Talk:Sustainability science

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability science → Sustainability in science — Was originally flagged as neologism, after some discussion the move was proposed for various reasons. — olucideer 23:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Sustainability science → Sustainability in science —(Discuss)— The proposal is to rename the article slightly, reflecting the idea that the study of sustainable practices proliferates unilaterally throughout individual sciencific disciplines rather than being a separate scientific discipline, and by extension possibly giving the impression to some that it is entirely separate from other disciplines. However, as the original Sustainability Science is used by some, this should be a #REDIRECT to this article, (which will also preserve any existing links). This is not an issue as redirects show the official title of the article. --olucideer 23:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Whatever actual information is in the present article could be deconstructed and moved to more recognized mainstream science based articles that deal with physics and energy, for instance Ecological economics .. Environmental economics .. Environmental science, all are actual scientific disciplines, connected with other mainstream disciplines, directly connected with science/sustainability issues. So an A.f.d. is suggested. U.N. issues are also over emphasized to an extreme degree (my opinion). Does renaming this article take care of such issues? I think the article may be confusing in regard to actual science sustainability concepts covered elsewhere, as to the content and conception of them, which makes this iffy as to notability as a stand alone article. Right now a REDIRECT to Environmental science would be my suggestion. skip sievert (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - see discussion below (Encyclopaedus who says I agree totaly with Granitethighs) referring to a number of international institutions teaching and researching sustainability science; the vast number of Google hits on the topic "Sustainability Science"; the conference at which Sustainability Science was "launched" as a discipline. Also mention that there is already an entry for Sustainability Science in the German Wikipedia. Granitethighs (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sustainability Science is a new discipline - it’s only 8 years old ! Therefore I can understand that many think it’s only a neologism or a kind of environmental science, e.g. - but on the other side Sustainability Science is since 2001 (Amsterdam Congress) absolutely recognized by the international scientific community, by leading scientists including many Nobel Laureates. The Potsdam Memorandum 2007 (Source: http://www.nobel-cause.de/Potsdam_Memorandum.pdf) where Sustainability Science was one topic was signed by 15 Nobel Laureates. Also a lot of mainstream academic institutions for example the National Academy of Science of the United States (Source: http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/sustainability.shtml.), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)(Resource: http://www.sustainabilityscience.org) , the Harvard University, the International Academy of Science e.g. support Sustainability Science. Because this is already well known - I can`t understand that we have this outstanding discussion ! The origin of Sustainability Science you can find in this paper: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/sustsci/ists/docs/2000-33.pdf. Of course it is necessary and difficult to make a good article in wikipedia about Sustainability Science - there will be still a lot of work - also in Germany, but I think it is absolutely necessary to inform peoples and even scientists about this new "leading science" for the 21. Century. There are enough reliable sources ! Therefore we should close this discussion and work on the article. --Encyclopaedus (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Citing the name of a website FORUM (AAAS)(Resource: http://www.sustainabilityscience.org): Science and Innovation for Sustainable Development which lists its mission statement as The Forum on Science and Innovation for Sustainable Development is an attempt to outline the burgeoning field. Rather than looking broadly at sustainability, the Forum focuses on the way in which science and innovation can be conducted and applied to meet human needs while preserving the life support systems of the planet. It highlights people and programs that are studying nature-society interactions and applying the resulting knowledge to create a sustainability transition around the world. Does not really lend credibility to the argument that this information is notable or an actual discipline outside of Sustainable development which it quotes as to the focus of itself. Also describing Sustainability science in the article as a burgeoning field is misleading, because they are describing Sustainable development in the link given, and that is an actual known discipline. Also is it correct to use a German wikipedia article link in a reference citation here? skip sievert (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Removal of neologism tag[edit]

On Jan 5 Lucideer wrote: I'd like to "vote" for the removal of the neologism banner. The argument for or against it doesn't appear likely to progress positively until/unless more external voices join the discussion. Having the banner there hasn't attracted any comments to date (my comments weren't motivated by the presence of the banner). Apart from Skipsievert and Granitethighs (opposing views) only two other editors have expressed an opinion - Lucideer and Encyclopaedus (both of whom now favour removal of the tag). Tag accordingly removed. Granitethighs (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs to be looked at by others at this point. Please do not remove the tag or this tag... as the originator of this article you may be unduly biased now... and because there has been much controversy over this article as to sources, it is best to let other people look objectively here at the article... its sourcing... and whether or not it should have the tags it has currently. Granitethighs (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lucideer has said what needs to be said. There's nothing to stop it being put back in future if there is sufficient interest to argue it's case, so removing it wouldn't be too detrimental a move. Only one person (yourself) has expressed concern. If you are dissatisfied perhaps you could seek an outside opinion. Granitethighs (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

There is now an "original synthesis" tag. You seem to be one bad-mad-tag-dog-dude. The appropriate WP page on "synthesis" says: Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. What is the conclusion you are objecting to and claim is a new synthesis? Granitethighs (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs archiving. This is your statement concerning these three articles that go in circles to themselves... In working with sustainability I have found it extremely useful to think in terms of a rapidly increasing and improving body of information and thought (coming from areas like environmental science, sustainability science and elsewhere) based on careful measurement and analysis that is then used to make decisions and carry out actions that will make our lives more sustainable. Now, the combination of these three factors (analysis, measurement, decision for action based on former two) seem to me to help our understanding of sustainability and the way it proceeds. In fact, I think they are "key operational principles" and that is why I put them in this part of the article. Against this it could be said that this is the way we proceed with most things in life - nothing new is being said. My only response here is that I have found the ideas extremely useful in understanding the way sustainability is "managed". As I have said before, the actual words we use for these three components do not matter and I confess that because I think the ideas are important I have tried to find precise terms to express them. This has been done in an attempt to achieve simplicity. I created an article called sustainability accounting as I thought this covered the "measurement" side of things quite well. However, it was not popular and TP suggested "sustainability measurement" which is fine by me and the article name was changed accordingly. Also, I have used the term "sustainability science" to cover the whole business of foundational studies and analytic thought relating to sustainability. I think that this is valid and has preecedence and that the article on sustainability science explains this adequately. However, I do acknowledge that others might see this differently.
This seems very much to me like you are using Wikipedia to format essay like material and original research. That is fine in other places, but does not work for encyclopedia presentation. This was an entry by Skipsievert, not GT.

Original synthesis banner[edit]

In April 2009 a banner was placed on this article asserting that it presented an original synthesis. Apart from being a contentious assertion the banner has attracted no comment at all. There appears no reason for it to remain. Granitethighs (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sustainability science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of Article[edit]

Evaluate an article Sustainability science I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is a division of Environmental Science that I find interest in. Lead Guiding questions Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is overly detailed, it could be shortened as to not include all of the information twice in the article. Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content up-to-date? Yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the whole point of the article is to describe what sustainability science is and what disciplines it encompasses and it does just that, but it is lacking in information. Content evaluation



Tone and Balance Guiding questions Is the article neutral? Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? That sustainability can only be accomplished when multiple disciplines work together. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all come from scientific journals. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? All sources are from the past 10 to 20 years. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No Are images well-captioned? There are no images Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no images Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no images Images and media evaluation Checking the talk page Guiding questions What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk page is focusing on a tag about neologism as a banner on the page and archiving. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale which means it is developing but incomplete. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This is much broader and less general than anything we would talk about in class. Talk page evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions What is the article's overall status? Overall, the article is good for a general inquirer on the subject, but it needs more detail. What are the article's strengths? It has a very in depth list of universities and courses one could attend and take in sustainability science How can the article be improved? The article could include more information about what is going on in the field, what is being worked on or studied now compared to what needs to be studied in greater depth. It could include problems we are having problems solving and general consensus's throughout the community. How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped. Eohanlon (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

സുസ്ഥിര ശാസ്ത്രം[edit]

ശബ്ദം 43.229.90.163 (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Ecology[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Sorkhabi1234.

— Assignment last updated by Stans068 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability_science&oldid=1208584205"