Talk:David Attenborough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

David Attenborough is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

I just wanted to cut and paste this and stick it at the top of this page where it belongs -well said!:

David Attenborough is one of the greatest figures in television in all history, that is without a doubt, and has created or played a key part in the creation of some of the great... works of all time, quite honestly, when you think of such pieces as Life on Earth and the Ascent of Man (which he sparked).

This man educated an international generation, and continues to do so at age 80. When he dies, I'm gonna demand some kind of iron-cast statue in Whitehall somehwere, because he is without of a doubt one of the greatest living Britons today, indeed of all time, and perhaps one of the most important figures in science when it comes to proliferating public understanding.

Hats off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.225.27 (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism

I agree the topic of evolution and creationism needs to be culled. It is both contradictory and irrelevant. We seem to have snippets in it that cast doubts on Attenborough’s views on evolution, yet given his background in UK science it is unlikely that he gives creationism even a second thought.

I have lived in the states now for 6-years and it is my experience is that these comments likely have a US origin, since few of us elsewhere in the world are as feverish about this debate as they are here. The reality is that, for most of us, it ended decades ago with the widespread adoption of evolution as the most logical reason for the development of life.

The fact that nearly a THIRD of this article is devoted to Attenborough's views on creationism shows what a sad, crazy world we live in. This section can only be there either to appease or to persuade fundamentalist lunatics. Let's remove it, or at least drastically reduce it. What say you?

I agree that the subject takes up a disproportionate amount of the article, but it's an important topic and shouldn't be reduced. Instead, a lot more should be added, both about his views on other topics and about his work in general. I've had this on my to-do list for a while, but will bump it up and try to add some material over the next few days. Perodicticus 08:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's especially irrelevant here because creationism vs evolution isn't really a mainstream debate in the UK any more, and hasn't been for many decades. Attenborough's programmes were NOT made amidst a debate on such a topic. I've had religious education at several different UK schools during the 80s and 90s and at no point did they ever postulate creationism, the RE teachers (and priests who spoke to us) were from several denominations and had all disowned it in favour of evolution, in keeping with mainstream Christianity in the UK. I suspect this topic has been added here because of its prominence in the United States where creationism has a much tighter hold over various religious and educational bodies, or because the people who added it are especially pro or anti creationism. I also suspect this is why Attenborough doesn't mention evolution as overtly as some people expect because he takes it as read, especially when you consider that his first major series, Life On Earth, was entirely about evolution!

It's incredible, we have to address this issue on every bloody article that is remotely related to science. I wonder when people will accept that evolution is one of the most firmly proven scientific theories of all time, and if you're going to shrug it off you might as well go back to beliving the universe revolved around the Earth. Logic brothers!

It seems to me reasonable to mention Attenborough's published views on creationism and evolution given that he is a prominent (probably the most prominent) public broadcaster dealing with the natural world, and he has spoken about these matters himself. But readers should be aware that that 'controversy' is much greater and more public in the USA and perhaps other parts of the world than it is in Attenborough's native UK, and so I've added a sentence about that. (Here in the UK, the vast majority of religious people subscribe to the mainstream belief known as theistic evolution, but perhaps the real point is that the small minority of the UK population who are christian fundamentalists do not have any kind of public platform other than their own publications and a handful of privately-estabished schools.) Anon editor, 05 July 2006.

I agree the with the first guy. The amount of time devoted to creationism/religion in this article is unbelievable. It takes up same amount of space as his views on conservation! Could we please try and retain a sense of perspective - as the original poster says, almost every article which relates to science is including information on creationists. In the end, this is only going to end up giving some users the impression there really is a huge scientific controversy. A few sentences, at most, on his speaking out on creationism is enough. Putting his name to a handful of statements doesn't qualify him as an activist, and it pales in comparison to his other work. Could we please take a vote on this or something, because as it stands I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in thinking what we have at the moment is excessive. JF Mephisto 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not just pro-creationism people who bring this up, it's also active anti-creationists who want to make some common sense widely-accepted fact into an artificial scrap between science and religion. For the vast majority of religious people in Britain there's no conflict at all on this issue, for most people in Britain evolution is definitely the way things physically happened whether they think there was a god behind it or not.

The first paragraph of this section says that he is agnostic, so what is the point of the references to creationism? This is all unreferenced hearsay and I think the whole section should just be deleted. --Mdhowe 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

Article says:

"Among the programmes he introduced were Match of the Day, Pot Black, The Likely Lads..."

Would it be better to say commissioned? When I first read the sentence I took it as meaning he was presenting Match of the Day in a sort of Des Lynham role. Then I saw Likely Lads and knew that couldn;t be right, but I still entertained the idea he was mnerely a continuity announcer. --bodnotbod 01:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed – I've gone ahead and made the change. Angmering 01:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The list needs to be checked; I believe The Forsyte Saga was actually commissioned by his predecessor (though first aired during Attenborough's controllership) and Pot Black was commissioned by his successor. -Bonalaw 08:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've now removed those, along with Horizon, which had not only been commissioned but actually began airing before Attenborough tok over as Controller. --Bonalaw 12:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Article says: "He is best known for writing and presenting the eight "Life" series, in conjunction with the BBC Natural History Unit, which collectively form a comprehensive survey of all terrestrial life."

Firstly, I think it is innacurate to suggest that any documentary on life on earth is "comprehensive" when clearly this is impossible, something that is mentioned from the first series onwards when it is stated that large proportion of species are unknown.

Secondly, the wikipedia article on "terrestrial animals" defines them as those that live on land as opposed to water, and this is one of the accepted definitions of terrestrial. Although the word can be used to mean "representing the earth as distinct from other planets" this is a source of confusion.

Perhaps better words would be "extensive study" or "definitive review of living organisms". I think it can be taken as read that life on other planets falls outside his mainstream remit for now, but if you were desperate for an adjective then "terraqueous" is a lovely word that fits wikipedia's preference for the "mot juste". It might be nice to mention that they are approached by ecosystem and by taxonomic class.

However, I do think it's important that in the introductory paragraph you should find a way of expressing that a defining characteristic of these series is their uniformly groundbreaking filming techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.87.158 (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] strangled

Please help us, at Talk:Bible scientific foresight, where we are having to argue that almost all naturalists believe that lions kill their prey by biting, rather than attempting to strangle their prey. (The discussion is about whether naturalists believe that lions strangle their prey, or whether this is a ridiculous minority viewpoint amongst naturalists) Clinkophonist 12:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You do know this isn't Sir David's user page, don't you? :-) Perodicticus 14:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage

Does anyone know the maiden name of Attenborough's late wife? He doesn't mention it in his autobiography. The sentence about his marriage is phrased a bit awkwardly because I don't know it. Perodicticus 15:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind -- got it. Perodicticus 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Widely Traveled

I've read before that Sir David is the most traveled human being in history. It certainly seems quite likely, given his jobs as zoo collector and show presenter, but I'm not sure how to add this info since it's unproven and probably unproveable. Any thoughts? Matt Deres 03:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How about: "Interviewers quip that Attenborough may be the most traveled person ever ^[1]." ? Joe D (t) 03:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Or, "In Life On Air the BBC claimed Attenborough is probably the most traveled person on Earth ^[2]."

Or a combination of those. Joe D (t) 03:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the same statement made about John Paul II -- as Matt Deres points out, this sort of claim is probably impossible to quantify or prove. However, it has been made often enough that it should probably be mentioned. Perodicticus 09:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons for this belief isn't necessarily his actual personal mileage but the ground-breaking globe-trotting style of his programmes, where he would start a piece to camera on one continent, then finish it on another, giving the impression that he'd simply strode from one part of the planet to the other in the blink of an eye. It seems obvious now but was quite remarkable at the time apparently, and is mentioned in the article itself.

[edit] Books

Does anyone know if he writes his own books? I was wondering how much coverage to give them. Life on Air in particular is a delight. Perodicticus 09:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have Life on Air yet, but none of the books I do have list any sort of co-author.Matt Deres 11:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian interview

Someone with more familiarity with the man than I might want to make use of the interview published in todays Grauniad, available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1713421,00.html

Oops, forgot to sign Modest Genius 01:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genius

I know this isn't really on topic, but I have to say it:

Hats off.

I totally agree with that. Well said!

[edit] Religion and creationism

in a relatively recent (since december 2005) programme, Sir David activley criticised creationism and intelligent design. it was either a documentry about the intelligent design court case in america, or a programme about creationism presented by richard dawkins. i had copies onmy computer but i deleted them, but they would be good for direct quotes

(Mikey 17:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

It is only on Wikipedia that I read that David does not explicitly use the word Evolution, I have seen quite a few of his recent documentaries and he uses the words evolution a lot many times.

Also in programme screened in Apriil (although it may have been a repeat) he also critised creationism in a chat show, possibly Parkinson or Jonathan Ross, I can't remember. Elephant Juice 23:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

His first major series Life On Earth was entirely about evolution! How people can claim he doesn't mention it escapes me, it's what his career is built upon. I suspect there's something of an influence here from the American media where the "evolution vs creationism" debate is still alive, a debate which died long ago in Britain. It's simply taken as read among most quarters in the UK that evolution is the mechanism for creating life, I think that's the main reason why Attenborough doesn't pay it any particular attention, because it would be like going on about the sky being blue or grass being green, it's simply not up for debate any more (or it wasn't until some fundamentalists started importing silly ideas like so-called intelligent design.

Just to note, I just finished watching Life in the Undergrowth, and he repeatedly mentions the word evolution in every episode. Since his work revolves around understanding the way that life develops through evolution, it would be a bit daft if he avoided saying it!--Jackyd101 07:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I chopped this para from the section as it is entirely unsourced and doesn't seem to have much point.

Attenborough's documentaries exposed millions to the diversity of life on Earth, including, of course, viewers who subscribe to the belief that all life was spontaneously created by a God, known as creationism. In his series, Attenborough rarely explicitly speaks about the mechanisms of evolution, except in Life on Earth, which was an entire series that was specifically devoted to it. Instead, he describes the advantages of each adaptation in high detail — why flowers are shaped in a certain way, why birds and animals migrate, how mechanisms of mimicry can serve as protection or to attract insects and animals, and so forth. As such, his work has been cited by some creationists as exemplary in that it does not "shove evolution down the viewer's throat". Others have written to Attenborough and asked him to clearly refer to God as the creator of life.

Ashmoo 04:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foster sister

I've edited the part about Attenborough's foster sister slightly, because I noticed claims appearing elsewhere on Wikipedia (and even in the mainstream media) that she had singlehandedly inspired his interest in natural history. This isn't really accurate -- by all accounts he was collecting stones, fossils, etc., from earliest childhood, and he would already have been a teenager when his family took the girls in. I think I may not have been clear when I originally wrote the passage. --Perodicticus 21:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humanist?

What's with the 'humanist' claim? It's been added to the opening paragraph of the article without any source or further explanation. Where did this information come from? I have heard Sir David claim to be an agnostic, but not a humanist. --Perodicticus 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I've decided to remove this claim until a source is found for it. It seems to have been added by someone with a vested interest in the subject. --Perodicticus 20:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you google "Attenborough humanism" a lot of links coming up putting him in with the movement. He's in the book "Humanist Anthology." As far as I'm aware, being a humanist and an agnostic are not mutually exclusive. I didn't put the original wording in, but I think there's a good case for it to be restored. JF Mephisto 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "humanist" to some people means a general adjective for someone who has a belief in the importance of human beings but doesn't necessarily have any faith in a deity, but to others "humanist" means a much more specific devotion to a particular movement with a particular set of beliefs and even ceremonies (for example the singer Ian Dury actually called himself a Humanist and specifically requested a Humanist funeral service when he found he was dying). Unless you can cite an example where Attenborough himself uses that word to describe his beliefs, it's probably best not to use it on his behalf, even if other websites have done so. Simply Googling something isn't really proof of anything, you could google "terrorist" and come up with an extremely debatable list of people for example!

[edit] Fabulous Animals

There is a good article on Fabulous Animals here as it might prove useful. (Emperor 21:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Biography infobox

I removed the recently added biography infobox. The only things it contained were a name (in large type) and a date of birth — both of which are already available immediately to its left. Some infoboxes enhance articles: this one doesn't. Chris 42 10:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Diana?!

This article from The Daily Mail (I found it via a Google alert, I swear) claims that Princess Diana consulted Attenborough for advice before her notorious Panorama interview. Has anyone else ever heard of this? Sounds suspicious to me. Perodicticus 17:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust anything a tabloid writes about her. Joe D (t) 18:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Though it wouldn't be that amazing even if true - considering Attenborough had been making the Queen's christmas broadcasts for some years and was obviously a TV person whom someone like Diana could trust. -88.109.12.177 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.12.177 (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Musical interests

Did anyone else hear him presenting a BBC Radio 2 Folk Award to Pentangle this evening? Are his musical interests worth mentioning in the article? I believe he is an amateur pianist and took a keen interest in musical programming while at BBC2. -- Perodicticus 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is it true he is retiring from documentries?

my brother said he heard this does anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esmehwp (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Apparently, he is now working on his last. The article references a piece in the Times as a source: [[1]]. Michaelbusch 19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he said that he will probably stop working full time on documentries but may still create/narrate a few documentries later. Something about going into semi-retirement. Yuanchosaan 06:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This question is answered in the article:

Life in Cold Blood is intended to be Attenborough's last major series. In an interview to promote Life in the Undergrowth, he stated: "Once I have completed the reptiles series [...] that will be enough. It would complete the survey for me. I will have given a series to every group of animals and when that is done there would be 100 or so hours of DVDs on the shelf."

However, in a subsequent interview with Radio Times, he said that he did not intend to retire completely and would probably continue to make occasional one-off programmes.

--Perodicticus 08:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the info glad to know he's not retiring. all work and no DA documentaries makes jack a dull boy...Esmehwp 23:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard him say in an interview that his next project is on Darwin and evolution; it's Darwin's bi-centenary next year so I imagine the BBC are planning a major series on him. 212.84.110.195 (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Former global warming skeptics

Dave has just been added to the Category:Former global warming skeptics but was he actually a sceptic. He never wanted to mention global warming, or preach about it as he didn't want his documentaries to be about that, but that doesn't mean he was a sceptic. I always thought that he believed it was happening but just didn't want to make his films into that sort of film. C hris_huh^talk 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sunday Times in 2006 had an interview with Sir David where we recounts: "I was very sceptical", "I was absolutely convinced this was no part of a normal climatic oscillation which the Earth has been going through and that it was something else". His view is now is very different, as this ABC radio interview from 2006 shows: "... climate change is happening, no doubt, and that's been no doubt for a long time. And I also know that humanity, human beings worldwide, are contributing to climate change. I also know that if it goes on the way it is, we are in for some very bad times. We ought now to have a worldwide change in moral attitudes that you don't waste energy, because energy is produced at a cost, and to waste it is sinful."

Having said this, it's an odd category. Most scientists are "former global warming skeptics" because that is they way science works. The initial papers claiming global warming were met with a great deal of skepticism. Then as more supporting evidence came in scientists were increasingly less skeptical. Today global warming is the dominant theory, but it is not like there was a date where the "scientific consensus" changed and people who changed after that date were stamped "skeptic" on their forehead.

Also, scientific progress requires continued probing and a skeptical attitude towards whatever the dominant theory in a field is. Dominant theories used to hold that light travels in straight lines and that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. Einstein and Marshall and Warren got Nobel Prizes for showing otherwise.

This isn't to say that every challenge to a dominant theory will be successful: it's not like dominant theories are overthrown every week, or that every dominant theory has been overthrown (consider that Einstein's work undermining Newton's Laws of Motion actually strengthened Kelvin's Laws of Thermodynamics).

Well-funded lobbies seeking to discredit climate change in order to maintain their sponsors' profits seize upon any voiced skepticism of the dominant theory of global warming, misleading a public who don't realise that a healthy skepticism is the usual view of scientists towards all theories. This is a problem because it deliberately deceives the public about the methods and results of science, making it difficult for interested members of the public to reach their own conclusions; and because the current dominant theory requires a rapid and deep response if the human species is not to meet with tragedy. 150.101.30.44 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism III

Now that the obvious lie that Attenborough never made references to "evolution" has been removed, I see no reason to keep a funny statement such as "in some of his recent films, he makes direct references to evolution" (Wow! full frontal evolutionism! how gross and thrilling, I'm almost dying of excitement). Of course he does, and he always has, as has every normal naturalist at least since the beginning of the XXth century. The very mention of this seems to imply that talking about evolution is a very militant and scandalous thing to do, which is plain absurd. --91.148.159.4 11:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

he also made direct references to animals... i for one am shocked. 81.151.124.185 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Elmo

Agreed. Removed. Loxlie 03:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox quibble

"Notable prizes" is badly worded. The Order of Merit, OBE etc are never referred to as "prizes". They're honours. 81.153.110.216 01:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but it can't be changed just for this one article, it will require a change to Template:Infobox scientist. I've put a comment on there suggesting it be reworded to "Notable awards", a term which should happily cover both prizes and honours. If there are no objections in a week or so I'll make the change, unless someone else does first. Vilĉjo (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed. Vilĉjo (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blindness quote

Is his quote about a worm causing a boy to go blind refering to Onchocerca volvulus, which causes River Blindness? If so, we should into to it. CS Miller 13:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SIMPSONS

No, the character in Springfield Up is a parody of Michael Apted who made the 7 UP and subsequent documentaries and of course is narrated by Eric Idle...No connection with the great Sir D.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.37.235 (talk) 03:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal crime scene

Animal crime scene seems to be omitted from the list of his works? Any thoughts as to why and where it might go --Hadseys 15:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Animal Crime Scene is one of several Attenborough projects that are missing from the article. True, it's not one of his more notable series, but it probably deserves a mention. Your question is a good one, and it raises the issue of the whole way that the 'Work' section is presented, which has niggled me for some time.

Here is a man associated first and foremost with television, yet the bibliography is the first sub-section to appear, followed by a selection of introductions and forewords to other people's books! Next, his television work is presented according to what is available on DVD, followed by an incomplete and poorly organised selection of other programmes.

In my opinion, a far more sensible way of organising his work would be to give his TV work its own section, perhaps sub-divided into series he has written and presented, series he has narrated, one-off programs he has written and presented, one-off programs he has narrated, series he has produced, etc and presented in chronological order. Then the books and introductions would follow in a separate 'Bibliography' section.

That way there would be an obvious place for Animal Crime Scene and all the other missing programmes. Cparsons79 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As there have been no objections since my previous suggestion, I have taken it upon myself to reorganise the previously existing "Work" section into 3 new sections, "Television Work", "Books" and "Audio Recordings" and expanded the television section to include missing series/programmes. Animal Crime Scene now has a home! Cparsons79 (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Living with Dinosaurs?

Is 'Living with Dinosaurs' actually written and presented by Attenborough? On the web seaches that i have conducted it appears not to be so, and some early web pages that list Attenborough as presenter have been subsequently changed. It may be correct but it needs to be sourced.

--Theo Pardilla 01:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel Laureate?

Isn't it high time a Nobel Prize was added to Sir David's long list of honours, I sincerely hope it's not awarded postumously.

Nobel Prizes aren't usually awarded posthumously. It's why Gandhi didn't get one. 59.92.12.131 (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Opening Paragraph

I'm not sure whether some of the content I have pasted in below from the opening paragraph are relevant at all....

'Sir David Frederick Attenborough, OM, CH, CVO, CBE, FRS, FZS (born on 8 May 1926 in London, England) is one of the coolest people in the world. And Haroon isnt, he just has a weird name.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.106.3 (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)