fine. Trouble is the UN has spent years discussing this issue and the outcome was an acknowledgement that environmental sustainability is inextricably linked with social and economic factors. We cannot suddenly create environmental sustainability without political and behavioural change and since technology (and other things) are so closely involved, so too is the economic system. I am a biologist who would prefer to ignore socio-economic systems but I must concede that this is a valid point: environmental sustainability cannot be treated in isolation from these other factors - this is referred to in the environmental, social and economic section lower down. Perhaps this is the source of of an interesting question. Two Wikipedians have said to me that sustainability is a concept. This is of course true, but I would also argue that it can be a state of a system. We talk about "sustainable living" which is not only an idea but something that influences peoples behaviour, it could even be argued that it is "code of behaviour" or a "political system" - as pointed out later in the article it has been described as a kind of "dialogue of values". Sustainability is about "doing" things as well as "thinking" things. Do you disagree, is that part of the difficulty? To put all this another way: if you confine sustainability to "environmental sustainability" then there is little point in including factors like governance, migration, peace and security, and the effects of economic growth on the environment. We turn full circle - all I am saying is that I do not believe environmental sustainability will do as the only part of the sustainability equation. Yes, there are real problems with the idea of sustainable development but, I would maintain, to think that just talking about environmental sustainability solves the complexity is a mistake. Is ther another way? Granitethighs (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be jumping into some philosophical issues at the top here. OK with me, but there are also editorial issues to be dealt with. Here are a few:

1. The article has become somewhat of a link farm.
2. At 59 kilobytes in size, we need to think about article size.
3. The current lead does not adhere to guidelines for the lead section.
4. Further to the previous point, the current lead does not provide a general definition of sustainability; nor does it outline what the article will cover.
5. The lead sentence has been mentioned by more than one editor here: "Sustainability is a program..." does not seem to be an assertion that we want to make.
6. The previous lead introduced the problematic of sustainability. I remember when it was written—by an academic in the field (not me). At the time I thought it was a tad "academic," however, it did introduce the problem of sustainability. Various people have commented (then and now) that we need this.
7. .

Granitethinghs says that the previous version placed over-emphasis on the environmental component of sustainability. I agree, but the answer is not overly-simplified nostrums about "sustainable development." We are not a mirror site of the UN. I propose that for starters we restore the previous lead and then work on that. Sunray (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Pfft. Global warming stands at an alarming 99kb size. I think it may border becoming a link farm, but great on including all major issues in the article (we haven't get to minor ones yet...) As for lead section, I know it needs to be improved (will work on it in a day or two). Other concerns are legitimate, so you can be bold and change it. OhanaUnited 14:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. I would have preferred to work versioins out here first, but I do think that the previous lead was vastly superior to one by Granitethighs. So I have been bold and reinstated the previous one. As agreed, it does need some work, but I think it gives us a much better platform to work from. Sunray (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Granitethighs, you make some good points. I see now what you were trying to do. My take on the philosophical side is this: Sustainability is an ecological concept from the start. After all, why discuss/act on ideas re economics or governance except *in reference* to life's (and humanity's) survival? I agree that the social and economic issues must be part of the consideration, but *under* the general ecological concept. Your conception subsumed sustainability under the economic and political rubric, and that is backwards to my mind.

I agree that it refers to the state of a system. I think it ought to be linked not only to ecology, but also to systems (understanding of feedback, inflows/outflows etc.) I don't think it is a political system. It does inform and influence human behavior (or so we hope). UN has spent years of discussing this, but so have many other groups. This article is about sustainability, not about UN take on sustainability, agreed?

Sunray, the article not only became a link farm but the links have again favored sustainable dev.

The question that's been in my mind is whether the format created by Granitethighs can be preserved. Are the three pillars pillars of sustainability or of sustainable dev.? I am going to review the article as a whole again. V.B. (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments on the comments.

1. We have all now agreed that the (new) lead can be improved and that the reinstated (old) lead is inadequate. Our problem is that we need a clear statement about what sustainability is ... reality is whatever we put here will annoy someone as there is no agreed definition (the argument has gone on for over 20 years and, frankly, I dont think we are going to solve it here). People come to sustainability with all sorts of preconceptions (dont exclude myself here). I am happy to work towards something we can all live with - we seem to all be coming from the same direction anyway. I like the "International program" bit below the opening - fits well, and I will suggest improvements to the opening - but this takes time.

2. I agree about the "link farm" but what is considered good Misplaced Pages procedure here? In writing the article I realised that there are vast amounts of fascinating topical information in Misplaced Pages that people would want to research so that in many ways the article itself would act as a jumping off point and stimulation for people interested in related issues. I am happy to defer to an experienced Wikipedian on this one. Incidentally the (old) article was distinctly unhelpful here (although there was a See Also section). Also, again, I am not a "sustainable development" person but SD is mainstream: if the article totally ignores SD or develops a very strong anti SD position then its objectivity and credibility would be up for grabs. Sure tone down the SD stuff if you like.

3. Size. Yes it is long - but it is a huge, all-embracing topic. I'm glad someone pointed out that "climate change" is nearly twice as long (climate change is a small part of sustainability). We can pare it down but I did think carefully about what should go in - I think you'll find it is actually quite succinct (again, try re-reading the old version in relation to economy of words). For example, what the hell have Governance, Peace and Security got to do with the price of fish? Trouble is, after some thought, it is clear that they do relate strongly to sustainability. Each of the headings I chose are major and important topics. If someone can think of a way of cutting down without leaving out important information that would be great. I certainly would not want to see it get much larger!

Incidentally - you environmental science students, how do your courses deal with defining sustainability? I would like to think more about these points but right now have other things to do. Will be be back with renewed enthusiasm so look out. Keep up the recycling and "swap til you drop". Granitethighs (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, with some trepidation, I have done a direct redo of the intro. I decided to put it up rather than clutter our discussion here. See what you think. I incorporated sections of the old text. I did change the definition because it seems plain that sustainability is not just about any system, but it is about our human systems and our ability to survive (at least in this context)... even tho the term itself can certainly be applied to the sustainability of squirrels, for example. I also made the ability to *sustain life* over the long term its main thrust.

Re "link farm": I noticed that a number of the links in the link clusters you made, Granitethighs, are redundant. Why not just embed them in the text? Only create extra links if they absolutely don't fit in the text anywhere? Traditionally, that's what people use the "See also" section for.

Re SD: I don't think the article should ignore it. It should certainly create a linkage to the article on SD, explain it briefly and summarize the controversy regarding it. SD is mainstream as SD, not as sustainability, tho it seems there are vested interests who would prefer to conflate and confuse the two. I came across this quote from the Philips website: "Sustainability has progressively become a comprehensive concept that stands for economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity (triple bottom line). A few enterprises have already started to embrace sustainability as a framework for driving growth, increasing shareholder value, heightening stakeholder satisfaction and protecting and enhancing corporate brand reputation." Argh. V.B. (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing: keep in mind other definitions can be included in the Definition section, and critiques made. V.B. (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Next: History, Definition, and UN program

While folks are still working on the intro, I thought I'd take a peek at the several following sections. After consulting a number of wiki's best articles, it seems the most common way to proceed is to move on to the History which then forms the second section (unless there is another introductory note that is needed ). In which case History is the third section. What to do with the Program section? My suggestion is to incorporate it into the historical part. History could be divided into Background covering the early formative years (e.g. back to the landers, organic ag, Buckminster Fuller, et al. The history proper then emerging with Donnella Meadows, Brundtland Commission etc etc. Any thoughts? V.B. (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the idea of having history as the second or third section. Perhaps given the importance of definition in this case, we might want to make Definition the second section. That would allow us to bring in some of the issues and challenges relating to the concept. The history section would logically provide background on some of that. Sunray (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead

I think it is worth being thorough. The lead is the hard part and we need to follow WP procedure. I have listed the procedure here and broken it up into parts.

What we have to do (the WP procedure):

1. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.

2. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.

3. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.

4. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless must not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article.

5. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

What we have done so far:

Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely. As applied to human communities, it is the ability to sustain a way of life indefinitely (within the given limits of life on Earth). Sustainability is often defined as the practical ability to satisfy the basic needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their needs. A sustainable society must be organized in such a way that the ways of living and the patterns of activity of its members are not in conflict with the inherent ability of nature to maintain life.

Sustainability requires that human activity only utilizes nature's resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. The term has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. Vital human ecological support systems include the planet's climatic system, systems of agriculture, industry, forestry, fisheries and the systems on which they depend in turn. In recent years, public discourse has led to a use of "sustainability" in reference to how long human ecological systems can be expected to be usefully productive.

The implied preference would be for systems to be productive indefinitely, or be "sustainable." For example, "sustainable agriculture" would develop agricultural systems to last indefinitely; "sustainable economy" can be an economic system that can last indefinitely, etc. A side discourse relates the term sustainability to longevity of natural ecosystems and reserves (set aside for other-than-human species), but the challenging emphasis has been on human systems and anthropogenic problems, such as anthropogenic climate change, or the depletion of fossil fuel reserves. Sustainability can be examined on a number of levels, from local all the way to planetary.

Comments and suggestions:

1. I think it would help if we start of with sustainability in general, leading to human sustainability in particular (no ranking in importance implied here). The second sentence is problematic. A human community can be sustainable even though the global community is not living sustainably: the global human community has to live within the global (?natural resource) limits of the Earth. This is the problem of sustainability applied at many biological and organizational levels. Sentence three: I am a bit surprised that after being so derogatory about SD we quickly introduce the UN’s SD agenda. This is the only formal citation in the whole lead – and cedes all authority to SD. Remember, if we come up with what we think is a really good definition, but it has not been published, then we are doing original research (which is not what Misplaced Pages is about). In this opening paragraph the logic runs like this ... sustainability maintains something indefinitely ... to be sustainable human communities must live within limits ... sustainability is often defined in terms of what is left to future generations ... a sustainable society must ?live in harmony with nature. Is this how you think it should flow? The word sustain originated in Middle English and simply meant to “keep going” (along with several other senses). Ecology only originated in the ?1920s but certainly it has given the idea a push.

Suggestions: We need a short summary of the article itself and citations from reputable published sources: we are not creating original thinking here – more reporting. I have incorporated your ideas and tried to give an intro that flows more smoothly and logically from sustainability in general to sustainability in particular, with a close eye on the WP guidelines. See what you think; I have inserted it in the article. I have also downplayed the SD aspect – hope you approve. If you are happy with this I will work on citations and Wikifying. Granitethighs (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've done it again. A complete rewrite. Not one sentence taken from the work before you intact. First paragraph does not deal with definitions at all. Neither does the third. Second paragraph only mentions the supporting requirement regarding resources. The third paragraph launches into what we must do. Huh? How about sticking with introducing the topic? Frankly, if you really want to list what would be effective to get us there, don't forget the plague. I am sure citations can be found.

Sheesh! And the &!*% UN sus. dev. program rears its ugly head again. I'll be damn. I thought we could have a compromise by mentioning the Commission's definition, since it's so well known. The footnote was not enough for you? Tell you what, if you just want to write your own, why don'tcha rename it the politics of sustainability and we can have sustainability back?

I don’t know what passes for collaboration in your world. Is it erasing the work of your collaborators in toto and substituting whatever you want until they wear out?

Ok, ok, deep deep breathing. Not mad anymore. Here’s an idea: I will do a revert, and you try again. See if you can show respect for the text you want to modify. V.B. (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

VB I am trying to make this thing work. If I were to reply in your style we'd be in dire trouble. Let's make this all much simpler. Why dont we accept what has been written by you insofar as it complies with the Misplaced Pages recommendations for the lead to an article. Let me suggest ways that it can comply more fully:

• that there is at least one citation and that it does not defer to sustainable development (I got the impression that was your preferred position), that is, a published definition that we can all live with. Making up a definition is original research.
• that there is a paragraph summarising the content of the article - and that this reflects published sources (as it stood it did not do this).
• that the introductory sentences deal with the complexity of the notion of sustainability in as clear a way as possible (at present it does not draw clear attention to the many senses of sustainability both in human and ecological terms).

Perhaps best if you do most of the writing and I will make suggestions from the sidelines otherwise its stale mate. Sorry, but we can do better working together and we can also do better than the current lead. Am I collaborating now? Granitethighs (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by this? "that the introductory sentences deal with the complexity of the notion of sustainability in as clear a way as possible (at present it does not draw clear attention to the many senses of sustainability both in human and ecological terms)."

Can you elaborate? How would you write it in your own words?

I added another definition and three citations. As for your second suggestion, I agree, but would prefer to leave it for later, when the article is redone. I am not all that happy with the second half of the intro, and maybe your suggestion will later make it snap into place.V.B. (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about how we could work together collaboratively. While I agree with Granitethighs that V.B.'s first reaction did test the limits of civility, I think he raises a valid point. The problem with major edits to the article directly is that it can lead to reverts when there are differences between various editors. I think we should try to avoid that. Instead, I propose we work on major changes here, first. We can sort things out, get consensus, then "go live." With that in mind, I've moved Granitethighs new version of the lead here for discussion:

Sustainability, in a very general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain state or condition indefinitely. However, over the last 50 years or so the concept has been applied more specifically to living organisms and systems, and to humanity in general. The term is widely applied to different levels of human and biological organization and to human activities so we have, for example, global sustainability, household sustainability, ecosystem sustainability, sustainable development, sustainable agriculture, sustainable community, sustainable living, etc.

More specifically still, it is now evident that humanity is living unsustainably by consuming the Earth’s limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature. Consequently, for many people, sustainability has come to mean human global sustainability, a collective human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite limits. The United Nations Sustainable Development program is one aspect of this agenda.

It is becoming increasingly recognized that human sustainability will depend on careful management of human direct impacts on nature, on the atmosphere, oceans and water systems, the land (especially forests and cultivated land) including protection of organisms and habitat from extinction and the control of biological invasions. Management must also tackle the driver of these direct impacts, the human consumption of energy, water, materials and food and the waste that this brings.

Notes

1. Gismondi, M. (2000). Interview of Dr. William Rees. Aurora Online.

I like this version. However, it needs some work. For one thing there were no citations, thus it was original research. I've added one, plus a couple of "citation needed" tags. For another it is from a particular POV. I've struck the last sentence, as it sounds like WP is trying tell the reader what is needed. I think we should bring in differing views and juxtapose them. The notion that we can "manage" our way to sustainability is one. However, it needs to be balanced with another point of view. Also, we need to provide an overview of what will be in the article. Perhaps we should map out what is going to be in the article—an outline—here first. We might even go on to write/edit the rest of the article and come back to the lead. As far as the definition goes, I like it. However, the Brundtland definition (despite the fact that it is nominally a definition of sustainable development, is actually, as V.B. says, the most widely accepted definition of sustainability. For that reason, I do not think that by using it we "defer to sustainable development."

Finally I would suggest that, if we are going to collaborate, we set ourselves a goal. How about we go for good article status. If that goes well, we could go for featured article status. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am more than happy with this approach but a bit surprised. On the one hand, Sunray, you seem abundantly reasonable but then suddenly become uncompromising - but that is probably just my false perception. I'm sure we can get along. You seem to be setting the ground rules here but that's fine by me while we are on the same wavelength. I agree the lead does not have to be perfect immediately, we might all modify our thinking as we go along. I feel flattered that you have put my version up for editing but wonder how VB feels about that. Anyway, let's get on with the business at hand because I think we are making positive headway and its a great topic to get stuck into. Here's a few comments at this stage - I wont alter what's been done, you can do that yourself as you see fit.

• I am happy with the Brundtland Statement as it is innocuous and relatively simple. It was also the beginning of the "human sustainability" thrust. Put it in where you feel it fits and follows the flow of ideas. It was later that things became more complex and controversial.
• I take the point about the last sentence but think that somehow (reworded) it needs to included because it refers to much of what sustainability has come to mean to governments, local communities etc. ... i.e. it is part of the "summary" requirement for lead articles.
• I think sustainability is still used legitimately for biological systems that lie outside human influence (more or less) that is why I included "sustainable ecosystems" (some other example would do), otherwise the existing list of "sustainabilities" looks good.

My outline of the contents of the article is essentially the headings in the contents as it exists. I am not inseparably wedded to this though - please suggest something you think might be more appropriate.

I look forward to an amicable and productive collaboration on the way to a featured article. Granitethighs (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's close enough to be GA already. We just need to improve the lead and I'll get someone to review it. OhanaUnited 15:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ready? You gotta be kidding. Parts of is is the identical mirror of the article on sustainable development. I don't think so...

Let's compare the first two paragraphs then:

The paragraph on the left states clearly what sustainability IS. The article on the right does not (apart from the most general "engineering" sense which I think is besides the point in the article and I would remove it from both). Left: has two definitions, plus a clarification of what it means for human society, in a nutshell. (By the way, I corrected the place in left paragraph as it was not clear that it refers to the entire human community. I think now it does.) Then right: moves on the specify applications without ever defining what he means by sustainability. That sentence ought to come later.

I asked Granitethighs what he means by his requestion addition above, and never heard back. Did you mean by it your third sentence in this paragraph? V.B. (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Following with my take on the second paragraphs.

More specifically still, it is now evident that humanity is living unsustainably by consuming the Earth’s limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature. Consequently, for many people, sustainability has come to mean human global sustainability, a collective human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite limits. The United Nations Sustainable Development program is one aspect of this agenda.

Left paragraph deepens what was said in the first paragraph in its first 2 sentences. The rest could use help. The right paragraph begins with “more specifically still” after providing virtually no specifics in the first paragraph. (?). The first right sentence is very similar in meaning to left first sentence, except that sentence is a positive expression of what is required by sustainability, whereas right sentence is styled in the negative. Left follows with grounding the whole concept in ecological understanding. Right stresses global sustainability (already implied in the left ecosystem definition, as well as in the first paragraph). A good point, as long as it is noted that the concept informs human behavior from personal and local all the way to planetary. I am opposed to showcase UN in this introduction; there are many other groups, organizations and calls to actiion and some of them should properly be mentioned below, and not one of them ought to get center stage unless a very good reason for it can be shown. V.B. (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I follow with my take on the last paragraph in both versions.

It is becoming increasingly recognized that human sustainability will depend on careful management of human direct impacts on nature, on the atmosphere, oceans and water systems, the land (especially forests and cultivated land) including protection of organisms and habitat from extinction and the control of biological invasions. Management must also tackle the driver of these direct impacts, the human consumption of energy, water, materials and food and the waste that this brings.

The left paragraph, which I mostly took over from the old version, gives examples to further understanding. I like its mention of anthropogenic problems, but the gist of the message can certainly be done in other ways. On the right, there is a sudden jump to solutions. I think it is too early for that, or maybe inappropriate for the intro, I am not sure. I suggested previously that it be fleshed out after the whole article is finished. I want to avoid here some human-arrogant sense is that we KNOW what will bring about sustainability (which we don’t), and that human management is key (a dubious proposition since human managers have gotten us to this precipice).V.B. (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead - a useful compromise?

Sustainability, in a very general sense, is the capacity to maintain a certain state or condition indefinitely. However, over the last 50 years or so the concept has been applied more specifically to living organisms and systems, and to humanity in general. As applied to the human community, it requires that human activity only use tilizes nature's resources at a "sustainable" rate. at which they can be replenished naturally.is the ability to sustain a way of life indefinitely (within the given limits of life on Earth). In 1987 the Brundtland Report, specifically addressing sustainable development, expressed this as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". y to satisfy the basic needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their needs. Or to state it another way, sustainability is the careful stewardship of environmental and resource systems so that their ability to support future generations is not diminished. A sustainable society must be organized in such a way that the ways of living and the patterns of activity of its members are not in conflict with the inherent ability of nature to maintain life.

Sustainability requires that human activity only utilizes nature's resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. The term has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. It is now evident that Humanity is currently living unsustainably by consuming the Earth’s limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature. Consequently, for many people, sustainability has come to mean a call for action, for a collective human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the Earth’s finite resource limits.

Sustainability has become a controversial and complex all-purpose term is widely applied in many different ways: to different levels of biological organization (sustainable wetlands, sustainable gardens, sustainable forests), to different levels of human organisation (sustainable individuals, sustainable households, sustainable countries) and to human activities, disciplines and more (sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture, sustainable economics). so we have, for example, global sustainability, household sustainability, ecosystem sustainability, sustainable economy, sustainable agriculture, sustainable community, sustainable living, sustainable cities, sustainable architecture etc. In recent years, public discourse has led to a use of "sustainability" in reference to how long human ecological systems can be expected to be usefully productive. This article examines, among other things, some of the ways the ideal of sustainability is being used, or should be used, to guide human actions.V.B. (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am ok with the last paragraph. I would only delete "sustainable individuals" (as I have never heard it said, it sounds kinda silly) and rewrite the sentence as "sustainable households, sustainable towns, sustainable countries" -- a minor point.

I would prefer if folks used a different color for their changes and left a signature. I am having to go back to my version elsewhere. If my words were left intact with other edits inserted, it would make it easier. I am new to this collaborative editing too, so I am wondering it that would be doable.V.B. (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Can folks explain the deletions in the second paragraph? After all, the root of sustainability is in ecology. Please tell me more. V.B. (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I am not sure of Misplaced Pages practice for collaborative editing (alright you can have a good laugh over that one). I liked Sunray's idea of a "scratchpad" of the lead to which we could add and remove edits so that we can see how the text is changing as we each make our edits, like you would on a written text or a word processor using "track changes", that way it is easier to follow the flow of changes between versions. Part of our difficulty, apart from all the ideas, is getting text that makes a good "read". The above seems a bit awkward, a bit repetitive and maybe longer than it needs to be to me. At this stage I have the following comments.

• I am essentially satisfied with the edits made by Sunray - so we have a consensus of 2 here. My only concern was that the lead should provide the reader with a summary of what is to follow and I am not sure it quite does that yet - but we could work on this later.
• VB the opening, I think, has to catch the way sustainability is a very general idea (to keep going). But (as you point out) it has gained a special place in ecology through the idea of sustainable biological systems. But now perhaps because of sustainable development, perhaps not, it has in the popular mind been applied particularly to human systems to the point where it is often used in the sense of a general goal - a sustainable global human community. The examples of different kinds of sustainability that we give indicate this (but I think examples need to be kept to a minimum to make the point). Because sustainability, it seems to me, is not exclusively applied to humans one biological example like "sustainable ecosystems" might not go astray.
• The point I did not get back to you on you have included. Somehow we need to get across the idea that sustainability is about both biophysical units - sustainable wetlands, sustainable gardens, sustainable forests and fisheries ... but also organizational and administrative units - sustainable individuals, sustainable households, sustainable countries and so on.

I know you realise all this, and that the ideas have been included, but it could be more succinct. I think if we put the Brundtland definition in it needs to be quoted in context and accurately but I hope you agree with the way it is stated in reference to sustainable development only. I'm sure we all find this process agonisingly slow and nit-picky - but I guess that's what consensus is about. I've tried to pare it down to the bones - please do not take the deletions personally VB we are very close and making progress (even if it is slow). Granitethighs (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are making good progress and that we are fairly close to consensus on the lead. My reason for saying that is that I agree with you both. I do think that it is easier for us to take one (or two at the most) versions that we can mark up with changes (say strike out for deletions and a different color for each person's changes. The reason I would remove phrases such as "ecosystem sustainability" or even "global sustainability' is that they are not linkable to articles. The way to use links, as V.B. has said, is to incorporate them into the text (rather than list them). As to collaborative editing. I have worked on several FAs and GAs that experienced remarkable collaboration. I think that we have the makings of that. But I wouldn't underestimate the magnitude of the task. Sunray (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to Granitethighs: I am encouraged that you think we can work together. As to my being: "abundantly reasonable but then suddenly... uncompromising..." I like to get agreement on what we are going to work on. You will find that I will be faithful to agreements. However, I tend to insist that WP policies be followed and that guidelines be deviated from only for good reason. Beyond that, it will be what the editors of this page agree on. Sunray (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Some background

I am not likely to agree to any version of the lead that specifically refers to sustainable development. Sustainable development is a highly problematic concept, and very controversial in sustainablity circles. Basically, the feeling out there is that the sustainable dev people are aiming to dilute sustainability in such a way that it makes no one uncomfortable, and waters down sustainability to status quo that is greened around the edges. I personally think that sustainable development is possible, but this whole controversial area ought to properly be treated as a subtopic that refers to the sustainable development article. The lead must not contain grossly controversial issues. I have nothing against a footnote re Brundtland. I would welcome it if folks here explained their point of view on this important issue, as it stands in the way of us moving forward. (Also viz the entry of Prometheus in the earlier thread on Sustainability vs Sustainable Development, which was never really responded to.) V.B. (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• B-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists