Talk:David Suzuki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B 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.
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Environmental Record Task Force David Suzuki is under review by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers and organizations throughout the encyclopedia. The task force is part of the WikiProject Environment.
  1. Archive 1 - Old discussions to December 2007

Contents


[edit] Continued insertion of "neutrality" tag and/or contentious material

Neutrality tags refer the reader to discussion on the talk page. However, to date, I do not believe that anyone has made a clear case for a neutrality problem in this article. Biographies of living persons must "document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject." I believe that the article meets this requirement. Those who doubt it should make their argument on this page, rather than continually inserting questionable material or neutrality tags.

Vividfan has argued that Suzuki should be criticised for the size of his carbon footprint. Others (including me) have questioned this. Victoriagirl points out that no reliable source has been found to support this claim. Suzuki himself, (quoted in a Vancouver Sun article) says he is concerned about his carbon footprint. What right thinking person is not, these days? There is no information given on the size of his carbon footprint.

WP:BLP states the requirements for criticism in biographies:

"Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

I challenge anyone who thinks that this article is not neutral to:

  1. List what in the article is not neutral;
  2. Write a properly-sourced critique and post it here, or failing that,
  3. Please cease with the POV comments and "neutrality" tag placements. Sunray (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Here's another quote from WP:BLP:

Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

I hope this is clear. Sunray (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits and those of the of editors sought to be sensored do not provide personal analysis and are not POV or Original Research, nor are these facts "contentious" as you claim since the facts are reported in national media and not contradicted anywhere. This is factual information from Suzuki himself as reported from national media using video and quotes from Suzuki himself (the citations are included in the article until you delete them). This is information which even Suzuki thought was an important aspect of his life's work; this is why he did nationally reported media events to draw attention to it. You are not helping him by trying to sensor people who quote this is information in the article; Suzuki would want others to use these facts to do better than he does. The wholo thrust of the article is focused on this issue and Suzuki's advocacy regarding greenhouse gas pollution so this is right on point and one of the most important elements of the issue. ~~overeditor~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overeditor (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Overeditor (talk · contribs), I've again removed the section titled "Carbon footprint". The claims you've added are not featured in the sources you provide (which I've added to "External links" - already in dire need of pruning). In short, neither article supports these statements:
  1. "David Suzuki is personally one of the leading producers of greenhouse gases in his country and the world."
  2. "He travels by jet aircraft 200 days each year according to his comments to the Vancouver Sun and CBC Television."
  3. "[H]e reports vacationing in Australia twice yearly and travels to Cuba and Bali each year."
  4. "He estimates he produces approximately 300 tons of greenhouse gases each year"
These claims have been repeated many times - and have been discussed greatly on this page - but no one has yet come forward with a source.
Concerning the matter of the randomly placed quotations, this too has been discussed above. One editor as suggested that information be rewritten. What should be rewritten is a question left unanswered. Victoriagirl (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


OK I have rewritten to just reference the plain language of the media quotations.Overeditor (talk)OvereditorOvereditor (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, but you still didn't address the problems of what WP:BLP#Criticism calls "material ... written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics" not to mention the sheer WP:UNDUE weight of having an entire section about the man's carbon footprint. And you cited the sources very tendentiously, picking out information which supported your "evil polluter hypocrite view" while ignoring all the info that didn't. I've removed your screed again, and added ([1]) a neutral summary of this info into the "climate change activism" section. Please don't revert it again, and knock off the personal attacks and slightly hysterical tone while you're at it. <eleland/talkedits> 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Great summary of the carbon footprint discussion by Eleland, here. It is faithful to the source, neutral and balanced. Thanks for demonstrating how it is done! Sunray (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Well the quotes were just repeating what the man said. I don't think it is much of an answer for him , at age 72, to suddenly figure out his reckless travel schedule through his life has damaged the environment and decide only to "cluster" his travel schedule to reduce emissions (what does that mean in terms of what his emissions will be in the future) - I am sure that the President of Shell Canada "clusters" his travel as well. Didn't Suzuki know he was destroying the planet on his children and grandchildren when he was globe trotting for his first 72 years; and doesn't he know that he continues to cause more damage than almost everyone in the country with his travel itinerary - how can he get the audacity to mock and insult people who have a carbon footprint only a fraction of his own. You would be hard pressed to find anybody in the country who has polluted the planet as much as this man in his lifetime so the issue should be fully documented in the Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overeditor (talk • contribs) 04:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits were completely in line with the source cited, which was titled "Suzuki gets the irony as popularity increases." If anybody of note responded negatively to that source, it would be appropriate to add a brief, neutral summary of their reaction, as in "National Post columnist X. Grinder dismissed this as 'sheer hypocrisy.'" <eleland/talkedits> 06:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed all these materials and it appears there is an effort to sensor an important part of the Wiki article. There should be some analysis of Suzuki's carbon footprint under a separate heading in light of his comments in the media as referenced heavily in rest of the article urging everyone to reduce the absolute level of carbon pollution - take personal action to reduce your own polution (not just purchase of credits). If Suzuki argues that all should simply buy credits as opposed to his request that we reduce our own pollution, then the sensor would make sense. ==Homeboy=== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeboy99 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I should have noted that attempts at reasonable wording of the Carbon Footprint section are clearly being frustrated by Victoriagirl and others so that the issue is effectively deleted from the article.

Homeboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeboy99 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


I agree with Homeboy. It is terrible that there would be an effort to sensor on the Wiki but obviously that is what is going on. (Personal attack removed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backtalk (talk • contribs)

False allegations and personal attack made by a blocked sockpuppet. Sunray (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Overeditor, Homeboy99, and Backtalk were blocked, along with a host of others, as Arthur Ellis socks (see Archive 1). Sunray (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BackTalk

Discussion on Suzuki's remarkable carbon footprint is needed in this article. Does anybody have a photo of his house in the rich area of Vancouver. This would be a great addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeboy100 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And the sockpuppetry goes on... Sunray (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Censorship

It appears that the carbon pollution issue on Suzuki's part is sought to be censored. This information is relevant because, to the extent Suzuki can't control his own pollution, it indicates his requests to others are not realistic on consistent. Suzuki's pollution record suggests other solutions must be sought than limiting greenhouse gas emmissions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climateguy (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What sources do you have for these assertions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources are Suzuki's own words to the Vancouver Sun and the interview he did on CBC's The Hour; however, the other editors on this site insist on deleting the sources from the article and then - after they deleted the reference to sources - they claim sources are not sited. Then they block response by calling everybody sockpuppets. It is shameful that you guys try to delete/block this information rather than accept it and build the site. Maybe Suzuki has explained the inconsistency somewhere. He has said hundreds of times that excessive carbon pollution will destroy the planet on his and everyone's children yet he does just that pollution in a way that is far worse that everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.14.101 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this editor was the one who added The Vancouver Sun and Hour pieces to the 'External links' section. As has been stated many times above, the sources do not support the claims, inserted repeatedly, that:
  • "Suzuki produces at least fifteen times more carbon pollution than the average Canadian and American."
  • "He reports traveling by jet plane four out of every five days thoughout the year (292 days per year) including twice yearly vacations in Australia."
  • "Each flight produces one tonne of carbon pollution (292 tonnes per year)."
  • "The David Suzuki Foundation purchases carbon credits rather than actually reducing the enormous amount of carbon pollution their namesake founder creates each year."
  • "Suzuki produces 292 tonnes of carbon pollution each year mostly from jet flights around the world while saying the planet can only absorb one tonne of pollution per person on the planet."
  • " Suzuki charges thirty thousand dollars for each speaking appearance and laments that in traveling constantly to earn income and spread his message of climate responsibility".
Again, this editor has no issue with properly sourced information about Suzuki's carbon footprint. Unfortunately, what has been provided to date is in clear violation of WP:BLP. Victoriagirl (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Victoriagirl. Well said. One would only hope that IP 142.68.14.101 will be able to grasp what she has said. However, from what we have seen thus far, I wouldn't hold out too much hope. Sunray (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you guys are going to a new level by deleting the "Talk" page entries. This is like having websites in China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.13.178 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


{{help me}}

I want to tag this article as having neutrality issues. My attempts to tag it have been reverted and I have been threatened by Sunray with a block for "disruption. Anyone reading this page can see there are serious questions about the neutrality of this page. The critics of the article may not be right, but the fact the criticism exists should not be censored. Mike Bate (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The claims being made by Mike Bate (talk), regarding neutrality, are identical to those of Vividfan (talk), who was indefinitely blocked on Jan 7 for abusing multiple accounts. Such claims are in total disregard for the actual discussion on this page. Users claiming a lack of "neutrality" also argue that Suzuki has a larger carbon footprint than others on this planet. Such users include a variety of anonymous IPs and sockpuppets of Arthur Ellis. If you are not an Ellis sockpuppet, kindly provide the reliable sources for your claims as requested many times. Otherwise, the above is simply trolling. Sunray (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with User:Sunray, provide sources for this in a form which cant be properly sourced and not interpreted (so that it isnt original research). Then i personally would be happier for it to be included in the article. Seddon69 (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Bate has been blocked as an Arthur Ellis sockpuppet. 'Nuf said. Sunray (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jailing politicians and other er, "controversial" ideas

Saturday, Dec. 9's National Post had some serious criticisms about Suzuki, especially his call -- at McMaster, U of T and McGill-- for the jailing of politicians who don't do enough to fight climate change. So, where will this go in the bio? 209.217.75.69 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This information was added to the article three days ago. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Golly, that's it? Surely some of the press reaction to that frightening and bizarre comment could be included. 209.217.75.69 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How about adding this from the Feb.9 National Post editorial:

"Suzuki’s alarmism is nothing new, and more-prudent scientists have long ago answered his hyperbole and exposed his faulty logic. And it’s also long been abundantly clear from his speeches and books that his position is driven by both a quasi-religious zeal and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of humanity’s relationship with the natural world."

Of course, with the attitudes of the lefty guardians of the page, I won't hold my breath. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like he said something like "they should be held legally responsible," and the National Post (ptooey) seized the opportunity to attack him. Let's have more than one biased source please. <eleland/talkedits> 23:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added coverage of Suzuki's remarks by the McGill Daily. Sunray (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


He actually said, at McMaster University, University of Toronto and McGill that they should be jailed. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Victoriagirl, for fixing the citation. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Any criticism of Suzuki, while alive, must come from very reliable sources, and be given in due proportion. Suzuki is notable for lots of things, and criticism shouldn't be given undue weight.Bless sins (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)