This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment: Sustainability High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sustainability task force. Futures studies High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

There's nothing written on this page about depletion accounting practices. Wish someone would add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.26.84 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 March 2007

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No one spoke up for this section, so I removed it. Plazak (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1]. For crude oil, see the world statistics thru 2013 from the OPEC website: [2]. For this reason, I am deleting the section. Plazak (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I changed the title to Groundwater and expanded upon the resource depletion of groundwater and I will continue to edit this section. --MeganOBrien97 (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I've whittled this down a little to help with that. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Objectives of project Work 103.75.29.22 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2024 and 10 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarahbrown5 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: MelCarruthers, Atticusdarwin, Jmvelasquez.

— Assignment last updated by Atticusdarwin (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]