Talk:Tim Flannery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Flag
Portal
 Tim Flannery is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tim Flannery article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Provocative

The word "provocative" has been applied in the opening paragraph describing the subject and reverted. I do not think that the word as it is ordinarily used applies to the subject. Anyone else have a view? Albatross2147 08:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about peoples "views", it is about what we can reference, what we can prove, the writers POV is not relevant. Since the word "provocative" is used as a descriptor in the very first paragraph of the very first reference it should stay. Prester John 03:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I for one don't like it. That reference does not read with an encyclopaedic tone. Another word in there that could equally and possibly better describe him as is "renowned". "Provocative" for me (especially in an opening sentence) is too much of a peacock term. Its interesting that you edited out the previous descriptor "well-known" with an edit summary of "NPOV" [1] before replacing it with Provocative. —Moondyne 04:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not only inappropriate for a lead sentence, but whether it is referenced or not makes no difference – it is a subjective term, and cannot be stated as fact. We can, however, say "X describes Flannery as provocative" if such a statement is suitably sourced and relevant.--cj | talk 20:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've rewritten the article pretty much from scratch. One point I've made that lacks a source is that "His advocacy on two issues in particular, population levels and carbon emissions, culminated in being named Australian of the Year at a time when the environment had reached the forefront of public debate in Australia." I think it's relevant that given the high profile of climate change etc right now it is a special honour for one environmentalist to be chosen - is this valid contextual information or original research? Joestella 17:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite. However I do think the excerpt from The Australian editorial is unecessary. If you can find some well sourced criticism from other scientists, politicians, etc., then that's fine. But editorials are a form of opinionated comment (who wrote it, do they have any particular expertise, does it actually matter?), and its importance or relevance is debatable. Recurring dreams 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I missed this comment of yours - and I disagree. The major newspapers offer a non-partisan overview of issues that crosses the sort of boundaries that would stop a scientist from rendering comment. Flannery's status as a scientist is covered in the article, but readers need to get a sense of his activist work as well. Joestella 15:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that major newspapers offer a non-partisan point of view on issues. As you have noted many times on pages on newspapers, they campaign strongly on particular issues. Indeed most newspaper editorials offer strong ideological comments, even going as far as approving particular political parties. And I don't see what the editorial comment offers that isn't already covered? There is plenty in the article about his activism, to which the editorial doesn't add anything. If you want to add more, find particular instances, eg conferences, interviews, events, etc. involving his activism. Recurring dreams 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean partisan in the sense of parties. The newspapers offer the sort of social overview that is their job to provide. The characterisation of Flannery as extreme is I think fair (as in, you can see its a view based on research and observation rather than just partisan malice, even if one doesn't agree with the conclusion) and relevant. Joestella 16:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe newspaper editorials offer a "social overview." Their opinion is simply their own, not society's. "The characterisation of Flannery as extreme is I think fair." Well you see it is a characterisation, and the relevance or expertise of a newspaper's opinion on this issue is debatable. As you say the ultimate conclusion is not the issue: one could simply find several other editorials extolling the subjects' virtues, and it would be justifiable to put them alongside this extract. The point is, the practice of quoting from anonymous editorials on a number of issues detracts from the encyclopediac nature of these articles. Recurring dreams 02:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frequently cited?

"His controversial views on population control and shutting down the coal industry are frequently cited in the media." If anyone can find me a few recent media pieces about population control and comments from Flannery, then this statement is justified. I don't seem to be able to find many? Recurring dreams 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Poor wording on my part perhaps. What I'm trying to get across is that when people think Tim Flannery, they think about those views more than say, his work on Melanesian tree kangaroos. That said, the coal stuff was all over the media in January-February of this year. Joestella 05:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to keep the coal industry part (he is indeed often cited), but maybe get rid of the population control. I really don't see that it was much of an issue in the media besides maybe ~10 yrs ago. Recurring dreams 06:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine for the opening, the population control stuff is outlined later on anyway. Joestella 08:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geothermia

Can anyone provide additional context for this concept? It is not clear in the article why Flannery is proposing this. Euryalus 22:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's about sea-level rises. Does it matter? Joestella 05:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Its inclusion in the article implies that it matters. If it represents a meaningful contribution to environmental thinking, then what is it? If it does not represent a meaningful contribution, it probably does not deserve a mention in the piece.

My question also represents a passing interest in what Flannery is advocating.

I cannot find a copy of The Weathermakers or I would be able to answer this myself. Can anyone who has read the book shed some light on this? Euryalus 08:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Having read the section from The Weathermakers, I have added a sentence clarifying the Geothermia concept. It is related to energy sources at the proposed location, which Flannery suggests would allow such a settlement to be energy self-sufficient and also support a rail and electricity grid to enable connections to major ports and coastal cities. Euryalus 04:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tipping point

Tim Flannery wrote about the tipping point (2015), turning point, deadline. Why don't we an article about it? This is another article: Tipping point. --Tamás Kádár 01:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

Is the Bibliography section in this article a list of books that Flannery is involved with, or a list of sources used for this article.

If the former it should be considered for removal, as wikipedia is not indiscriminate nor promotional information.

If the latter it should definitely be cleaned up and possibly integrated with footnotes into a more easily tracked references/footnotes section.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)