Jump to content

Talk:David Suzuki/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Suzuki/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Initial rating == Looks like B-Class to me.... Doesn't have an "under construction" feel, and there's a collection of sub-heads, but lots of detail is missing. A full list of shows would be useful, and proper citations and references of course. --ghoti 14:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

David's ethnicity as "East Asian"

It seems to a lot of the wikipedia community that the label "East Asian" in the info box is overwhelmingly vague and inappropriate so far as ethnicity or ethnic origin is concerned. The Far East isn't a ethnic nation after all, but an extremely ethnically diverse region of billions of people from totally disparate cultures. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's conventions are concerning this, but wouldn't simply "Japanese" or "Japanese-Canadian" be more accurate?--24.36.128.14 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to be overly general to lump many culturally different ethnic backgrounds together. We know Mr. Suzuki is of Japanese heritage , at least I believe most Canadians do, however it may be more accurate an article to specify this for others reading who are not as familiar with him or his work.StevestonWitch (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I heartily disagree in some respects (though I agree that being specific about a known fact is preferable on Wikipedia, so in terms of changing anything my point here is moot) -- both of the above comments seem to ignore the fact that the rest of the world gets grouped accordingly (and, in many ways, equally erroneously). Because I'm white I get both "European" and "Caucasian". This groups me (a second-generation Canadian, ethnically a British mutt) in the same category as (for example) Turks, Croats, Slovaks, and Russians. All linguistically, culturally, even ethnically different. A double whammy is that only two of those I listed (Turks and SOME Russians) are ACTUALLY FROM the Caucasus. "African" is an acceptable demonym for people from that continent, despite the fact that many of the countries there are also culturally and linguistically distinct from each other. "Latin America" applies to every country in South America, and much of central america to boot. 99.244.230.178 (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
how many generations does it take, before the label "japanese" is dropped? it seems, in the case of east asians, forever. my parents are german immigrants and my kids would never be called german-canadians. not even i'm called a german-canadian. suzuki is canadian, plain and simple, unless he has dual citizenship.Sundar1 (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________

It's OK with the too large and evasive "East Asian". Sansei third generation of Japanese American, I'm proud of being part of the Asian American group, as my buddies African American,Native American, etc. "E pluribus unum", one from many.

Takima (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

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)

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 ([7]) 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)

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)

I know this is not relevant to his views and status as a scientist, but, it would nevertheless be of interst to know what his financial status and income have been. I suspect he is pretty well fixed and that he earned most of it, if not all of it, himself. I know he didn't inherit any special financial advantages. But, as a university prof for 40 years, and public figure, how well has he done financially? What is his financial relationship to the David Suzuki Foundation? Insofar as the answers to these questions will (probably) reveal him to be an honorable man, this information will reflect positively on his reputation, and I therefore would like to see it published. 72.29.241.133 (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Also, a section needs to be added, detailing Suzuki's role as the lead guitarist in the band Vital Remains. A good source of info will be their myspace page, found at www.myspace.com/vitalremains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.239.149 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Suzuki: a conservative

I recall a television interview with him on CBC where he said he was a conservative: this is accurate in that he wants to see a national heritage (ie, nature) maintained.POV: while Suzuki may suffer from overkill in his criticisms and claims, he's right when he says people can and should reduce energy consumption. For example: use your car (if you have one) only when necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk)

The label "conservative" is a buzz word that means different things in different places and times. It can be used to describe anybody in some way. It generally means "someone who favours tradition". Does that describe Suzuki? In some ways 'yes', in some ways 'no'. maclean 00:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

corporate sponsorship of David Suzuki foundation

Hey all, after a loooooong hiatus on Wikipedia, I was reading some of the info on Suzuki, checked it out (found it hard to believe no corporations sponsor the David Suzuki foundation), and hey! presto, my first edit in two years. I just felt it worthwhile to add that the Suzuki foundation receives corporate sponsorship, counter to his claim it did not. It's not criticism - it's just fact. I reference the Suzuki Foundation's annual report, from their site, so I know it's not rigged. Felt it was notable some corporate contributors were actually gas/oil sands/natural gas/power generation companies, affiliates, or derivatives. I noticed it was reverted, then the revert was reverted, so thought I'd pop a note on the discussion board. Cheerio!DonaNobisPacem (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What kind of puff piece is this?

How about some info on Suzuki's family? So far as I know he has at least 5 kids, well above the national average. And what about his irrational ranting in the "debate" with Rushton? This guy is not St. Suzuki, folks, although the article sure wants it to look that way. 04:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.140.227 (talk)

Here's a question for the hagiographers. Has anyone managed to find good sources on the story that Suzuki endowed a chair at a Canadian university, and then, when the holder of the chair criticized one of his books (this would have been in 1989) withdrew his funding? I heard on the CBC (As It Happens), but have never afterwards been able to verify it. This was well before Suzuki achieved sainthood. But it would be nice to have some sources on that story, just to head up the new – and often proposed, but never implemented – criticism section. Just askin. Theonemacduff (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Small Error-a date

He started his broadcasting career in 1971 not 1970, no big deal just thought i should throw it out there. Omysillygoose (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing Suzuki's Ph.D. in sidebar box

Another small error, but one that should be corrected. The man, after all, is a legitimately degreed zoologist, and his textbook An Introduction to Genetic Analysis is in its sixth edition at least, according to the CBC bio. Admittedly, he is credited with his U. Chicago Ph.D. in the main body of the article; but the sidebar should be complete. Even his citation on promotion to Companion of the Order of Canada lists him now as "C.C., O.B.C., Ph.D."

Harper (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Corrected 00:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.173.95 (talk)

Add Category:Sustainability advocates

Add Category:Sustainability advocates 99.190.88.247 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Joelthetroll, 19 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} David Suzuki has recently published a new book title "More Good News". This should be included under 'publications'. Source: == External links == *[8]

Joelthetroll (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Spitfire19 (Talk) 04:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Add: Mr. Suzuki is a 350.org messenger. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/24/international.climate.change.demonstrations ?

Add: Mr. Suzuki is a 350.org messenger. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/24/international.climate.change.demonstrations ? 99.184.229.142 (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? It's a source, but is it important to David? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

O mores, o tempora! (Cicero)

Time has changed. In the early 50s, no "white" girl wanted to date with teenaged Suzuki Now he's "the man most Canadian women told a Maclean’s poll they’d choose to be with on a deserted island".

Takima (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 199.185.67.180, 15 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the number of honorary degrees from 22 to 23 because there are 23 degrees listed.

199.185.67.180 (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done thank you for pointing this out Moxy (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

File displaying sideways?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

The file is clearly broken somehow... It needs rotating 90°. I tried to figure out what was wrong but couldn't. If someone else with more experience with files could take a look, that'd be great. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Japan-Canada relations?

Does the template for Japan-Canada relations really belong on this article? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Needs a criticism section

This article does not seem very neutral to me. It lists a bunch of positive things about Suzuki but not a single negative thing. There should be a criticism section. Ag97 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree

This is a total love-fest article likely written by CBC staff and protected by his fans. Has this guy never been wrong, never made a mistake? What about criminal charges and jailing people that disagree with his climate model (sources above, but it never made it to the article). I'm sure its not a new problem, but the credibility of WP is hurt when only the most passionate people are allowed to dominate an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:9880:7D1:4594:4D11:9957:343 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal life and criticism

I came to this page having read some commentaries about "Saint Suzuki" and "Secret Suzuki", wanting to see the facts behind the claims. I'm suprised to see that neither sections Personal Life nor Criticisms exist in this article. Contemporary personages always have a personal life section, and anyone involved in any controversy has a specific section for it. I don't think anyone can argue that David Suzuki has never been involved in controversy. As this article is at the moment, it is biased and un-Wikipedic. Icemuon (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

He has a lot of crazy and unscientific beliefs but little is mentioned here. This article needs a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.254.72 (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Justice System

I am concerned by changes made to this section by 68.146.78.154 across these versions‎. The whole section seems intended to discredit Suzuki's comments and make him look foolish, as if he has no clue what he is talking about. It seems biased to be distinctly anti-Suzuki. If you watch the original Q&A episode (around the 28 minute mark) and read the 3 source articles related to prison building (Toronto Star, iPolitics.ca and National Post), 2 of which are leading Canadian national newspapers, Suzuki is well within his right to make the speculation he makes and the government response is misdirection based on semantics and as such is almost not even worth giving airtime to. Removing the minor issue of semantics (the government is creating more prison spaces to the tune of $2 billion from 2011 through to 2016 - whether it is actually completely new and separate facilities or expansions to existing facilities is beside Suzuki's point; it is significantly more prison capacity at a time when crime is decreasing - and that is Suzuki's point) the fact of Suzuki's inaccuracy disappears. So one is left to ask why is this section even here? Is it worth documenting speculative musings? Is it here to document speculative musings the government objected to? Did it create a controversy? Controversy might be worth documenting but it's not going to look good for someone and someone's going to have to accept that and live with the facts being out there in the public. A few points in the changes made worth noting:

  • Suzuki actually uses the word "wondering", hence his tone is speculative, so why 68.146.78.154 changed it to "concluded" seems hard to understand
  • 68.146.78.154 insists that Suzuki's comments were refuted by the government and has removed the word "attempted". It is an "attempt" because it failed for the reason stated above. In 2011 the government announced a 5 year prison building plan - so that means up to 2016, which includes the period Suzuki refers to, thereby making his speculation current and relevant and the government's response non-factual.
  • vague, general phrasings: "This is thought to be due to", "Years ago" - if the point can't be made without these sort of phrases, then perhaps the point can't be made?
  • justification for the government's building of new prison capacity by referring to the legislation behind it, doesn't change the fact that the government is building new capacity, and doesn't make Suzuki's speculation less credible.
  • use of the word "alleged" Clearly, from the sources (18, 19 and 20) it is not an allegation - it is fact, stated unequivocally and publicly by the government itself.

I'd like someone else to review this matter and possibly look at improving the section as I already feel that the issue is contentious (68.146.78.154 has previously performed a revert on this version for "wondered"/"concluded" and been accused of bias in this version), and by claiming bias, I am in a position to be accused of it myself and feel that I should probably remove myself from the process, or at least defer to calmer, objective editors.

Mcourneyea (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Mcourneyea. Thank you for your comments. A couple of points. Firstly, you bring up the notability of these comments. They were discussed on various news channels and are the subject of news articles here and here and are mentioned prominently in the Financial Post here. I believe this does prove the comments Suzuki made are notable enough for inclusion into his Wikipedia article.
Secondly, you pretend this issue is about Suzuki's claim that the Harper government is building new prisons, when in fact the government is only extending existing facilities. I agree that this is a very unimportant distinction. If this was all there was to this issue it would be a very mundane one indeed. However, this issue is about Suzuki's claim that the new prisons capacity (regardless of whether this capacity is from new facilities or extensions to old facilities) is being built for the expressed purpose of incarcerating environmentalists. Suzuki claimed that Harper is going to define new "crimes" which are going to include environmentalism, and that the new prison capacity being constructed is to imprison environmentalist. Tony Jones, who hosted the ABC interview with Suzuki, immediately derided his comments as conspiracy theories. All articles written about these comments (see above), also left no doubt to their absurdity.
I will now address your bulleted points in order:
  • It is possible to make a conclusion while speculating. If you feel your wording is more informative then please feel free to use it.
  • "Refuted" implies the government succeeded, "attempted to refute" implies the government failed. In my opinion the government did refute both points they wished to refute. Firstly, they refuted the claim that the new prison capacity is for environmentalists. This was refuted as a baseless, absurd claim for which no evidence exists. The second point, that the Harper government is building new prisons, was also refuted. The Harper government is NOT building any new prisons. They may be expanding existing prison facilities, which is similar, but they are not constructing new prisons as Suzuki claimed. The sources your refer to only talk about the expansion of existing facilities. However, perhaps we could use a more neutral phrase than both "refute" and "attempted to refute". How about we use a word like "countered" or something similar? A word which does not imply any success or failure on the part of the government to address Suzuki's accusations.
  • If you believe the phrases "This is thought to be due to" and "Years ago" are vague and too general then by all means change them. I think it's a great idea.
  • The main point of this section is Suzuki's conclusion (or "wondering") about the purpose of the new prison capacity. Suzuki claimed that the prison capacity will be used by the government to incarcerate environmentalists. Therefore the governments' official justification for the new capacity is relevant.
  • It is an allegation. What Suzuki said was false. The government is NOT building new prisons. They are extending existing facilities. The sources you refer to talk of expansions, not the construction of new prisons. Again, if this bothers you this much then please feel free to change it to something like "stated" which is more neutral.
I feel I should reiterate that the salient issue here is not Suzuki's mistaken claim that the Harper government is building new prisons, when in fact they are only expanding existing facilities. The salient issue is Suzuki's claims about the PURPOSE of the new prisons capacity. 68.146.78.154 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: June 2014

In the last sentence of the first paragraph it says "David Suzuki was selected as the greatest living Canadian in a CBC poll." This is not entirely true as he was voted fifth and I think that this should be sourced. I found it surprising that I couldn't find any source from the CBC.ca archives that had the complete list of the greatest Canadian winners. I was however able to find the series (and list of winners) on imbd at the following address: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426703/?licb=0.7661025421693921. The list of top 10 is also on the page The Greatest Canadian. Northerner1073 (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not need to be sourced in the lede since it is sourced in the body of the article in the Awards and honours section. The main entry does clarify that he was fifth overall but the greatest living Canadian. Meters (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Information in the side bar is not showing. I'm not sure why. Religious views is not showing, although it's there. Someone should look at this as I cannot figure out what's wrong for the life of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spilia4 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Religion is not a valid parameter for the infobox scientist template. We would have to use a different template for the religion parameter to display. I'm not sure for this particular bio that it's relevant to have the religion in the infobox, though.... Sailsbystars (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on David Suzuki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


should there be discussion of his incorrect statements, http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/david-suzuki-regrets-claim-that-another-fukushima-disaster-would-require-mass-evacuations-in-north-america or his stand against gm foods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.191.19 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Shifting Legacy

The Legacy listed as 2010 in one place, 2011 in another. — MaxEnt 21:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on David Suzuki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Suck it up, Suzuki
  2. ^ Global warming charlatan
  3. ^ David Suzuki Foundation Annual Report 05/06
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Suzuki/Archive_1&oldid=1136652706"