Talk:Resource depletion

message: The article sounds like it's an essay written by an american high school student, and not a neutral factual publication with clear references. Many subjective sentences could be removed completely. If someone who is either a professional in the area, or has experience writing articles clean this up that would be great.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.185.220.245 (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with mister mysterious here. Someone should add a paragraph or 2 about the accounting practices which bring about such a thing as resource depletion. Maybe add some statistically proven culprits. Just hard facts. Commercial fishing companies. Logging companies. Major air polluters. Policies or treaties that might be seen as weak, or "enabling". A widespread denial of the truth that we're running out fast and headed for all out collapse. What's that? A knock at the door? Hmm. I wonder who it is? *disappears and is never heard from again* - 71.155.171.9 (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This section of the article contains poor English grammar. More to the point however, it seems far fetched and somewhat nonsensical that the people of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) were wiped out due to resource depletion that was "caused by a competition by the islanders inhabiting it to build large statues".I am not an expert on the subject, and do not have access to the reference given (Peoples of the World by National Geographic), however the Wikipedia article on Rapa Nui has no mention of this and instead gives other reasons for the destruction of the society. 121.44.31.26 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: The phrase "The environment is being abused" doesn't seem very neutral to me.  The statement isn't sourced either, so it's quite obviously the oppinion of the author. /85.229.220.46 (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: The article seems overly US-centric, talking about 'The Government' and 'Up to individual states to regulate', specific US bills, etc.  Changed "Government" to "US Government", but the article could probably use a more in-depth overhaul.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.213.36 (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Centric 

message: The section "Oil in the Arctic" has a number of problems, beside being poorly written. First, it is US-centric, and so does not belong in such detail a general article such as this. Second, it is not really about resource depletion, but about the dilemma of preservation versus resource development. Is there any reason to keep it in the article?  Plazak (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No one spoke up for this section, so I removed it.  Plazak (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil in the Arctic 

message: The article lists two commodities as having declining production: gold and oil. In both cases, however, the assertion is outdated and untrue.  Gold and oil declined for several years, but they went back up again. Both commodities are currently at record high levels and still increasing. For the case of gold, see the graph of world production in gold mining; the latest data is on the USGS website .  For crude oil, see the world statistics thru 2013 from the OPEC website: . For this reason, I am deleting the section.  Plazak (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  gold and oil listings outdated 

message: The section on water rightly notes that groundwater is susceptible to depletion. But the subsection "Political effects" then strays completely from the topic of depletion, and instead addresses the topics of allocation of renewable surface waters, and the general topic of differences in water resources between nations. Unless this subsection can be changed to address the article topic of resource depletion, it should be cut. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No one changed the section, no one defended it. It dealt with scarcity, but not depletion. It was completely off-topic, so after a year, I erased it. Plazak (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groundwater 

message: The section on renewable energy only duplicates what is better covered elsewhere. All we need here is a brief note that there are renewable alternatives to depletable energy sources, with links to the appropriate articles. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renewable energy 

message: Added this section due to suggestions on the talk page. This section is just a brief overview of Depletion Accounting to give the reader a general understanding. --MeganOBrien97 (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depletion Accounting 

message: This section pushes a particular point of view and characterizes those who do not share it as "deny[ing]" that POV.  Its single citation is a vague reference to whole books.  There are numerous moral aspects to resource scarcity issues, but this section is neither neutral nor encyclopedic about them.  For example, it neglects the morality of politically forced decarbonization that by artificially raising the prices of transportation and energy, and thus food and housing, impoverishes people at the margins. It also brings in contentious and unrelated topics such as "slavery". Gnuish (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and lack of citations in "Resource scarcity as a moral problem" section 

message: Objectives of project Work 103.75.29.22 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural resources and their depletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by Atticusdarwin (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth