Talk:David Suzuki/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Japanese name

Is there a citation for the claim that Suzuki Takayoshi is his Japanese name? I have not been able to find anything to substantiate this. --Westendgirl 20:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CBC's Greatest Canadian contest site has an article that makes the claim his full name is "David Takayoshi Suzuki". The Canadian Encyclopedia makes the same claim. Perhaps what is meant is, "The Japanese rendering of his name would be..."? The overall point seems to be that using the Japanese version would be incorrect, even in the middle of Japanese text. Somegeek 18:38, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Isn't Suzuki a Japanese name the comapny Suzuki was Japanes I thought

david suzuki in perth march 2005

Letters

I've removed the letters placed after his name. First, the honours are given in detail in the article, and other Wikipedia articles don't list honours in the summary in this way; secondly, the degrees were not only in the wrong order (indeed, the honours should go after the degrees), but they're not used with the prefix "Dr" — it's one or the other, never both. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

High School

The Greatest Canadian Documentary shows that Suzuki became class president in grade 13, but the picture it shows is in Leemington High School. Can anyone confirm where he was class president?

This is All Very Nice But

This is all very nice but I have been listening to David since I was somewhere around nineteen, which would be in 1979. The deal is VERY simple. David is not respected as a scientist. More importantly he is not respected as a science journalist. On the CBC program Quirks and Quarks he truly embarrassed himself by his ignorance of elementary physics. This was early on. Later he started a column in the Toronto Globe & Mail about science that he was very quickly booted off. Would somebody back me up here? I don't want to go deeply into this; yet I promise you, David is a really nice guy, but he is a major pot-smoking dork when it comes to science. Write me nasty letters if you disagree! (I am sorry for him and you but t'ain't right that he should be regarded as he is :-( )

Seminumerical 20:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Basically David has a political agenda which a fellow Canadian might recognize as CBC lefty anti-sciences. His inarticulate half of his debate with Rushton and his body of work on The Nature of Things indicate that Suzuki believes that unpleasant scientific theories (unpleasant meaning contrary to his political beliefs) cannot be true or at least should not be articulated. He reminds me in some ways of the the wonderful writer, but bad scientist, Stephen J. Gould.

  • If you can come up with external references to back up these opinions, then they may have a place in the article. Without references, this is just personal opinion. --ghoti 14:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have spoken with 2 high up staff members of UBC. David Suzuki was let go from UBC for failure to live up to the terms of his employment. He was on 25% Salary and was required to spend a requisite amount of time there. He failed to meet his requirements and was [let go] Goldenhall 01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This claim was once added to the article without references. A clear violation of WP:BLP, it was soon deleted. The solution here is very simple: provide a verifiable, authoritative source. Victoriagirl 01:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Article quality

I just removed part of the article which was taken from [1]. That's probably not the only questionable part. Parudox 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography?

This article definitely needs a list of his books. That's what I came here for and was disappointed not to find it.--Ibis3 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to get it but I'll try to find a list.


Here's a link to a publication list (from the david suzuki foundation website): http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Books_And_Audio/Complete_List.asp

Starry.dreams 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Suzuki on Japan

I seem to recall that Suzuki wrote several rather sternly critical columns on the environmental practices of the Japanese nation. He also co-authored The Japan We Never Knew (1996), a book of profiles of Japanese social activists.

Neutrality and sources

This article is unsourced. It also reads like a puff piece. There is considerable criticism available of Suzuki's use of his scientific credentials to far over-step his knowledge, especially in areas like climate change. 209.217.75.244 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The user provides no sources of information to back up his statement. It appears the his/her sole contribution is the placing of tags (on this article and others[2][3]), and to delete from a talk page an entry placed by another [4]. I suggest the tags be removed and encourage discussion. Victoriagirl 21:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There are simply no sources in the article, and it does not mention any of the criticisms of his science. How much more precise can I get. No sources. None. No criticism of his science and the fact he is actually an activist, not a researcher. None. Is that precise enough? 209.217.75.244 01:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the article lacks references, a flaw that is easy enough to repair. What I question is the neutrality tag and the accompanying statement concerning his "knowledge". Others have made similar criticisms, yet have provided nothing in the way of information. Perhaps you would care to clarify the matter by indicating what it is precisely that you find objectionable. Perhaps some examples of what you describe as the "considerable criticism" of Suzuki might be provided. As it stands, the criticism contains little more information or substance than the not notable speedy deletion tags [5][6] applied earlier today. Victoria 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you've been digging through my edit history. How special. I do believe those items should be deleted as not notable. I suppose rummaging through my edits is easier for you than discussing why this entry is unsourced and how to fix it. 209.217.75.244 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT semper fictilis 21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, 209.217.75.244, what is is precisely that you find objectionable? I look forward to the answer, as I do the reasons why Party Favours, a book by a prominent political strategist and engendered over a dozen news stories (not to mention reviews) upon its release, would be considered not notable. Similarly, I can't help but question why it is that the article on Mark Bourrie (an award-winning journalist with ten books to his credit), the subject of two failed AfD nominations (both of which resounding failures), would even be considered eligable for speedy deletion. Victoriagirl 21:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

John Oakley interview

The link to John Oakley's interview with David Suzuki, described as "David Suzuki walks out from Toronto radio station", has been changed to read "John Oakley's interview with David Suzuki". The link clearly indicates that Suzuki stayed to the end and did not so much as threaten to walk out. Victoriagirl 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed further misinformation concerning the John Oakley interview. To quote: "David Suzuki recently stormed out of the 640am Toronto studio after he was challenged by radio host John Oakley on global warming. http://www.davidsuzuki.tv http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH9Rj0NQvOQ". As I've stated above, Suzuki did not walk out of the interview - as John Oakley interview with David Suzuki, the link provided under "External links" clearly indicates.
Of the two links just deleted (http://www.davidsuzuki.tv and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH9Rj0NQvOQ), the first redirects the user to mainpage for the Institute for Canadian Values, which contains no mention of Suzuki or the interview. The second link is merely a youtube audio posting of the interview already featured under "External links". Victoriagirl 07:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

General comments

This article is a typical example of why I suspect Wikipedia will never be a very good source of reliable information.

As one user noted below, the article is nothing more than a puff piece (and Wikipedia is full of such things), instead of a balanced presentation on a very controversial figure.

I personally hesitate to try and improve it. I once tried to make some very minor but useful improvements to the article on Pierre Trudeau, and in no time at all I was accused of vandalism by a Wikipedia zealot, with threats that I would have my account removed. It was a very depressing experience.

So one wonders why bother try to improve the Suzuki article. If Wikipedia wants to be part of the flat-earth society then so be it.

Let me make my point in a different way. If I were a Wikipedia visitor from outside Canada, and I didn't know Suzuki, and I read this article, I would likely come away thinking "Wow, what a nice guy, it would seem he has never put a foot wrong, everyone in Canada must love him."

The facts could not be further from the truth.

Snieckus 02:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I, too, am not satisfied with this article, and agree that it lacks balance. That said, my participation has tended to involve the removal of criticism. Why? Well, some has just plain been incorrect, as I've discussed above, however most of my edits have concerned unsourced material:
The most recent series of edits, occasioned by 66.183.140.122's addition of this paragraph, is a perfect example. Leaving aside issues of POV, If true, this is relevant information. Unfortunately, no sources are provided - and yet it is such a simple thing to do!
To quote WP:BLP, the official policy on biographies of living persons: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."
To date, not one of the unsourced statements I've deleted has been returned with references. I look forward to that day. Victoriagirl 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

John Oakley interview redux

I've just edited the recently added section on Suzuki's 15 February 2007 interview with John Oakey. In the interests of clarity:

1) As I've written here before, the recording of the interview clearly indicates that Suzuki did not storm out of the interview as claimed in the source provided, a National Post column by Barbara Kay. I've kept this source, placing it at the end of the section's third paragraph, where the column was already quoted. Leaving aside the fact that the incident never took place, I'm unaware of any other newspaper in which this was reported. Therefore, I've removed the claim that it "made headlines" (indeed, it is not even the subject of the headline used in the Barbara Kay column).

2) As the interview has been included in the text, I've removed the audio link from 'External links' in order to prevent duplication.

3) I've replaced the interview link posted on youtube with that of the actual radio station.

4) As the Ontario Power Generation Employees' and Pensioners' Charity Trust is not a corporation, I have removed it from the list of the David Suzuki Foundation's corporate donors.

5) As it lacks sources I have removed the following statement: "Suzuki's assertions attracted criticism even from normally supportive media outlets, as many questioned his scientific integrity in scorning those with opposing viewpoints."

6) I have added a preface to Barbara Kay's words, providing context to her claim.

7) Kay is a columnist for National Post, not the Globe and Mail - her words were published in the former. This has been corrected.

8) As Kay's words are from her column, and are merely duplicated in Judi McLeod's Canada Free Press column, I have removed the latter - it is simply repetition.

Other changes were made following WP:MOS and WP:NPOV policies. Victoriagirl 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections to the section dealing with Suzuki's radio interview. I do have one quibble, however. While I agree the audio link makes it quite clear Suzuki did not get up and leave in the middle of the interview, I also think Ms Kay's claim may have referred to the manner in which Suzuki left the studio after the interview. As far as I know, no account of the incident suggests that Suzuki did not come out of the interview fuming. Thus, I have removed the preface to Kay's quotation that "provid[es] context" (point 6 above). I agree that Kay's statement may be misleading, however, so I'm not attempting to reinsert it into this section. As the whole issue of "storming out" is inconclusive, I would avoid any references to it.
142.151.157.49 00:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I've often wondered whether, in writing "David Suzuki stormed out of a Toronto AM640 radio interview with host John Oakley", Ms Kay had simply been a bit sloppy. Unfortunately, the claim has been inserted in this article on several occasions (previously without reference). I think your solution is spot on. Thanks. Victoriagirl 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Help check this reference.

I followed the reference 6 for "Gold Standard carbon offsets were purchased by the David Suzuki Foundation for all bus travel and tour activities." but I couldn't find a statement of this claim. Can someone double-check this? Alwayswiththequestions 04:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


i've just chequed it and you're quite right - there's nothing there proving the statement about carbon offsets purchase. I've removed it and installed a citation request. Vryadly 20:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

John Oakley interview - yet again

I have removed the following sentence from the "Controversy" section:

In response to this statement Tom Brodbeck, columnist for Winnipeg Sun[1], and Joseph C. Ben-Ami, Executive Director of the Institute for Canadian Values[2], noticed that David Suzuki Foundation annual report 2005/2006 [3] lists among the foundation sponsors 52 corporations, including Toyota, ATCO Gas, an Alberta-based natural gas distributor, EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development and OPG, one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants.

This sentence, recently added by 216.240.13.13, is similar in content and structure to one currently being debated by 216.240.13.13 and others in the David Suzuki Foundation discussion page. In fact, the David Suzuki Foundation article is currently under protection due to a dispute as to whether or not it meets WP:OR and WP:V. In order to avoid a similar debate in to different articles, I suggest that the sentence should not be include here until this issue is settled. Victoriagirl 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Neutrality

Why is there no discussion of the severe criticism of his research and activism? Vividfan (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have citable criticisms from appropriate sources, please add them to the appropriate part of the article. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Suzuki's house and the "Carbon Footprint" section

For a fifth time I have deleted the following additions per WP:BLP:

  1. That Suzuki lives"in a 16 room 4300 square foot house".
  2. A section, titled "Carbon Footprint", which reads in full: "David Suzuki travels by jet aircraft 200 days each year bringing a message of lifestyle change for the masses; he vacations in Australia, Cuba and Bali each year. He estimates he produces approximately 300 tons of greenhouse gases each year (thirty times more than the average Canadian)."

These additions come from 142.68.12.176 (talk · contribs) and 209.217.99.118 (talk · contribs). After repeated requests, the former has provided a source, writing in an edit summary: "please watch his cbc interview attached; he travels by jet 4 days a week his whole life [sic] (http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1308)". In fact, the CBC interview was not attached to the article. That said, a review of the video reveals that it does not in any way support the claims made by 142.68.12.176. In short, it contains no description of the size of his house, it does not indicate how many days a year Suzuki flies, vacations are not mentioned, nor is there an indication of the annual amount of greenhouse gases produced. Not even the claim made in the edit summary ("he travels by jet 4 days a week his whole life [sic]") is supported by the clip. 142.68.12.176 has accused me of deleting a source. I have done no such thing. Victoriagirl 04:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If this stuff was true, it is still completely random statements which the anons are using to make Suzuki look like a dick. Not very encyclopedic, is it? Adam Bishop 06:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


First of all, here is one video detailing his impact in just one day. http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1308. He travels by jet plane publicly, daily his whole life so the suggestion this is not a fact is just foollish; it is denial no different than those who deny mankind is causing global warming and about to destroy the planet.

Suzuki spends most of his life pointing out that if humans do not reduce their carbon footprint, we will destroy the planet for our children. If Suzuki himself can not materially change his behavior and carbon footprint, it is an important part of his life story as well as the global warming analysis generally. If the leading voice in Canada on global warming is in fact one of the leading poluters and cannot stop himself, this is one of the defining facts of the man's life and it also defines the likelihood of him convincing poor villagers in China or India or Montana to moderate their carbon footprint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.12.176 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

142.68.12.1 (talk · contribs), let's look at each claim you've attached to the article:

  1. Suzuki lived in a 16 room, 4200 sq ft house
  2. Suzuki travels by jet aircraft 200 days a year
  3. Suzuki vacations in Australia, Cuba and Bali each year
  4. Suzuki estimates he produces approximately 300 tons of greenhouse gases each year.

Not one of these claims is included in the source you've provided in the edit summary. Victoriagirl 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Your comments don't justify deletion of the whole topic including the points you don't despute. His Carbon Footprint is relevant and there is information on the subject from the media - if the facts are wrong clarify them but you have no right to delete the whole thing including a topic just because you don't like the discussion. His travel and the carbon impact are well documented so modify to fit the facts that are known. The man lives in a big expensive home, and has a big family both of which Suzuki says will cause immeasurable environmental damage and he travels by plane for a living and tells the world not to do the things he himself is doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.12.176 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


How much CO2 would I create if I traveled to Australia from Vancouver twice a year for vacation for 71 years?


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/features/suzuki/story.html?id=6237166e-c60a-496f-bba8-16447d96e305 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.12.176 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

142.68.12.176 (talk · contribs), again, I remind you that contributions to Wikipedia must be supported. You have made many specific, often contradictory claims concerning Suzuki and his lifestyle, and yet you have not introduced one source to the article. As you don't see that my comments justify deletion, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living people. You may also wish to read the guidelines concerning talk pages, which prohibits the deletion of another's comments as you did here. Victoriagirl 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


There is no need to be rude. Suzuki's carbon footprint should be detailed and there is actual information. I cite the information above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.12.176 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

142.68.12.176 (talk · contribs), I've again reverted your edits. Before making any more contributions I respectfully suggest that you read Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, the three revert rule, and the guideline on citing sources. Please do point out where it is that you feel I have behaved rudely.
If you intend to use the source above in support of your additions, it must be included in the article - not on the talk page. That said, I do have some comments on the story in that it contains no information on Suzuki's house. Nor does it support your contradictory claims that he "travels by jet aircraft 200 days a year", "he travels by jet 4 days a week his whole life", that he "travels by jet plane publicly, daily his whole life", or that "he travels by plane for a living". It contains no information about annual vacations in Cuba and Bali. In the piece, Suzuki reveals that he has been vacationing in Australia once or twice a year since 1988 - not twice a year for for 71 years - but that he intends never to return due to concerns over carbon emissions. Finally, Suzuki prvides no estimate as to the number of tons of greenhouse gasses he produces produces each year. Victoriagirl 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues

They certainly exist, as you can see above, and the tag should stay. Vividfan (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vividfan (talk · contribs), as the accompanying edit summary provides a greater explanation for your recent additionof the neutrality tag, I'm taking the liberty of reproducing it here:
"anyone looking at the talk page can see there are differences of opinion re: the inclusion of Suzuki's "carbon footprint" and the idea that he does not practice what he preaches"
The discussion in question in no way concerns differences in opinion over Suzuki's carbon footprint or whether or not he practices what he preaches. In fact, the discussion deals exclusively with unreferenced statements made about Suzuki's lifestyle. Does Suzuki live in a 16 room , 4300 sq ft house? Does he travel by jet Suzuki travel by jet 200 days a year? Does he take annual vacations in Australia, Cuba and Bali? Does Suzuki estimate that he produces approximately 300 tons of greenhouse gases each year? I don't know. Neither source provided by 142.68.12.176 (talk · contribs) contains this information. In fact, the only one of these claims that is even touched upon in the references provided reports that Suzuki once travelled to Australia once or twice a year, but no longer does so due to concerns over emissions. If these and similar claims about Suzuki's lifestyle can be referenced through reliable sources, I am firm in my belief that they should be included in the article. Unreferenced, they are a clear violation of the policy concerning biographies of living people. As the discussion you cite does not involve the issue of neutrality, I am removing the tag. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Vividfan (talk · contribs), I've addressed the summary of your recent edit on your talk page. Concerning the edit itself, for a sixth time you have added the neutrality tag to this article. After numerous requests from another user to explain the justification for the tag, you offered the post above and the edit summary "anyone looking at the talk page can see there are differences of opinion re: the inclusion of Suzuki's "carbon footprint" and the idea that he does not practice what he preaches". I've addressed your observation, pointing out that, in fact, the discussion has nothing to do with these perceived differences of opinion. That you've chosen not to respond here to my post is your prerogative. As your most recent edit summary lacks any assertion as to whether or not the tag is appropriate, I'm assuming good faith and ask, again, for a reason why the tag should remain in place. Victoriagirl (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I believe Suzuki's carbon footprint and his lack of personal research into manmade global warming should be in this article. I also think the tag should stay for az while until the earlier writers post their information or back off. To me, this article reads like a fan piece. I have persoanlly been unimpressed with Suzuki since I watched him debate Philipe Rushton at the University of Western Ontario on the issue of Rushton's claims of a link between race, IQ and crime. While Rushton is a fool, Suzuki came completely unprepared, while Rushton was very ready to take him on. Suzuki's contributions to science are very limited. He is a television presenter who is best known for a TV show in which he introduced and did voice-over narration for documentaries made by others. Vividfan (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Vividfan (talk · contribs), I note that for a seventh time you have returned the neutrality tag, this time for the reasons outlined above. I, too, very much support the inclusion of Suzuki's personal research into manmade global warming and information on his own global footprint (and have written as much on this discussion page). Unfortunately, I can find no evidence that any user has yet come forward with reliably sourced information on these two subjects. Vividfan (talk · contribs), you write that the tag should stay in place until earlier writers can post their information. Was this information once included in the article? If so, where? Presuming that this information was once included, we need not wait for their return - we can reintroduce these facts ourselves. It would appear that you are familiar with details of Suzuki's carbon footprint and his research into manmade global warming. Could you provide the sources of your information? As it stands, the tag remains in place because the article fails to include information which may or may not be available on topics which may or may not reflect badly on Suzuki. These are not valid reasons. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Victoriagirl has described what is needed here. Writing a neutral article does not necessarily mean including all information on a particular topic. This is particularly true of Biographies of living persons. We must consider the question of undue weight:
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
The view that David Suzuki should somehow be called to account for his carbon footprint and hence judged by standards different than the rest of us, simply because he speaks out in the media about the realities of global warming seems to me to be just such a view. Not many people hold such a view. Sunray (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Carbon footprint

I've removed the following section to the talk page for further discussion:

==Carbon Footprint==
David Suzuki travels by jet aircraft 200 days each year bringing a message of lifestyle change for the masses; he vacations in Australia, Cuba and Bali each year. He estimates he produces approximately 300 tons of greenhouse gases each year (thirty times more than the average Canadian).
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/features/suzuki/story.html?id=6237166e-c60a-496f-bba8-16447d96e305
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1308
"All that success, which he carefully charts in his 16-page curriculum vitae, has come with a jet-setting lifestyle that's put him on the road four out of five days this year. And that, he laments, has made him part of the global warming disaster he hopes to save us from." Vancouver Sun


"The amount of greenhouse gas generated by flying is just intolerable to me," sighs Suzuki, sitting in his cramped, book-filled office of the David Suzuki Foundation, set up in memory of his father.
"Our planet can absorb each person creating one tonne of carbon emissions from fossil fuels a year, he figures. The average Canadian now accounts for more than 20 tonnes. Yet he's far, far beyond even that excess. Each round trip between Toronto and London, he estimates, creates about one tonne of greenhouse gases per passenger. So, Suzuki guesses, he's over his limit by hundreds of tonnes."Vancouver Sun


"The average Canadian now accounts for more than 20 tonnes. Yet he's far, far beyond even that excess. Each round trip between Toronto and London, he estimates, creates about one tonne of greenhouse gases per passenger. So, Suzuki guesses, he's over his limit by hundreds of tonnes." Vancouver Sun.

While this is very interesting, it is not written in encyclopedia style. For starters, it consists, almost entirely of quotations. Moreover, although it is nominally about Suzuki, it seems, in reality to be more of a commentary on how we all use way more carbon than is sustainable. It is actually a message from Suzuki about the quandary that we all have: the more you work to bring the carbon footprint problem to people's attention, the more carbon you are likely to use.

I'm not at all convinced that this belongs in a biography of David Suzuki and would like to hear other views on this. If folks think it does belong here, it needs to be re-written before it will be suitable. Please bear in mind that editorial decisions are made by consensus. Sunray (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We have here a number of claims and quotations, accompanied by two unexplained external links. In the interests of clarity, I point out that a good portion of what this is under discussion here has been covered in the Suzuki's house and the Carbon footprint section above. Indeed, the first paragraph of the most recent "Carbon footprint" section is identical to that first introduced by 142.68.12.176 (talk · contribs) on 30 November. As noted above, no source has yet been provided in support of these statements. Lacking a source, the inclusion of these claims in the article would, as I've pointed out, be a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living people.
The presence of the canada.com link is explained by fact that it links to the source of the Vancouver Sun quotes. In fact, what is presented as four quotations are actually eight consecutive sentences (the final three sentences have been repeated). Setting aside issues of style, another issue arises in terms of what has been selected. For example, the paragraph presented here as:
"All that success, which he carefully charts in his 16-page curriculum vitae, has come with a jet-setting lifestyle that's put him on the road four out of five days this year. And that, he laments, has made him part of the global warming disaster he hopes to save us from"
actually reads in full:
"Suzuki has been on a roll of late. Yet what has this Canadian icon - and love or hate him, that is what Suzuki now is - feeling guilty is [sic] he's come face to face with his own environmental sin. All that success, which he carefully charts in his 16-page curriculum vitae, has come with a jet-setting lifestyle that's put him on the road four out of five days this year. And that, he laments, has made him part of the global warming disaster he hopes to save us from."
In fact, much of the focus of the article is on Suzuki's determination to cut down on his speaking engagements. Thus, the sentence "So, Suzuki guesses, he's over his limit by hundreds of tonnes", is followed by "Yes, he's being buying carbon offsets, he says. But he's now decided that's no longer enough: Starting out his eighth decade, he's decided he needs to be more in sync with the planet's ability to absorb all his greenhouse gases, so this frequent flyer's long-haul flights must be drastically cut."
As stated above, I believe facts concerning Suzuki's carbon footprint have a place in this article, but to repeatedly add unreferenced claims and simply drop a selected passage from a newspaper article, providing no context, is not the way go about it. Victoriagirl (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This is incredibly relevant information, you should re-write it instead of simply removing it. --RucasHost (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
RucasHost, what is it exactly that you suggest be rewritten (and who are you suggesting perform this task)? Victoriagirl (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, disruptive edits and sockpuppetry

A person or persons with IP 142.68.14.223 (talk) and IP 209.217.79.47 (talk) have repeatedly re-inserted the above section and a "neutrality" tag to the article. When I moved the section here for discussion, they deleted it. It is my view that any further such edits to the article by this user, or users, should be treated as vandalism until there is resolution on this page. Sunray (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Updates

  • Page semi protected on December 20, 2007.
  • RucasHost (talk) reverted without discussing edits on the talk page.
  • Dec26 & 27, 2007 - Contentious material added by Chucky the barber (indefinitely blocked on Dec 27).
  • Jan 3, 2008 - POV tag added by Vividfan (talk) (indefinitely blocked on Jan 7 for abusing multiple accounts)
  • Jan 4, 2008 - Semi protection removed; POV tag added by 192.197.82.153; contentious material added by 42.68.15.210
  • Jan 5, 2008 - Semi protected
  • Jan 5, 2008 - Contentious material added by Overeditor (talk) (warned)
  • Jan 8 & 9, 2008 - Additional disruptive edits by Overeditor (talk) (last warning)
  • Jan 10, 2008 - Disruptive edits by Sockpuppet99 (talk) (Blocked Jan 22)
  • Jan 12, 2008 - The following were blocked indefinitely as suspected sockpuppets of Arthur Ellis: Overeditor (talk), Homeboy99 (talk), Sockpuppet99 (talk), Backtalk (talk)
  • Jan 13, 2008 - Disruptive edits and sockpuppetry by Homeboy100 (talk) (warned) and Hotgirl99 (talk) (blocked).
  • Jan 16, 2008 - Disruptive edits from Firebrand99 (talk) (Blocked Jan 22).
  • Jan 21, 2008 - User:Mike Bate blocked as an Ellis sock.
  • Jan 22, 2008 - User:Victoriagirl1 (and a variety of other Ellis socks) blocked. Sunray (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

books by david suzuki

i think this article should have a list of all the books written by david suzuki as well as alot more detail about his early life. For example david suzuki got a university degree studying the fruit fly and he was forced to leave the town he lived in many times. this is because the incident at pearl harbour made every body hate anyone that even looked japanese.the overall of this page is good but it needs some work! my source was from a movie i watched in grade ten religion all amout him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.233.207 (talk • contribs) 23 December 2007

Thanks for you comments. I agree that it would be good to add details about his early life and particularly his internment as a child. The article is semi-protected at the moment (which means that only those with user accounts can edit), but if you would like to add something below, we could add it to the article. A summary about his internment with this link Japanese Canadian internment would add interesting information to the article, as would a list of his books. Sunray (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)