This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mining This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached redirect, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining Futures studies This redirect 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 Elements Mid‑importance This redirect is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this redirect, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Sanitation Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation 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.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There are several problems with the edit, but first thing first you can't violate wikipedia policies on copyright violation. Read [1] and [2]. They explain it better than I can.Chhe (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Where is the OTRS tag, or the link to the copyright release statement on the original website? Are you sure that you've read WP:DCM? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree and went ahead and removed the template. Unless articles are obviously written in a POV way, editors adding templates like this one should address specific issues at the talk page or use inline templates such as {{Dubious}} and {{citation needed}} to point out specific issues. If that hasn't been done, the template can be removed. jonkerz ♠talk 13:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this section:

The depletion of phosphorus is very relevant to the world's food production issues.

Phosphorus is a major component in fertilizer, without which fertilizer will be

rendered useless. Without fertilizer, two thirds of the worlds population will starve

because the Earth cannot support our demands for food.[10]

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)[reply]

Plants require P to grow (it is an essential plant macronutrient) so if there was ever a point where there was not sufficient P in the soil and not enough reserves to produce P fertilizer, the plants would not grow properly and so there may well be mass starvation. It wouldn't make any difference if there was N in the fertilizer if the crop growth was limited by P. JMWt (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I support your suggestion. EvM-Susana (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the refs on this page need a lot of work, so I am going to go ahead with a major revision of them. I appreciate that there has not been much time to raise objections, but if there are new editors who are working on this page, we need to have a referencing system that actually works rather than the one that has always been there and is essentially incoherent. Again, if someone has a really strong case to have 'notes', 'references' and 'further reading' sections, please say so here and we'll talk about reorganising them all again. Frankly, I can't see any argument about why it might be seen to be better, but it is possible I am missing some value in this arrangement. JMWt (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have updated the reference style and rearranged quite a lot of the text. It should now be easier for editors to add refs in the normal way. There are some 'further reading' references in my sandbox which need to be checked and inserted into the text if relevantJMWt (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC). User:JMWt/sandbox[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]