This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Peak phosphorus redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Hi, I just wondered why you want a citation where it says that phosphorus cannot be replaced by any other substance? It is after all a basic chemical element, isn´t it? Usually the basic elements can´t be replaced? We need calcium for our bones etc Toove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.188.32 ( talk) 08:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Chhe - why did you delete my edit? - they were not plagerism and refer to research by reliable sources - IFDC and Michael Mew. IFDC is a repected organisation whose roots go back to the New Deal in the 1930s. Michael Mew has a degree in geology from Oxford University and has 30 years experience of the phosphate industry. I did not delete any of the references to the proponets of peak phosphorus because I agree with debate not censorship. Feedingtheworld ( talk) 16:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The items were not copyright and in the case of the Michael Mew section he gave express permission - but I take the point about not quoting large chunks from other sites. However you do not explain why you deleted the links as well Feedingtheworld ( talk) 13:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes I read it, and I won't try and re-instate any text, but I still don't understand why the links were deleted as well Feedingtheworld ( talk) 14:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
this youtube video by Albert A. Bartlett has an equation at 4:36 which differs from others here. its called the "Expiration Time or "T sub E", of a non-renewable resource whose rate of consumption is growing steadily". I think its highly relevant to all of the articles on peak resource use and limits to growth. If anyone else thinks his equation is relevant, can they transcribe it? the math is beyond me, and i cant reconstruct it from the image on screen. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Why has someone added the neutrality tag to the article? I don't see a conflict here, since all sides have been mentioned in a neutral way.
As I understood, all sides agree that a peak will occur and just disagree on the time. From my point of view, it would be enough to explain just the term and then mention that there is a debate about the time it will happen. And that is actually what i read in the article now. Am I wrong? -- Protozorq ( talk) 12:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking at this section:
Obviously, fertilizer is still useful as a Nitrogen source among other things. The statement that a majority would starve seems speculative. I guess the book is a Reliable Source, but I think such a controversial statement should be better supported.
Ketil ( talk) 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the format of this page, including sections for 'notes' another for 'references' and another for 'further reading' is daft - and makes adding extra citation to the text a monumental task. I suggest we just go for the straightforward 'references' section using the standard reference template. Anyone object, please say so and why. JMWt ( talk) 15:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead graphic needs a better caption and updating. The data run to 2016 so can now be updated to 2021. The caption needs to state the data are in terms of annual production rates. The author of the graphic User:StefanPohl may have gone missing in action. ASRASR ( talk) 20:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
80.108.129.55 Your addition "USGS expects World Phosphorus Peak for 2033" in the lead of this article is not referenced. Please provide the reference or we will unfortunately have to remove this statement. The published reference that quotes 2033 for peak phosphorus https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23901632/ is unfortunately 10 years old and no longer valid. ASRASR ( talk) 17:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Peak phosphorus redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Hi, I just wondered why you want a citation where it says that phosphorus cannot be replaced by any other substance? It is after all a basic chemical element, isn´t it? Usually the basic elements can´t be replaced? We need calcium for our bones etc Toove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.188.32 ( talk) 08:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Chhe - why did you delete my edit? - they were not plagerism and refer to research by reliable sources - IFDC and Michael Mew. IFDC is a repected organisation whose roots go back to the New Deal in the 1930s. Michael Mew has a degree in geology from Oxford University and has 30 years experience of the phosphate industry. I did not delete any of the references to the proponets of peak phosphorus because I agree with debate not censorship. Feedingtheworld ( talk) 16:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The items were not copyright and in the case of the Michael Mew section he gave express permission - but I take the point about not quoting large chunks from other sites. However you do not explain why you deleted the links as well Feedingtheworld ( talk) 13:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes I read it, and I won't try and re-instate any text, but I still don't understand why the links were deleted as well Feedingtheworld ( talk) 14:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
this youtube video by Albert A. Bartlett has an equation at 4:36 which differs from others here. its called the "Expiration Time or "T sub E", of a non-renewable resource whose rate of consumption is growing steadily". I think its highly relevant to all of the articles on peak resource use and limits to growth. If anyone else thinks his equation is relevant, can they transcribe it? the math is beyond me, and i cant reconstruct it from the image on screen. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Why has someone added the neutrality tag to the article? I don't see a conflict here, since all sides have been mentioned in a neutral way.
As I understood, all sides agree that a peak will occur and just disagree on the time. From my point of view, it would be enough to explain just the term and then mention that there is a debate about the time it will happen. And that is actually what i read in the article now. Am I wrong? -- Protozorq ( talk) 12:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking at this section:
Obviously, fertilizer is still useful as a Nitrogen source among other things. The statement that a majority would starve seems speculative. I guess the book is a Reliable Source, but I think such a controversial statement should be better supported.
Ketil ( talk) 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the format of this page, including sections for 'notes' another for 'references' and another for 'further reading' is daft - and makes adding extra citation to the text a monumental task. I suggest we just go for the straightforward 'references' section using the standard reference template. Anyone object, please say so and why. JMWt ( talk) 15:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead graphic needs a better caption and updating. The data run to 2016 so can now be updated to 2021. The caption needs to state the data are in terms of annual production rates. The author of the graphic User:StefanPohl may have gone missing in action. ASRASR ( talk) 20:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
80.108.129.55 Your addition "USGS expects World Phosphorus Peak for 2033" in the lead of this article is not referenced. Please provide the reference or we will unfortunately have to remove this statement. The published reference that quotes 2033 for peak phosphorus https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23901632/ is unfortunately 10 years old and no longer valid. ASRASR ( talk) 17:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)