Talk:Sustainability/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Back to work

OK guys I finally found some time to make a contribution. I hope it's a useful one.

User: finetooth (he's not kidding) made a number of suggestions which have been implemented. By my reading of the "to do" list above we are up to "Edit entire article according to "Featured article criteria - Underway ".

The most interesting criterion to me is "neutral" - I've taken some time to study and think about these criteria especially as they apply to big subjects - articles like Science, Global Warming, things where there is a superabundance of published work, much of which is contradictory. The guidance we're given in NPOVis:

"To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

Not an easy call!

I've revived this page and pasted onto it a set of statements which I personally question are neutral in the sense of reflecting a balanced view; in many cases they are well referenced, but it would be equally possible to state, and reference, the opposite view.

Here are a few other things I spotted along the way:

• The section Sustainability#Population would fit more logically after consumption, population, technology, resources; this would have the nice sideffect of bringing scale and context to the top. Please move it Granitethighs (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Agreed. Sunray (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Done --Travelplanner (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• A few more minor bits of re-ordering would improve flow; do I have an OK from other editors to do this? Yes Granitethighs (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Yes. Sunray (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Done --Travelplanner (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• The section Sustainability#Global_human_impact_on_biodiversity looks to have a few scars from the edit war, someone more familiar with this material needs to read this paragraph again OK, I'll have a go. Granitethighs (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Too many references to ecosystem services in the Sustainability#Ecosystems section. I accept it is a necessary concept which is central to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment but also regard it as disrespectful of the intrinsic (spiritual?) values of, say, wetlands to imply that their loss can be measured by the loss of the services they provide. Yes, let's modify this. Sunray (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• I might get tempted to make a "not so well written" collection once we're agreed about neutrality.... Good idea Granitethighs (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, please do. Sunray (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And of course I noticed a great deal of really good copyediting that had gone on, much enhancing the article. It mostly reads really smoothly now.

Please check this page and let me know if you think we have any real NPOV issues or if it all seems OK to you...--Travelplanner (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TP - a critical read-through never goes astray. Please make changes that are pretty much self-evident. I'll check "the" page. Granitethighs (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll echo GT's words in that I reckon we should restrict ourselves to making any obvious, self-evident changes. We need to be weary of starting to fix up problems, then going off on tangents. Nick carson (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to refocus on the article. I like this approach. By all means go ahead with the changes. Sunray (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

I am not going to get preoccupied with "ratings" but was pleased to see that yesterday March 31 the article scored an all time high number of hits (4,800) (with the exception of one freak day of 7.3 k last year). Granitethighs (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The more people reading about sustainability, the better. Pales in comparison to the 60,000 we were getting on the Black Saturday bushfires article. I suppose the media holds too much sway where awareness is concerned. Nick carson (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the Black Saturday bushfires article has been needing some attention lately, so I've been copyediting that when I would otherwise have been helping out copyediting this, apologies. Nick carson (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Eco & Green

Have done a bit of re-ordering towards the end of "definiton" and have deleted the following sentence which was at the end of that section:

Many practices use for sustainability purposes are now being labeled "green" practices.

The main reason was, it sort of spoiled the flow into the "history" section. But it raises the question - should we include reference to Eco- and Green in the definition section or elsewhere in the article? We've avoided these terms in our own writing, although they do appear in the links, and perhaps this was by unspoken agreement ?--Travelplanner (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"unspoken agreement..." That seems a bit of an oxymoron in reference to virtual communications. It's not as though we can wink or nod. ;-) So no agreement, really. Someone (you) has moved the line to the lead. That seems fine. And I think it would also be good to include the terms in the definition (assuming we have a source that includes them). Sunray (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should include information about "green" or "sustainable" practices, and also, importantly, information on "greenwashing" linking to the greenwashing article. We should stay away from terms such as 'eco' and 'green', purely because they're so ambiguous, not only by their very nature but also by the nature of their fluctuating usages. We should instead stick to suitable terms such as 'sustainable' or 'self-sustaining' or particular principles that a practice might hold such as Cradle to Cradle. TP is right, if it goes at the end of the definition section then it spoils the flow into the history section. Nick carson (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed

I've gone through the article in a fairly arbitrary way and added "citation needed" - i.e., {{fact}} tags. I tried to look at it with neutral eyes. The four of us who have been working intensively on this project are all close to the subject and may make assumptions about certain things that someone from a different perspective would not. I think it is time now to rationalize our citations. For FAs almost everything that isn't a "sky is blue" type statement has to have a citation. Way back when, I believe TP said she was going to take a look at this. Are you able to do so TP, or should we all be looking at it? I think that we should seriously consider excluding un-referenced comments that are still there by a certain date (say end of April). I assume some of those that I've tagged will not need citations, but I think we should review each and rationalize the need. Sunray (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

While we are rationalizing citations, we should look at cases of multiple references. Are they all necessary? In some cases, I could see cutting down from four to one or two. Too many references make the text difficult to read for editors and may be confusing for the average reader. Sunray (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sunray - all sounds good to me and I'll try and find references for unverified observations. Granitethighs (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done a few of these - plenty left and I don't at all want to discourage others from sharing the task..here are a few things I struck along the way....

GT please check my choice of reference for the statements about ecology in early 20th century (Worster, D (1994) "Nature's economy: a history of ecological ideas" Cambridge University Press )

I've changed the general statement that the 1979 oil crisis led to increased awareness of sustainability, which I am finding surprisingly difficult to reference, to a specific quote from President Carter in his State of the Union Address - "Conserve energy. Eliminate waste. Make 1980 indeed a year of energy conservation." - an improvement?? I kind of like it...

The statement "Most real examples of sustainable living are small-scale, although this does not prevent larger communities aspiring to sustainability principles, as is done by sustainable cities." repeated concepts covered better elsewhere in the section (and referenced there) so I deleted it. --Travelplanner (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

--Travelplanner (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We've just got to be careful with deleting information, we worked quite long and hard to assembling and synthesising this rewrite and I'd hate to see parts of it disappear just because WP is slow on amending certain policies. In the short term, there's got to be sources out there for any statements we've made that are unreferenced, we can't be that original thinkers :] Nick carson (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed as a general rule, but I do stand by my deletion of the sentence starting "Most real examples...". Two reasons; to meet the FA criteria we need to cut out redundancy as much as possible; I have been very careful to transfer the links, citations and concepts into the remaining text, and the deletion of the reference to sustainable cities is consistent with the earlier discussion on NPOV (that the term covers a lot of greenwash; all the really sustainable urban settlements have identified themselves as eco-municipalities).

Now a question; the following sentence is an example of where a wikilink functions to me as a citation; following the link to Tragedy of the Commons is more enlightening than any of the other references I've been able to find; is a nonwiki citation really needed?

Nature and natural resources are generally treated as economic externalities and because they are unpriced economic they will be overused and degraded, a situation referred to as the Tragedy of the Commons.

--Travelplanner (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your comments above. I also think that we could get by without a source for the Tragedy of the Commons statement. Or we could just use Hardin, which would forestall any criticism. There is a copy of his article online, so I will add it. BTW, have any of you heard Hardin's comment that he wished he had titled his article "Tragedy of the Unregulated Commons." I find that incredibly apt (though it isn't as catchy a title - probably wouldn't have become such a popular term). ;-) Sunray (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation not needed? Under "human settlements" there is a sentence that doesn't quite fit the flow, about Bioregionalism - which is a word I was unfamiliar with and which linkshere which looks more like a blog than a reliable secondary source to me (quite a fun one - the basic premise being that Vermont should be a selfgoverning nation?)--Travelplanner (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean Vermont isn't a self-governing nation? Bioregionalism is an important movement, I think. It is fairly alternative, but there are books on it. [1] The article by Sales (in the Vermont Commons blog) has been published elsewhere - e.g., online by the E.F. Shumacher Society[2]. Perhaps we might tinker with the paragraph to make it flow better and decide on a more definitive citation. Sunray (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Call to Action

In between doing citations - which is a noble and worthy task, but - I think we need a little bit more discussion on two related sections:

• 21st Century section of "History"
• Post-Environmentalism / the last section

As part of the boring COI discussion, User:EdJohnston made the comment that the article was "far from neutral, since they are promoting sustainability as an Obvious Good Thing, and then planning how to achieve it."

This is a fairly concice statement of my view - until someone finds another habitable planet, looking after this one would have to qualify as an Obvious Good Thing - but he goes on to say:

"The editors seem to be enlisting Wikipedia 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."

Now I believe that a balanced account of the weight of evidence of reliable published sources indeed supports the conclusion that sustainability is an Obvious Good Thing, and that the issue is how to achieve it. However we have failed to convey this to at least one intelligent reader.

I don't think that a factual, balanced account needs necessarily to be either passionless or boring. The Wikipedia:NPOV page says in relation to writing a neutral article about Hitler:

We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary.

It sort of comes back to citations; I think where we're falling short in the standard of citations in both these sections; the last section is referenced almost entirely to one WWF publication (albeit one I suggested) and doesn't have sufficient weight as a conclusion.

I've taken the step of putting both these sections onto a talk page so we can try to make them the best sections in the article; in my view they are the most important sections.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TP. Makes sense. I'll put the thinking cap on. Granitethighs (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I've taken the liberty of moving the "Post environmentalism" subsection to the subpage where it was hatched. I've also renamed that subpage for clarity to: Talk:Sustainability/Transformation. Sunray (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Have tried putting some words together to try to meet the above vision of a punchy but neutral ending. Not sure if what I've written is either, but it's a start; it's at Talk:Sustainability/Transformation. --Travelplanner (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The ending was more of a lecturing pov than neutral. I changed it around to this and added a link on the end.

Transformation... A sustainable future may involve cultural, socio-political, psychological and behavioural change at all levels and contexts of society. Many groups view the present situation as in need of urgent change. Even so, weight of information and scientific evidence is often insufficient to produce social change, especially if that change entails moving people out of their comfort zones.

The antithesis of sustainability is a disregard for limits, which is the concept of being unable to develop sustainability, resulting in the depletion of natural resources. http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/nemetz/jibe.pdf Basic Concepts of Sustainable Development for Business Students —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipsievert (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 April 2009

Granitethighs removed this last statement from the article and I agree with him. I cannot see the need of such a banal statement. The point has already been made in the article. One might say, it is a theme that runs throughout the article. This section is currently being discussed on the Talk:Sustainability/Transformation subpage. Please seek consensus before adding to the article. Sunray (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Banal statement? The antithesis of sustainability is a disregard for limits - I don't think so. skip sievert (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, my choice of wording was poor. I meant to say that because it is a theme of the article, there is no need to repeat it. In the lead, we say: "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." So it is established early on in the article and addressed in several sections. Sunray (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Addition of sisterlinks

GT, I don't understand the purpose of sisterlinnks] addition. It seems pretty general to me. What are the media you want to refer to? Sunray (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at each of the links in turn and agree it is not brilliant. There were some interesting News items and Wikibooks had material that could be of interest to people. I imagine that this will gain in usefulness as time goes on. However, if you think it tends to add unnecessary clutter please delete it. Granitethighs (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)+

Stories from the Stone age

Interesting and nicely done http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=3383283943566412014&hl=de

An exploration of the revolutionary period of prehistory that began when humans abandoned the nomadic hunting and gathering existence they had known for millennia to take up a completely new way of life – the decisive move to farming and herding the ration of permanent settlements and the discovery of metals – setting the stage for the arrival of the world’s first civilisation.

Used it as sourcing for the first sentence in the history section. All around it presents resource and population information in regard to climate change and sustainability from historical perspectives and science. skip sievert (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Big Development

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States, determined that carbon dioxide, and five other greenhouse gases, "endanger public health and welfare" of the American people. These gases, they said, contribute to climate change, which is causing more heat waves, droughts and flooding, and is threatening food and water supplies http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924

Put it in toward the end of the 21st century: global awareness section. It could or can be jockeyed to another area... but it seems to fit as a biggy there. skip sievert (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I was concerned that this might happen. If we include all the latest media releases the article will get clogged - Copenhagen was OK but i dont think this is sufficiently new or important as to be included IMO. What do others think? Granitethighs (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this is the most important recent event of the subject. The United States is the worlds only super power. It sets the scene in many ways. It has acknowledged now that we are about to fall over a cliff. This announcement made front page news and was the lead story all over the world. It is the talk of science circles. It is a big turn around. Would you rather quote the U.N. from the antique Millenium report or something important and up to date? Both? Well, All the latest media releases? This is the E.P.A. of the most important country as to science and research of climate in the world. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924 and this is a landmark development. skip sievert (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing factual in the EPA statement above is new - I'm sure it is covered already in the article and has been known and discussed in science circles for several decades - the MEA spells out the factual basis for this extremely well. What, of course, is of interest is the apparent boldness of the EPA in releasing such a statement. That's great in my book but I'd like to think there will be a lot more statements like this coming out as people gradually wake up, and we cannot keep adding them willy nilly. Just to play devils advocate ... do you think the EPA expresses a npov? (say, vis a vis the UN). Anyway, as always, I am happy to follow consensus on this. Granitethighs (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the statement is new. It will be policy in the U.S. - It was not covered in the article already because it just happened a couple days ago. It was not discussed in science circles for several decades because it is a new event. Boldness? Not really. It is fact or reality. Adding them willy nilly? Pardon? It is in the right section and extremely notable. Both the E.P.A. and the other you mention are political obviously. skip sievert (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the EPA's statement is significant for a several reasons: 1) It is a major policy shift for the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. 2) It represents an unmuzzling of the scientists within U.S. government agencies. 3) Up until now no U.S. government agency had made such a strong public statement on the matter. 4) Along with recent negotiations with China by Hillary Clinton, it sends a signal and helps set the stage for the International Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December. Sunray (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I guess it fits in the article as a historical landmark. Granitethighs (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Forest section

Added a couple of sentences describing new report.

The International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) says forests are under increasing degrees of stress as a result of climate change. Forests could release vast amounts of carbon if temperatures rise 2.5C (4.5F) above pre-industrial levels. Compiled by 35 leading forestry scientists, the report provides what is described as the first global assessment of the ability of forests to adapt to climate change. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8004517.stm -

Will look around for the actual link to the report also beyond the science story news article. Maybe this link would work for that http://www.iufro.org/news/article/2009/04/17/iufro-press-release/ -skip sievert (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

..... well, another, perhaps I'm getting desensitised but I get emails like this at least once every week. There will shortly be more releases concerning freshwater availabity worldwide as a result of climate change and even more drawing conclusions about how this relates to food security, spread of pests and diseases and more. Other reports will draw attention to developing resource wars. And much more ... I am not saying I do not think this is valuable and important information - just the reverse. Problem is including in the article each item as it emerges. I suppose long-term I would like to see the sustainability article fairly "general" and "stable" and the "latest" scientific information picked up mostly in sub-articles. What do other people think? As you imply - if these stories are to be included it would be better to cite actual scientific articles rather than media releases. Regardless, thanks for being vigilant Skip. Granitethighs (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The report provides what is described as the first global assessment of the ability of forests to adapt to climate change. skip sievert (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mention of this report would seem to fit well in the article on forestry. I agree with Granitethighs that this article is intended as a general overview of sustainability. It is already at 125 kb (way to large). We need to finalize the content and achieve a level of stability. Sunray (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably better to cut older info., instead of this. This is up to date info. - If there is going to be a Forestry section then it should reflect what is going on now. I suggest keeping this important information and getting rid then of more non important information... if size really does matter. It also has the added bonus of getting more info into the article as to the International Union of Forest Research Organizations and this article currently is still so over-sourced to the same information over and over, that other viewpoints that are notable, should be documented into it.

The current paragraph in the article The FAO has concluded that, over the period 2005–2050, effective use of tree planting could absorb about 10–20% of man-made emissions – so clearly the condition of the world's forests must be monitored for both reafforestation and deforestation) as they will be part of any coordinated emissions mitigation strategy as well as being part of the global attempt to protect ecosystem services. could be deleted or replaced with the new information. That old information is no longer relevant as to good information. skip sievert (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is a good source and should be used. I don't think we need to report on the release of the report for the reasons given by GT, but think that we could adapt the information in the text and use the report as a source. Sunray (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I have added it. I have also contrasted the suggestion of FAO that forests can be harnessed to become a major carbon sink in coming years with this view that climate change can scupper forest carbon sequestration - reducing the number of words in the process. I think this provides a good npov presentation. Granitethighs (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually that version loses the information and the difference between the two. The use of in contrast was good though... and I added one more sentence... The critical role of forests as massive "sinks" for absorbing greenhouse gases is "at risk of being lost entirely" to climate change-induced environmental stresses that threaten to damage and even decimate forests worldwide. and the link that gave the information http://www.iufro.org/news/article/2009/04/17/iufro-press-release/ ... that then does actually give a npov presentation and also rounds out the presentation to make it more understandable. skip sievert (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Granitethighs (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Diagram picture

Per capita demands on the environment, as measured by the Ecological Footprint generally increase with increasing affluence, but many countries achieve high levels of human development with relatively low resource use.

It seems like this takes up a lot of space... and is very hard to understand or interpret. Is it really a good fit for the article? Would it be better if the information, if needed, was given in a clearer way that did not take up so much space... or seem so confounding. A smaller version would make sense if its desired to keep it... and then instructions to click on it for making the size bigger? Still... even at that, this diagram may be too much info... composed in a concentric (hard to get at the methodology considerations) way, for the article. A link to it might be better, or just a link to Ecological footprint maybe better?... or a much simpler, smaller version? Does it really add to the information in a meaningful way?

Ecological footprint for different nations compared to their HDI.

Isn't this size a whole lot better? skip sievert (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. ON image size, the Peer reviewer observed: "Generally, except for the lead image, it's best to set the image size to "thumb" rather than forcing a specific pixel width." Sunray (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

TP is currently working on two red lines and two words of text that will make interpretation of the diagram much much simpler. Once understood this diagram conveys in a visual form exactly what the sustainability cause is confronting on a global basis. It is the starkest and most useful overview of sustainability I can think of. However, having said that I do agree with reducing the size: it can be clicked on and we need the space. Granitethighs (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ecological footprint for different nations compared to their HDI.

I am slightly shamed by the "working on two red lines and two words of text" note - maybe the others don't realise I've been "working on" this for two months now at least - for the record GT's changes also involved going back to a different set of source data (the Human Development Index itself, not the rankings which are different) and many vlookups later here we are:

I agree smaller is better, but the standard "thumb" size really is too small - even the slightly larger size used by Skip looks like, why would I want to click on this. The resolution of my image isn't good so even at the size I'm recommending the thumb looks muddy, I was going to fix that but then thought, for sure there are going to be other changes before we're through with this...for eg on my graph ecological footprint is the x axis, but in the earlier one that Skip posted above HDI is on the x axis...--Travelplanner (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry TP my words seem pretty tactless now - I was meaning to say that work was being done on the chart so we should wait to see how things evolve. I think that the data speaks volumes and for those that take the trouble to study it the full impact will be worth all of the time you have put in. Maybe new data will come out after a while and it can be updated then, but I think it is good .. and I for one am not fussed about the axes. It says what it says regardless of the orientation. Thanks for all your efforts. Granitethighs (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

TP, point taken about the size. You are saying that the reader has to be able to see the image well enough to be able to know that s/he wants to click on it to see the larger size. We can experiment with different sizes to try to get it right. Sunray (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction and Definition sections

This article and not all that good IMHO. Sustainability by common definition, or “broad sense” is the ability to maintain balance of a process or state of any system. (I assume the community would agree to that)

Their should not be multiple Interpretations of the meaning in the “definition” section and last sentence of the intro. As far as I figure, this section titled “definition” is completely misleading to the reader. Those “definitions” are interpretations of sustainability in human aspects or the Human System. Therefore, should be limited to their own section of Human sustainability, etc. Otherwise, the main title should be Human Sustainability, Earth Sustainability or something to that effect (Which I really don’t want to happen).

I propose to replace the last two introductory sentences where appropriate or removal of it.

“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: "[to meet] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[5]

AND the Revision of the Definition section(which also gives another Interpretation). Important info can be put in other areas more suitable….Or, more reasonably, rename the section to something more appropriate like Human Sustainability. There needs to be some more revisions or organizing of this article IMO.

Can we please start a discussion on this topic? I believe The first two sections of this article need work and could be the reason why this article seems all over the place. A good introduction leads to a better, more organized article.

Also, there is a REDICULOUS amount of Refs in this article. AdenR (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aden - thanks for taking an interest in the article. As you have observed, there is a lot about "sustainability" that is controversial. As an encyclopeadia the task for the editors is to present as "objective" a view of the topic as possible. Defining sustainability is right in the thick of the controversy. If it were not an encyclopaedia it would be tempting to define sustainability the way you would like it to be ... say "the ability to maintain balance of a process or state of any system" then you write the article according to your definition. Problem is sustainability has come to mean all sorts of things. I guess a modern dictionary would list a whole range of senses of the word "sustainability". The article does indicate (rightly or wrongly) that the word has become increasingly associated with, as you point out, "human sustainability". As I understand it the article covers a range of senses of the word but homes in on this sense. Could I suggest you google the word sustainability and see what the articles deal with - I dont think I have done this, or at least I cannot recall the result ... but I feel confident most "hits" will be to do with "human sustainability". What I am saying is that there simply "are" multiple interpretations of "sustainability" ... and so the article must reflect that. But the human dimension seems to take precedence ... and the article also reflects that. I'm sure the editors on this page will be interested in your comments but ask that they be specific. Comments like "seems all over the place" and "this article is not all that good" dont help to improve the content. Could I suggest you make specific suggestions and see what other people think? Thanks for the feedback. Granitethighs (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the "input" and "lecture" GT. I think I presented a very "objective" view of this topic(If that's your point for writing it). I thought we are supposed to be discussing the article? Not my "temptation" for defining it as I like it to be. I already gave specifics on how to improve the article. The renewed Definition I gave it in the article reads

"Sustainability, in general terms, is the ability to maintain balance of a process or state of any system."

Original before edit reads:

"Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the ability to maintain a process or state."

As you can see, its not much different from the original. Through common agreement between the editors on Wikipedia, I think the revision should suffice. Would you and the community agree that be the best general definition? Given the supposed "controversy" of the many interpretations it entails? I am bringing this up because there are TWO contradictory statements in the first two sections about "sustainability", and this is in terms of Human sustainability on earth. This is a good article but the word Sustainability is Too general. If the meaning is causing a problem as GT suggest, then I guess its appropriate and neutral to name the article "Human Sustainability", since that interpretation is given in the intro and described more in the "definition". Their can be other "sustainability" aspects or systems, such as Sustainable Development, sustainable governance, etc which is mentioned but not Written about. My conclusion is that this article is NOT neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdenR (talk • contribs) 22:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing in lead

I think I found a really good source ref/note for the bit in the lead about sustainable this and that before the eco city part. I added this citation and changed the reference just slightly at the end of the paragraph about green initiatives... to green design... which the citation covers... along with the other things. This seems like it covers all these things nicely with a huge amount of connector information.

'and is expressed in human organization concepts, such as; eco-municipalities, sustainable cities (Masdar City an example), and human activities and disciplines, such as; sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture and renewable energy http://lib.berkeley.edu/ENVI/GreenAll.html U.C. Berkeley Library Web. Environmental Design Library Green Design / Sustainable Architecture: Resources. Retrieved on April-21-2009. Some sustainable practices are referred to as "green" design. skip sievert (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)