Talk:David Helvarg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Helvarg article.
Article policies
Featured article star David Helvarg is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 8, 2005.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Peer review This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Vfd

On 1 Apr 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/David Helvarg for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 11:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed this guy is notable enough to keep, but do we really need to list every freakin' article he ever published? -- Dcfleck 15:30, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
I've taken a look at this page at the personal request of Theo, and have some suggestions, below, relevant to Dcfleck's concern. I've now edited the article rather boldly, please take a look and see what you think! I haven't changed the lists as such. Pasting here what I wrote on Theo's talk page:

Pasted-in comments from Theo's talk page, by Bishonen.

Nice article! The order in which things are told isn't easy for the reader to follow or predict, though. I believe that a very short summary, with the salient points only (e. g., nevermind whose guest he went to Antarctica as), should be followed by a chronological account, so that you avoid leaving him in the middle, at the point where he finishes college. I have so edited, just put it back as it was if you don't like it! Also, before you start laughing derisively, please bear in mind that I did it rather hastily—probably, to fit the new structure better, I should have changed more sentences around as well, and my headings are downright silly... oh, well, it's a start, and something for you to think about.

I'm reluctant to suggest removing info, but the lists are very long, and a lot of ephemeral-looking writings are included in them (the complete (?) list of newpaper articles right back to 1973 frankly looks like Ashlee Simpson country to me). Maybe these full lists would be useful to someone, so don't be in a hurry to shorten them, but you could go to other articles on people in the same category to compare...hang on..why is the cat "United States journalists" redlinked when you need it...? OK, got it: the true cat is "American journalists". Now then: 206 articles on American journalists...hmm. You have a better chance of knowing who more of these people are than me, you do it. Look at some of them that would be similar to your guy in importance and amount of output, and get a sense of what looks reasonable in the way of listing his stuff.

Definitely not all the awards! Select the important ones for a few sentences of prose, lose the list.

The reverse chronological order in the lists looks more like a newspaper article or indeed a website (which I suppose is where the material comes from) than an encyclopedia article, I'd turn that round if I were you.

A detail: not enough info on Feeling the Heat, compare the surely more minor pieces under the heading "Articles". Moreover, H's contributions to Feeling the Heat are articles. If you can find out what exactly his contributions to it were, I suggest you list those separately in the article section instead, with some of those full a-chapter-in-an-anthology type references. (Or just give me the relevant chapter titles and I'll do it.)

There are some excess wikilinks IMO—reading this would not be the moment I'd feel curious to read (our no doubt huge) articles on United States, New York City, or Nazi Germany! Associated Press or El Salvador OTOH, OK, that could make sense.

I have edited to reflect some of these concerns, and removed some magazine-type over-cute or admiring bits (young David should not get to splash around on Long Island! curse the little tyke!), but have left most of the above points intact for you to consider. --Bishonen|Talk 15:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

End of pasted-in text.

[edit] Refactoring

Thanks to Bishonen for all that help. I have refactored the Awards list into text. The list of articles still defeats me: it is hard to tell which are notable. I guess that I will comment out some chunks brutally. None of the lists came from web-sites; I asked Helvarg for the information (the upside of years of journalism is learning to seek primary sources and then verify what they say; the downside is phrases like "splashing around Long Island"). The reverse chronological order for television productions and journalism is a convention used elsewhere on Wikipedia for theatrical and other media biographies.

So, things left to do are:

  1. Comment out excess articles.
  2. Research Feeling the Heat.
--Theo (Talk) 21:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both done. --Theo (Talk) 21:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions and questions

I think this looks good overall. Something you might consider is adding a little more personal flavor, maybe a quote from something he wrote, or judges' or reviewers comments. What makes his work distinctive from others' covering the same topics?

About listing this much of his work: Maybe a tighter format would help (for instance, listing all the 1982 TV work in one graf). And I would go in chronological order, not reverse.

A few questions: When was he born? He went to Ireland before he graduated? Is the "Central American conflict" just one conflict? I expect you mean "video news release" by "VNR"; but I hate to assume, and some people won't know the acronym. Maurreen 02:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that I have addressed all these points with the changes I made today. Thanks for all your help. --Theo (Talk) 23:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think there's some duplication of information between this article and Wise use - would it be a good idea to cut down on the amount of information about the "Wise Use" movement, as compared to Helvarg's writing about them? -- Dcfleck 12:51, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Which bits do you consider superfluous? I am way too close to the article to make that kind of call. --Theo (Talk) 17:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've taken your list and interspersed my own bullet points, as well as including a rewritten paragraph below. -- Dcfleck 13:03, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. I checked the Wise Use article and the key change that has flowed from it was my adoption of the conservationsts' POV description of it. I have now fixed that. As for saying less about Wise Use, I am not sure what could be eliminated without diminishing the information about Helvarg's book. Specifically, I say (with my opinions on why each bit earns its place):
    1. Helvarg "characterizes [it] as a network of anti-environmentalist groups."
      • No problem... -- Dcfleck 13:03, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
    2. "Wise Use aims to facilitate extensive use of natural resources and to eliminate the National Park Service." The first clause tells the reader what Wise Use represents. The second cites a specific goal of Wise Use that indicates that they have specific policies thhat are not simply conceptual.
      • What is the source for the Park Service claim? It's not in the Wise use article. If it's true, it should be added. -- Dcfleck 13:03, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
        • The source was my misreading of the twenty-five-point Wise Use Agenda; They actually advocate privatization, rather than elimination. I interpreted this to amount to elimination because I see Federal ownership as being one of the fundamental features of the NPS. That is my POV, however, so I have changed the article to be more precise. --Theo (Talk) 16:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    3. "The first edition explored the origins of the organization under Ronald Reagan and its covert support by George Bush Senior's administration." This is more about the scope of the book than it is about Wise Use.
      • It also seems to imply that Reagan had something to do with starting it. Again, this is contra what the Wise use article says. -- Dcfleck 13:03, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
        • Good point. The reference to Reagan is misleading. I have made the appropriate change to the article. --Theo (Talk) 16:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    4. "Helvarg identified its funding and the multinational corporations and other powerful figures with which it was associated." Scope again.
      • No problem here. -- Dcfleck 13:03, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
    5. "He catalogued the movement's use of violence against environmental activists and the ineffective response of law-enforcement agencies." Scope again; and probably the heart of the book, in terms of its effect.
      • Cataloged or claimed to catalog? Again, not in the Wise use entry. It also seems to imply that violence is standard operating procedure for the Wise Use movement, while my impressions are that it primarily relies on legal challenges. On further thought, it's not the duplication of information that bothers me; it's that much of this section seems to contradict the Wise use article. There's a discrepancy somewhere (I'm not asserting it's here, just that these two pieces ought to fit, and they don't). -- Dcfleck 13:03, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
        • You are tight. It is POV to accept Helvarg's claims. I will rephrase this. --Theo (Talk) 16:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    6. "Helvarg had accused Wise Use of astroturfing" is scope again.
      • Yes, this is fine. -- Dcfleck 13:03, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
Here's how I'd do a quick edit on this section:

His book The War Against the Greens (1994) describes organized opposition to the environmental movement in the United States. Helvarg investigated the Wise Use movement, which he characterizes as a network of anti-environmentalist groups. Wise Use aims to facilitate extensive use of public and private natural resources in the U.S. The first edition explored the origins of the organization. Helvarg accused Wise Use of astroturfing; he identified its funding and the multinational corporations and other powerful figures with which it was associated. He catalogued the violence fringe elements of the movement used against environmental activists and the ineffective response of law-enforcement agencies. A revised edition published in 2004 was extended to cover the early years of George W. Bush's administration.

...and I'd leave out the reviews altogether, I think. Again, it's the apparent disconnect between this section and the Wise use article that troubles me most. -- Dcfleck 13:03, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
The reviews were added in responses to Maurreen's suggestion that they would indicate how the books were recwived when they were published. They demosntrate the two opposed POVs that the book divides. --Theo (Talk) 21:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "puts the case"

Is "puts the case" similar to "makes the case"? If so, I think "a case" would be more neutral and less definitive. Maurreen 04:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A straw poll of my colleagues reveals almost even division between "puts the case" meaning "proposes" and "makes the case". I meant it in the former sense but we are all in agreement with you, Maurreen, that "puts a case" is more effective phrasing. I have changed it. --Theo (Talk) 10:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civil warfare were

The civil warfare known as "The Troubles" were at their height, and Helvarg submitted reports on the conflict to the Liberation News Service.

is grammatically wrong, this is a problem since "Troubles" is plural, but the actual subject "Civil warfare" is singular. It is also peculiar to call the early 70s the height of the troubles, this was a particularily sanguine period and it is the phase of the Troubles that involved the most street-level conflict, but it shouldn't be picked out as the height. I have tried to come up with a better sentence but I'm blocked. Notjim 8 July 2005 09:17 (UTC)

Thanks. I have fixed it. —Theo (Talk) 8 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)
Great. Notjim 8 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

[edit] Violence on the part of environmentalists

I don't see what the big deal with my statement is. Environmentalists are destroying private property as part of their crusade. Why is this fact being removed? --141.154.204.228 8 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Edit conflicted instertion (I will respond to 141.154.204.228's question in a separate posting): 141.154.204.228 has repeatedly inserted the statement: This position has been the catalyst behind many acts of private property destruction by militant environmentalists. into the lead with the following edit summaries: "Why revert a fact? That is silly" and "It is a neutral statement, even if you find the idea of private property rights unpopular. Reverting..." With three reverts in less than half an hour, I feel that it is time to discuss this more fully.

The postion to which this insertion refers is Helvarg's "case that violent organized resistance is being orchestrated against the environmental movement". The article carefully makes no claims about the validity of Helvarg's claims and we have been careful to source each assertion. I do not know if "violent organized resistance" catalysed "many acts" of destruction by militant environmentalists. We would need a source for this assertion but even then, I can see no basis for including this in the lead paragraph of this biography unless Helvarg's acts or writings were the trigger. Essentially, I find the statement to be POV because of its placement. To me, it implies, without substantiation, that Helvarg has been party to the justification of militant environmentalist violence. If the bald statement can be substantiated then it deserves a place in the Environmental movement. If the implications about Helvarg can be established then I agree that this is one of the most important things about him, but nothing like that came out of my research. —Theo (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

I think that my previous post addresses 141.154.204.228's question. The destruction of property by environmentalists is only relevant to this article if it can be verified that Helvarg had some comnnection to that violence. The problem with the statement is its place. There are many things that we can say about the environmental movement just as there is much that we can say about Wise Use but I consider those details to belong in their own articles. —Theo (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

Just tell us, Theo, how you would feel if your house was burned down or your car was trashed by some whacko environmentalists? Or are you one yourself? --141.154.204.228 8 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)
My hypothetical emotional response to the destruction of my home or car is no more pertinent to Helvarg's biography than is my political affiliation. I think that you are implying that my stance is bigotted. If that is what you mean, then be very clear that I do not appreciate the insinuation. It may help you to know that I wrote this article because someone had proposed its stub for deletion on the grounds of non-notability and I started from a simple check of the facts before voting. —Theo (Talk) 8 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
Non-answer. Try again. --141.154.204.228 8 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)
Actually, a very good answer, at least in its first sentence. Getting back to Theo's point, the article is about Helvarg, and the proposed inclusion, in Theo's words above, "implies, without substantiation, that Helvarg has been party to the justification of militant environmentalist violence." If this is true and can be substantiated, then it should be in the article. If it is not true or cannot be substantiated, it should not. Both Theo's and 141.154.204.228's personal views and history are irrelevant to that point. JHCC (talk) 8 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Feeling The Heat book cover.jpg

Image:Feeling The Heat book cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)