Talk:Renewable resource/Archive 1

Archive 1

I making few changes in this article in order to improve it

renewable resources” unfortunately lacks intellectual as well as literary value. Not only is the information portrayed, insufficient to elaborate upon the gravity of the topic, it somehow fails to harness a proper prose that could interest the reader. Hence I intend to make alterations to the page so that the above issues can be catered to. To give a brief overview, the essence of the topic would be worked upon moving forward towards elaborated definitions and understanding of the sub-topics. Also, definitions understood and retrieved from reliable sources would be added. This shall make the overall gist of the article more comprehensive and intellectually feasible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONEEB-NJITWILL (talk • contribs) 16:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, in relation to your remark on my talk page about Paul Weis Definition of renewable resources. I think that this is an important definition because the research marks the start of a growing interest in this field... Also you have removed this reference from the article introducation without inserting any. The intorduction is now without reference. Plus I do not think that the tag should be removed at this stage. For these reasons I will revert back to the original article... As I already stated there is some good content in your insertions, but please preserve the tag and do not remove the reference as I think that Paul weis' definition is important and easy to understand for an introduction. I think that you should maybe create an additional section and keep the intro short with Paul Weis' definition.--Christophe Krief (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Another issue is that you are focusing on water and energy, and I think that the definition of Paul Weis is more descriptive and more within the subject of this article. It is true that we have entered a new era for protecting the renewable resources; but maybe you should create a new section on this issue and preserve Paul Weis' definition in the intro. Some of your insertion in the intro are non referenced and cannot be verified. --Christophe Krief (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Definition of Renewable resource an solar energy

As of now the article claims that "Renewable resource" MUST " have a way of regenerating itself ", immediately after solar energy is listed as Renewable resource. However i do no think that there is way for the sun to "regenerate itself". Can someone clarify this point?--Hq3473 04:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not the sun that is regenerated, but the energy supply from the sun. Think of the sun as being a generator of solar radiation where the wave of energy flux is constantly being generated. Something about human time scales and the sun's lifecycle should possibly be mentioned. - Shiftchange 03:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I modified the opening sentence in a way addresses this (plus other resources, too). In fact, this section should be modified to call solar radiation, tides, and wind perpetual resources; the term renewable isn't particularly useful, given the billions of years that these resources have been and will continue to be active. Solar, Wind and Hydro can't be renewed, as per Second Law of Thermodynamics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.163.219 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the opening sentence actually sourced from? It seems to me like it conflates "renewable" and "sustainable" in a way that makes the term "renewable" not very useful. --24.80.163.219 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "long term" is all well and rational, but the phrase "perpetual" indicates something that is entirely untrue according to modern science, that the sun will never die. That is just non scientific.

---

I think that there was confusion between renewable resources and renewable energies. For exemple tides are renewable resources only for the energy that they produce. I have revised the article to disambiguate on this matter.

The claim that renewable resources are "resources replaced by natural processes at a rate comparable or faster than its rate of consumption by humans" is false because some renewable resources do not provide enough for human consumption like for example water and other natural resources in some parts of the third world or wood in our industrial world. Finite resources are those that cannot be naturally renewed whatever our efforts to control their consumption and natural production. The notion of sustainability is related to the conservation of natural resources and renewable resources as to protect their cycles of life. I have also revised the article on this ground.

I have added a reference to a report to the committee on natural resources by Paul Weiss, chairman of renewable resources study in Washington D.C.. The Report is dated from 1962; it was forwarded to the President of the United States. I think that Paul Weis definition of renewable resources should be adopted for this article.

--Christophe Krief (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Renewable resources

I've just reverted the page to my last reversion back in November 07. I'm fairly sure there hasn't been any improvement, but there has certainly been a lot of vandalism while I was away, much of which seems not to have been reverted. Good to know the system is working... Richard001 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is constanly under attack, as it has been reverted at least 5 times since I checked it last night. Please WP:RFPP this if it continues to get out of hand. --w^{L<speak·check>} 11:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably not enough for a semi-protection, even though most if not all of the edits are vandalism... we really need a decent system for ensuring pages are kept vandalism free, as opposed to our current 'let's hope pages don't get vandalized, and if they do let's hope there's somebody watching them, even though we have no way of knowing if there is' non-system. Richard001 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Renewable materials?

Is this list any use at all? Corn, bamboo... are we just going to list every crop that is harvested? Richard001 (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Cheese and food are not considered renewable recources,

Random Stuff

I think page is sorely in need of help. Apart from the one clear line that introduces the article, the rest of the page needs a lot of cleanup and work. I don't see how sustainable agriculture has anything to do with renewable energy - it's a far stretch for those saying that renewable ag -> corn -> ethanol -> biofuels -> repeat cycle. Gautam ^Discuss 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Differences

Differences between natural renewable resources and non natural renewable resources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.191.108.130 (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear?

How exactly can nuclear energy be considered renewable ? It uses a mining product, exactly like coal plants do. Isn't that a confusion between "renewable" and "non-producer of CO2" ? --Iv (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

some types of nuclear power generation can be renewable read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.182.149 (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

• The result of this discussion was to not merge. All comments opposed, and the merge nomination was withdrawn by the nominator. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

---

I've tagged Renewable resource and Renewable energy for a merger. Both share the same subject. I suggest merging it to this article because of the existing related article Non-renewable resource. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons:

1. Sources for renewable energy are only part of all renewable resources. I think that renewable resources is a good stand-alone umbrella article for different type of renewable resources.
2. The renewable energy article alone is 71 kilobytes long, which is more than recommended. Merging these articles will even increase the size of the article. Beagel (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Beagel. Johnfos (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beagel. Furthermore, renewable energy is just one potential use of a renewable resource, and deals specifically with how humanity exploits certain renewable resources. Renewable resources deals more with a general section of the natural resources available to humanity. --Matt0401 (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a vital and growing subject area. The tendency will be to split off and spawn more and more sub-articles on specific sub-topics, not to merge them together and cramp the scene. 'Resource' includes all useful physical materials as well as other more abstract concepts. 'Energy' is one of those more abstract concepts. --Nigelj (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed merge tag, no consensus to merge. Johnfos (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Withdrawal of merge: Good points. :) Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protect?

Looking through the last 50 edits, I don't think anything constructive has been done to this article, just vandalism by IP editors followed by reversion of same, over and over again. In the process, sometimes entire sections full of cited material get lost, other times odd words (like 'water' replaced by 'coal') get left in a nonsensical state for days on end, rendering sections meaningless. --Nigelj (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I just undid latest revisions by user "Eaarth". It looked like a kind of clever vandalism with insertions that were good and acceptable and others that were pure vandalism. I have also removed some advertising links to resellers a few days ago. The problem being that, like for renewable resources, it is easier and faster to destroy an article than it is to create it. I am not willing to be involved in those wiki anti-vandalism groups, but I think that there should be more protection on wiki. I would support the idea that each editor must have a valid email address. This would help to reduce vandalism.--Christophe Krief (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

General confusion: "renewable" does not imply "renewed"

There does not seem to be a mention of time span or exhaustibility here, although that's essential. We could argue that fossil oil is renewable on sufficiently long time spans. In the same vein, plundering renewable resources does not imply any kind of sustainability. I will make an attempt to fix that, but the problem is rather deep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederic Y Bois (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Renewable resource

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Renewable resource's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "turcotte":

• From Earth: Turcotte, D. L.; Schubert, G. (2002). "4". Geodynamics (2 ed.). Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 136–137. ISBN 978-0-521-66624-4.
• From Geothermal energy: Turcotte, D. L. (2002), "4", Geodynamics (2 ed.), Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 136–137, ISBN 978-0-521-66624-4 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• From Tidal power: Turcotte, D. L. (2002). "4". Geodynamics (2 ed.). Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 136–137. ISBN 978-0-521-66624-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Renewable resources not renewable energies

Half of this article is focused on renewable energies. However, an article already exist for renewable energy.

The focus of this article should be re-centered on renewable resources such as water and all the eco-systems that the modern and industrial world is leading to extermination. Fishes and whales in the oceans, trees in the rain forests, corals, honey bees, wild animals and other sources of food that we take for granted... Earth cannot feed its growing human population. This should be the main subject of the article. Renewable resources provide food, drugs and other commodities. Renewable energies are a sub-category and another wiki-article is already created to define them.--Christophe Krief (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We are now in the the real subject... The issue with renewable resources today is preservation / conservation to prevent extinction. Renewable energies are only tools that may help saving our natural environment and its resources.--Christophe Krief (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue with renewable resources till the early 20 century lead to major extinctions, as in Whaling, fur and seal hunting and is neither was a gurantee for preservation / conservation. Fire wood is contributing to major problems but still provides more than 10% of human global energy needs. Renewable energies and resources, the most important by far ist still wood, are predominantly using our natural environment and its resources, wether they help to conserve them by sustained usage is a questions of management and policy. Serten (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What is it about renewable energy that does not make it a renewable resource, and why would a summary of that content not be suitable in this article? If renewable energy is a subcategory, or type of renewable resource, then it should be covered in this article, in WP:SUMMARY style. Also, I have reverted the content removal until this discussion is completed. This is a Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle, and to remove it again would descent it into a WP:3RR situation. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" applies as well. First the bold version presented actual renewables and a current scientific definition. The previous lacked all of that.

• It included not a summary, but long off topic deliberations about different sort of energy sources and somewhat erratic POV.
• neither food nor water are normally included in reneweables.
• a title like "Renewable resources endangered by the industrial world is completely useless", the article first should describe the use of reneweables as in fishery or forestry, not the dangers involved. A subtitle in that section called "Sustainable agriculture" a) erratic and b) most "sustainable" reneweables are being used in the developed world.

Serten (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point about the essays, however lets discuss and come to an understanding on how to improve the overall quality. I agree that the renewable energy sections could be reduced, and condensed probably into a single section. If the content in the "Renewable resources endangered by the industrial world" provides a POV problem, then the content should be balanced out with more general information about the fishing, agriculture, water resources, forestry and species endangerment. An unbalanced section with valuable content should be integrated with the additional content, including the re-characterization or rephrasing of existing content, if the information is valid and contributes to an overall presentation of the subject. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

First Nicks cooperative approach is much appreciated.

• I suggest to first give an overview about what is being done actually and then to come up with risks. Renewable resources are an important part of the economy, especially in the developed world, but they are not a snake-oil-cure-it-all for all environmental problems, actually they provide important environmental problems as well.
• "Renewable resources endagered by the industrial world" is sort of a non starter, balancing doesnt help much. Take traditional chinese medicine, which endangers specific species like Rhinos, bears and Tigers - thats not at all about industry, to the contrary, Viagra may have helped more to protect Rhinos than any conservation attempt, similar as using oil from fossil fuels helped to conserve the remaining whales, which had been harvested as a reneweable resource nearly to extinction ;). Serten (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagreements need not lead to confrontation. In general your changes to the article is a vast improvement, and although much of the new writing is good, and believable, the Overview and Historical Role sections need sources. The caption on the lede image also leads me to wonder who says leather is a "classical renewable resource". We could also look for more examples of renewable resources, particularly ones that are identified in sources as such. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I introduced some further cites, but the basic linkages should not be oversourced, as this is a sort of intro. I am maybe prone to "teutonizing" the article, as I use "classical" as in the sense of German "NAWARO". Germany research on the topic is fairly advanced (there are interesting rteasons for that ;), but if you have issues with my wording or can provide links and sources more adapt to the enWP, dont hesitate to edit, its a Wiki ;) Serten (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The German wiki has articles de:Zucker_als_nachwachsender_Rohstoff (sugar as renewable resource) and de:Stärke_als_nachwachsender_Rohstoff (starch as renewable resource). would this article be improved with the additon of content about agricultural products that are 'renewable' resources? This definition seems to be getting quite broad, I could see every agricultural product being considered as renewable.

Specific resources that might warrant inclusion could be vegetable oils, sugar starch, animal raw materials like wool and silk, natural rubber and fishing. We might also consider a section on recycling, a related topic. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The writing the German articles (by a rather experienced old deWP hand) has been subsidized by the German NAWARO association, they are sometimes good, sometimes too local to be of value here.

I added some links to financial and political background, that needs extension. It should not cover the german case alone. Maybe you have some ideas about lobbists and associations involved with renewables.

Some of the content you mentioned could be used for a section about agricultural gentech, as from next generation biofuels or in modified starch potatoes as amflora.

Lets be careful with anything about food, as in fishing, however side products as chitin etc are already included.

I dont see much use for a separate entry covering recycling. Reneweables regrow, predominantly metals are being recycled. Serten (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

POV Tag

The article claimes that "renewable resources endangered by the industrial world". The contrary is the case. Wood and other Renewable resources and their sustained usage are quite important for the wealth and success of industrialized countries, and most controversial usage is to be found in developing countries. If you compare timber exports from Afrika and just one German state, lets say bavaria, Africa is nearly non existant in timber trade and usage. Serten (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure to understand your point of view. Water used by the industry is polluted by this same industry (refer to Japan nuclear industry as a late example) killing wild life as well as endangered wild life. Forests in Africa, Asia, South America are devastated for industrial timber and by unsustainable agriculture. This is not only a twentieth century problem. There will be a need of sustained efforts during the twenty first century to save our planet from the industry and the battle is far to be won... Especially if people think that the problem is already solved, which is far to be the case. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFORESTS/Resources/985784-1217874560960/Uzbekistan.pdf - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/29/houseofcommons.politics

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 September 2014

Christophe, to put it into perspective, Germany produces about 50-70 million cubic metres wood and makes around 170 Billion Euro with it. Now compare South africa, timber turnover is around 4 million Euro, the rest of Africa is non-existant in relation to the world market. The whole of Africa produces about 650 Millions m³ of fire wood per year in a not very sustainable nor profitable way. Even worse, [http://www.globalenvironmentfund.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GEF_Africa-will-Import-not-Export-Wood1.pdf Africa is at the moment becoming a net importer of wood, similar as Uzbekistan. That said, talking about resources endangered by the industrial world is completely off-topic. First check actual production and advantages, then detail the risks. The Tsunami in Japan cost billions, but Fukushima was only a small part of it. off topic here. Serten (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Serten, What about Honey bees? http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/animals/bees.asp Whales? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/10/02/brydes-whale-endangered-species/16580101/ You say that timber is not an endangered resource? This is an arrogant denyal!!! Here are some relevant facts that you will need to read about endangered species of trees and deforestation: http://www.mortonarb.org/science-conservation/conservation/saving-endangered-trees - http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/ Why was the Endangered Species Act created, why is it still enforced today if there is not threat? Why do we need applied ecology if there is no threat?? why is this off topic? This is one of the most problematic issues in respect of renewable resources? What is your point with the production of timber in Germany? You are off topic on this subject? This article is not about Germany or its timber industry, not about the industry in South Africa neither.

I agree that the cause cannot be blame solely on the industry, as in most developed countries a part (still a minority) of the industry is now working towards a solution. But the fact is that there is a threat which is putting our environment at risk, so why to you deny it?The threat to resources is growth within a non-regulated industry. I am reinserting the article about endangered resources, without reference to industry in its title. I am also changing the main article photo which is poorly representative.

Do not not remove this section, as you do not have a valid argument for doing so, Your denial of the present threat towards the natural environment appears motivated by political or vested interest. This is not authorised on Wikipedia where different points of view can and must be expressed without censorship.--Christophe Krief (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you might say, what does it have to do with the articles topic? Serten (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Serten please seek consensus before continuing to edit the article any further. Your approach is very distrubing. - Rfassbind (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

First I think Christophe Kriefs additions fotowise have been valuable. Second he did erase valuable sources for the lede, those have been restored. I dont think the endangered resources is very much helpful, as it contradicts the evidence about the challenges of renewables itself - renewable use actually endanger some species. I doubt - based on solid science - that there is anything like a "natural environment" in Europe, at least since about 4000 years. Serten (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

SERTEN!!! What? You doubt about a natural environment in Europe!? The natural environment is everywhere, even in the cities centre. The air that you breath is part of it. The sun which warms up your skin too... The migrating birds passing over, the microbes that you do not see or the foxes, rabbits, rats, insects and so on... There is no problem for quoting a German author translated in English, but your quotation in German language in this article is inappropriate as it does not relate to a German subject and as many quotes in English can be used. Please insert it in the German wiki version of the article--Christophe Krief (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Goddness, not I do, environmental history does. a Speak white approach is not appropriate or do you deny that since the days of Konrad Meyer and rubbber dandelions in Auschwitz germans have been leading the field? Serten (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Be clever SETERN, this is addressed to English speakers and many English, Americans or German translated, as well as French translated will be more relevant in the article. You are missing many points. First this article does not relate to the industrial point of view which you are only considering. It relates to renewable resources in all aspects. Also, can you reference your theory about food not being a renewable resource, because I have plenty of reference to contradict your position on this subject. --Christophe Krief (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As said, you better revert to a non controversial version in due time. Just to ignore the German scholarly definition, which does explicitely exclude (animal and human) food is a nice try, but not helping to improve the article. I doubt there is any relevant French voice on the issue. Serten (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Renewable resource may provide for food. Paul Alfred Weis defined it this way and here is a much more recent link defining it the same way: http://www.opic.gov/blog/opic-in-action/food-is-a-renewable-resource Do you have a reference in English to support your position? If there is a difference of point of view within the definition of Renewable Resources, so it should be expressed in the article without taking position--Christophe Krief (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

German science is science and provides valid sources, right? You quoted a 1960 definition and a US Overseas Private Investment Corporation blog. Stop cherrypicking. Real sources, e.g. Renewable Resources and Plant Biotechnology Ryszard Kozłowski, Gennadiĭ Efremovich Zaikov, Frank Pudel 2006, Agricultural materials as renewable resources: nonfood and industrial applications Glenn Fuller, Thomas A. McKeon, Donald D. Bills, American Chemical Society. Division of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, American Chemical Society, 1996 and the European Commission confirm the non-food outlook. Thats said, refrain from further editwarring and revert to an acceptable version. Serten (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked the European Commission's document and it concerns a research for non food renewable, this is not the subject of this article. Your reference to "Agricultural materials as renewable resources: nonfood and industrial applications" Glenn Fuller, Thomas A. McKeon, Donald D. Bills, American Chemical Society, is a specific research too... However this is not the subject of this article, but it can be a subsection as now set up in the article. You are pointing your references on non-food researches, but this does not mean that renewable resources are not providing for food... Anyway, you know like me that they are. The oxygen that you breath as well as the water that you drink and many fruits that you eat, the milk which you drink and the honey to make it sweet. If too many cows are killed to make the beef that you eat, then there will be not enough milk for your breakfast and it could lead to extinction. You are referring to researches which are non-food orientated, however, you have no exact quote with a page number pointing to a general definition of Renewable Resources excluding these which contribute to providing men with food. You selected researches which were orientated towards non-food renewable resources for industrial and politico-economical purposes. I am not picky, I am realistic. There are 2 main groups related to the subject of this article. These 2 groups are Renewable Resources and non-Renewable Resources. The subject that you are interested with "non-food Renewable Resources", is a sub-group of the first main group. If honey is not a renewable resource, so what is it? If fishes that you eat are not neither, so which group do they belong to? --Christophe Krief (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If you believe the subject of the article is not the subject of the article, better look for a forum or a blog, and if you want to preach, sorry, I have heard much better and less boring homilies. I use scientific sources and I dont care where the come from- the last in After Saturday Comes Sunday was arab. Do the same and stop soapboxing. Serten (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Serten .... This article is about Renewable Resources and you want to transform it into non-food renewable resources. Plus you are using it to promote non translated German researches.--Christophe Krief (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And? Serten (talk) ............... And to my knowledge Wikipedia is not a promotion tool... Also if there is a double definition for a term such as Renewable Resources, so you should not erase one as to preserve the one that suits your position. --Christophe Krief (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a policy or guidelines that governs the usage of foreign language sources? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Of cause not, a source has to be noteable, but neither in English nor to be online. Point is, we should discuss the validity of sources, not their language. CK quoted an outdated 1960 definition and a US Overseas Private Investment Corporation blog as base of his changes, all in English but rather fringy, I am refering to actual and current research. In so far I ask to reinstall my definitions in the lede and keep CKs changes in the full text as a first step. Serten (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Serten, the quote from the 1960s concerns the first socio-economical research on Renewable Resource. It represents the foundations of all researches on the subject. Could you clarify why you or your German references are willing to take away food from the equation? This is a decision which consists in focussing on the industry. From all the links in English that you provided, the references did not back up your claim. They were simply focussing on the non-food subject to consider the industrial aspect. This does not mean that Renewable Resources are not food related. You still have not answer my earlier question which would clarify your position, if renewable resources providing men with food are not Renewable Resources, so what are they? This is an important matter that you are either unwilling or unable to clarify. --Christophe Krief (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

When english language, online sources are available for a given claim, they are preferred to a source that is not online and not in english. However, if a claim is only sourced by an ofline or non-english source, then use of that source is perfectly acceptable. Obviously the level of reliability does come into play. If the English source is a pop magazine, and the German source is a peer reviewed study, then maybe the German source would win, but Ceteris paribus use the English one. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so all things considered, the sources themselves are not a problem, as long as they are reliable. Now we can focus on the question of non-food versus food renewable resources. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia is a new form of encyclopaedia, but considering the classical form, I note that languages are mixed only if the subject requires. Now imagine a Chinese editor, a Russian, and others including references in their own languages in this article!!! Imagine me inserting a dozen of French reference!!! If the German researches promoted by Serten have a scientific interest, they will be translated. If Serten believes that this German particularity worth to be inserted, so he should create a sub-section such as "Renewable Resources, a German point of view". --Christophe Krief (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but in general, knowledge is knowledge, and we should be presenting a worldwide point of view. If there was specific Russian or Chinese content, certainly we would prefer that the sources be in English. But that could present systemic bias, as it would require that all foreign language sources/research be translated first to the language of the wiki before being used. Thus research done in Russia would not be included until it is translated, no matter how reliable. Furthermore, since translation of sources can be considered original research, it would have to be done by a third party. Thus, although English sources are preferred, it is better to use the original, untranslated sources, and let Wikipedians who speak that language verify that the sources are indeed reliable. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are two separate discussions going on here, and the issues should not be confused and conflated.

• Sourcing in english is one issue Wikipedia:Verifiability#Citing_non-English_sources. There is clear policy and precedent here. There is a statement in the article. If that statement can be sourced to english sources, we should use that source.
• Worldwide POV is a second issue. Certainly we should present a global viewpoint, but such is not done merely by citing a statement to a foreign language source. If there is a "German School of Thought" or some such that is notable and needs to be covered, then cover it, but we should have sources attesting to that school of thought and not generating one out of our own WP:OR. If there is some relevant fact to the global viewpoint that can only be sourced to a German source, then by all means use the German source, but don't use it as a proxy WP:POINT if its not actually adding value in the text. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with Gaijin42. I think that we all share NickPenguin's position about a worldwide point of view. For this reason Wikipedia exists in many languages worldwide. If a reference is made in another language, it shall be inserted as to facilitate the understanding for its insertion to non-German readers. What was the point of Serten's reference, except for the fact that Germany is well ahead of other nations on the subject, he did not give any other reasons. I believe that Serten is mistaking the subject of Renewable Resources for the subject of Renewable materials and sustainable industrial developments. His participation in the article, which has been beneficial to some extents, relates to the industrial production of resources and to industrial applications for the use of renewable resources. He has ignored the natural aspect of Renewable Resources. This is not a problem as long that his ignorance of the natural world is not imposed to the article. If there is a German position which denies Renewable Resources as a source of food for men, so this German approach, should also provide a name for this aspect of the renewable resources and it should explain why it has decided to change the definition of Renewable Resources. I believe that Serten has developed a sub-subject for the article or a subject for another article. --Christophe Krief (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstb there is not much of a "global view" here or elsewhere. I am rather pragmatic with my approach.

* a) if someone comes up with Chinese or Arab, babelfish allows to check wether it sounds credible.

* b) the article should be about the practical and modern use.

Renewable subsidies are globally confined to non food use applications, not only in germany. The article should cover this. If not, we end up in soapboxing, the current sections about Overfishing, Deforestation and Endangered species are redundant. Use of Renewables is possible, but has its problems as well, you may see from whaling, Guano mining, food versus fuel or TCM based hippo poaching issues. Serten (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The conflict between modern and tradition is not a new one, nor is the conflict between nature and industry... On the industrial point of view, protecting species and bio-diversity is only an economical matter. On the point of view of a natural approach, we do not know how killing diversity will influence the ecosystem. It is similar to the problem of climate change and global warming (or global warning!). Would you approach an article about global warming only on the industrial's point of view? Good night...--Christophe Krief (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop soapboxing please. the previous version was a sermon about endangered nature and bioenergy.

I saw the need to provide recent sources, historical aspects and information about actual renewable resources, from leather till hemp. The renewable industry is based on subsidies, which have a policy background, its the other way round. Serten (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You are the one imposing your agenda here.... Do not reverse the roles. What I said above is correct. Why aren't you creating an article on your subject of predilection instead of changing the definition of "Renewable Resources"? The latest version of the article consisted mainly of detaching from renewable energies which became the predominant subject of the article. As I already said, your insertions have improved the article but you should have come clean on the Talk Page before fully redefining the subject. This is an article quoting a UN report about endangered species, deforestation and more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/nature-protection_n_5937094.html - It may be part of my agenda to help protecting diversity, but if nobody assist this way, so renewable resources will not be renewed anymore, and God knows what will happen then.--Christophe Krief (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Again. Stop Soapboxing. its up to you to preach elsewhere. This article is not about endangered species, and the Lord beware about Huffington bullshit as a valid source. Its about materials of practical use and a certain background. I dont have to ask for allowance when I am writing or changing articles based on valid sources. Serten (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"soapboxing

1) To wax philosophical to promote your own agenda.

2) To get your message across to a number of people."

you are the one soapboxing Serten... When a renewable resource is not able to replenish itself, what does it become? The subject of endangered species is as important than the subject of industrial application. However, you want to wipe it off because you have no respect of nature, as the industry that you promote. You have enlarged the perspective of this article, please do not narrow it to your sole point of view. --Christophe Krief (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesnt lead any further and doenst give you the right top erase valid sourcees. . You keep preaching and your personal assumptions about me are as offensive as off topic. I ask the last time to use, discuss and restore scientific sources, will you do so? Serten (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Serten, I feel the same about you :) I do not mean to be aggressive, and from my perspective you are the one imposing an agenda here. You are the one fighting all resistance to your dictatorial approach of the subject. 99% of your insertions were preserved, but you want to remove what is not in your agenda and making a big fuzz because your reference in German was removed from the lead... Do you realise that at least?

1) Can you please answer the relevant questions about your theory here? I have already asked you twice, if food related renewable resources are taken away from the German definition of renewable resources as you claim while failing to bring a reliable reference on this matter, so what are they now? What is the purpose of changing the definition of the Renewable resources? Can you at least answer these fundamental questions?

2) WP:NOENG. English sources are preferred, but non-English sources are OK if there are no English ones of equal quality. If there are equally good English sources, you can simply replace the citation with one of those. If you can't find a suitable English one, then this may be a case where using a German source is the best option. Can you explain what is making your German reference necessary in the article lead? except for your assumption that Germans are leading in this field (curious assumption considering that Renewable Resources are natural assets, not human made)

3) why aren't you creating an article on the subject of "Industrial Non-Food applications and development for Renewable Resources?

Thank you in advance for giving us more details which will allow us to analyse your position that we may have misunderstood due to a lack of information from your side. --Christophe Krief (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tag stays, till science is being used again. Serten (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to explain yourself? Your silence and refusal to answer the above questions, kind of confirm my concerns... --Christophe Krief (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The Cologne university study, EU research and so on ARE reliable research, Huffington post and an investment consulters web blog are not. WP is not about explainings ones position or attacking others based on COI libel, but writing articles which do not show it, as in NPOV. Serten (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Serten, see my answer below. I hope that the issue of non-food is now solved. --Christophe Krief (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede

As in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Comments, German sources may be used ;). I suggest the following lede.

A renewable resource is an organic non food natural resource that can replenish in due time compared to the usage, either through biological reproduction or other naturally recurring processes.. The term does not refer to metals, minerals and fossil fuels.

Serten (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Serten your definition is in contradiction with the references that you provide. "Renewable Resources and Plant Biotechnology" by Ryszard Kozłowski, Gennadiĭ Efremovich Zaikov, Frank Pudel, Nova Publishers, 1 Jan 2006, states the following:

"Plant biotechnology and renewable resources are the driving forces behind a more sustainable development of agriculture and other related industries in the world. Until the 21st century, the main task for most industries was to raise the volume of production to gain the highest profits possible. Non-renewable natural resources, such as oil, were the most profitable sources of energy. This tendency not only exploited these resources but had harmful side effects: growing environmental pollution and changing the earth into a desert, suitable neither for animals nor human beings. At the beginning of the 21st century, both scientists and green movements warn that it is necessary to change this philosophy of economic progress towards a more intensive exploration of renewable resources. Biotechnology is one of the very important and novel tools for obtaining diversified materials on the base of renewable resources. They can serve as a source for production of energy, novel materials, fibres, food, agrofine chemicals and composites. It is believed that diversified possibilities for using natural green resources and their processing can ensure balanced progress without side effects on the earths environment. This book presents research on the possibilities of creating progress in the processing of renewable resources within the study of biotechnology."

I have high lighted the word "Food" for your attention, as it seems that you missed it. The other researches that you quoted are specifically informing that they are non-food orientated. They would not need to precise this particularity if Renewable Resources were not providing men with food in their general aspect. I think that this issue is now closed. --Christophe Krief (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats again sopaboxing and misinterpreting of sources. They can serve as a source for production..., similar as Rennet is being used for cheese, but is no food itself. Serten (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This research seems interesting by the way, and inserting a quote from it would enhance the article.--Christophe Krief (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You have done all the best to block improvement of the article. Serten (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with you Serten? Your references are clearly stating that Renewable Resources provide men with food... If you want to continue improving the article please pass to something else and please stop accusing me of soapboxing or blocking progress. I am simply quoting and reading your references. I have also assisted to make sure that you are not mistakenly providing a false definition. I have created a sub-section called non-food to preserve the content that you have inserted. I have also added a section for food related resources. What else do you want? Get over it!!! Everyone make mistakes. --Christophe Krief (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop soapboxing and falsifying sources. Youre trying to suggest Renewabls save the planet, while other stuff doesnt, thats covered by no source in question. 22:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Real life

As for different renewable energy technologies, costly failures, setbacks, hype-disappointment cycles, tensions, and struggles have emerged. While try and error is normal in technology, the sector has faced recurrence of particular problems. Major problems exist with regard to learning processes - not only in WP ;), its too muhc about R&D, supply side believes and failed expectations (hype-disappointment cycles, limited competence to assess promises). That applies not only to the netheerlands btw. Serten (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Lede again

As in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Comments, German sources may be used ;). I suggest the following lede.

A renewable resource is an organic non food natural resource that can replenish in due time compared to the usage, either through biological reproduction or other naturally recurring processes.. The term does not refer to metals, minerals and fossil fuels.

PLease refrain from soaboxing and saving the planet. Its save enough without that. Serten (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As already discussed, I object, as Non-Food Renewable Resources is not the subject of this article. Please create a new article for Non-Food Renewable Resources.--Christophe Krief (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Renewable resource. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012084340/http://colas-cst.com:80/_ACTU_TECH/nouveauxproduits.php?fiche=0 to http://colas-cst.com/_ACTU_TECH/nouveauxproduits.php?fiche=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Renewable resource. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606220152/http://agbu.une.edu.au/~aaabg/rsga/im.html to http://agbu.une.edu.au/~aaabg/rsga/im.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130213002938/http://www.sardc.net/imercsa/Programs/CEP/Pubs/CEPFS/CEPFS01.htm to http://www.sardc.net/imercsa/Programs/CEP/Pubs/CEPFS/CEPFS01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325093405/http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/public-benefits-of-renewable.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/public-benefits-of-renewable.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920024704/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5792&title=climate-change-disasters-electricity-generation to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5792&title=climate-change-disasters-electricity-generation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101113120322/http://www.nnfcc.co.uk/metadot/index.pl?id=7198%3Bisa%3DDBRow%3Bop%3Dshow%3Bdbview_id%3D2457 to http://www.nnfcc.co.uk/metadot/index.pl?id=7198%3Bisa%3DDBRow%3Bop%3Dshow%3Bdbview_id%3D2457
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010411092448/http://wrm.org.uy/deforestation/UNreport.html to http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/UNreport.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527175928/http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/red-list-overview to http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/red-list-overview

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) 23:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Richards bridge in Pennsylvania

I am a descendant of the Reichard ancestors whom donated funds to have the Richards covered bridge built in Pennsylvania. I tried to make an edit to the posting however it was deleted by an administrator. My family dates back to the American Revolution and has many ties to the area. This link confirms that the bridge has 2 names: http://www.lostbridges.org/details.aspx?id=PA%2F38-19-41&loc=n&fbclid=IwAR1q8aIcA36O3bFlkZWDt0ih7NOUcA0E1y8bD When immigrants first came to Colonial ruled America, the British required families to change the spelling of their names in order to appease the English language. Since I have never edited a Wikipedia post, perhaps an administrator could help me out. Check out my link and see for yourself that the bridge has 2 different spellings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchrishefish (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering what everybodys stance is renewable vs non-renewable resources? Giavonna rivera1 (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Renewable resources

Renewable resources 112.196.23.6 (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

science

renewable resources,

a renewable resources, also known as a flow resource, is a natural resource 175.176.85.238 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)