Jump to content

Talk:Ursula Franklin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleUrsula Franklin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 7, 2009.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 25, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 24, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 3, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 22, 2017, July 22, 2021, and July 22, 2023.
Current status: Featured article
[edit]

The external link to "Pearson Medal of Peace - Dr. Ursula M. Franklin" is broken.

Link seems to be fixed. Bwark (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

REVIEW: 19 OCTOBER - 26 OCTOBER; ON HOLD: 26 OCTOBER - 2 NOVEMBER

Plenty of Time for improvements.

I'll be reviewing this article. Thanks, KensplanetTalkContributions 15:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Good article criteria here:

(1). Well written:
1 (a). the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
1 (b). it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

(2). Factually accurate and verifiable:
2 (a). it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
2 (b). at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
2 (c). it contains no original research.

(3). Broad in its coverage:
3 (a). it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
3 (b). it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

(4). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

(5). Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

(6). Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6 (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
6 (b). images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

  • LEAD
  • Ursula Martius Franklin, CC, O.Ont, Ph.D., D.Sc., LL.D., FRSC, (born September 16, 1921 in Munich, Germany), is a Canadian metallurgist, research physicist, author and university educator.
  • Franklin argues that there can be no peace without social justice because "justice and peace are indivisible".
  • "As I see it, technology has built the house in which we all live," she writes, "so that today there is hardly any human activity that does not occur within this house."
    • Please move all quotes to the Main prose.
  • For Franklin, technology is much more than machines, gadgets or electronic transmitters. It is a comprehensive system that includes methods, procedures, organization, "and most of all, a mindset." She distinguishes between holistic technologies used by craft workers or artisans and prescriptive ones associated with a division of labour in large-scale production. Holistic technologies allow artisans to control their own work processes from start to finish. Prescriptive technologies, on the other hand, organize work as a sequence of steps requiring supervision by bosses or managers. She argues that the dominance of prescriptive technologies in modern society discourages critical thinking and promotes "a culture of compliance."
    • Stop mentioning about Frankin's ideas. Instead, mention what we can infer about Franklin from her works.
      • I do not understand this criticism, especially the part about mentioning what we can infer about her ideas from her works. Most of the entry is about Franklin's ideas because she is known for being a scientist and a thinker. Bwark (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added Franklin's book titles to the lead section. Perhaps that will help. I feel her ideas about technology are a major theme in this entry and therefore some mention of them should appear in the lead section for the sake of completeness. The MOS states: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Bwark (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Franklin advocates resistance to technological imperatives. She is a strong supporter of "citizen politics," a civic movement which cuts across traditional boundaries such as political party membership, class, age and religion. It focuses on practical solutions to common problems — everything from the absence of peace to local traffic congestion.[9] Citizen politics assumes that governing institutions are legitimate and necessary but need improvement "whether those in power like it or not." Franklin adds that citizen politics tries to defend communities against those intent on "turning the globe into one giant commercial resource base, while denying a decent and appropriate habitat to many of the world's citizens."
    • Again the same problem.
      • I have shortened this section but feel it is relevant to her life and work. MOS says lead sections should summarize important parts of the entry and should serve as complete summaries for people who may not read the rest of the entry. Bwark (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • After thinking more deeply about your criticisms, I have moved the paragraph about citizen politics to another section. In writing the Franklin entry, I was guided by my experience writing entries on Angus Lewis Macdonald and Harold Innis, both of which have lead sections outlining main ideas and both of which have been granted feature article status. Bwark (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway the Lead is incomplete since you haven't mentioned anything about her career, early life. Awards and honours is nowhere to be seen. 2 paras are entirely dedicated to Franklin's ideas, her quotes. Please rewrite the Lead
    • I have rewritten the lead to include awards and honours. Her Companion of the Order of Canada, CC and her Order of Ontario, O. Ont are already listed, so I mentioned other important awards and that she has taught at the University of Toronto for more than 40 years, but I did not include anything on her early life as I have not been able to find any published material anywhere about it. Bwark (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images
  • I am a bit concerned about the Image Image:Ursula Franklin at book launch.jpg. The Summary mentions Photo taken by Martin Franklin at the 2006 launch of "The Ursula Franklin Reader" at Massey College, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Martin and Ursula Franklin agree that this image is copyright-free. Permission granted to use this photo under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License by Martin and Ursula Franklin on July 11, 2008. Can you give us a web link saying that the photo was released under the PD.
    • I am not sure what you mean by a web link. I have an e-mail from Dr. Franklin dated July 11, 2008 authorizing the use of this photo. I can send you a copy if you like. I feel this photo is essential to the entry. I worked hard to obtain the right to use it under GNU licensing. Bwark (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 Images Image:Liu Ding.jpg, Image:Singer sewing machine detail1.jpg, and Image:001instantthisbillboard.jpg are completely irrelevant. Her ideas can be expressed through the prose. You need not put Images of such common objects.
    • I respectfully disagree with these criticisms. I think the captions explain clearly how these images relate to Franklin's ideas. She devotes a number of pages for example, to explaining the prescriptive processes used in making a Chinese ding vessel. Why not include this image, especially as it gives readers' eyes a break from the text? As a university professor, I have found over the years that students will not read line after line of text unbroken by images, especially on the Web. I realize the images must be relevant to the entry and I respectfully submit that these ones are. Franklin specifically mentions the introduction of Singer sewing machines in her book The Real World of Technology. She often writes about the effects of common objects such as this. Bwark (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you also mail me the license of Image:Ursula Franklin book cover.jpg on modkenneth@gmail.com because it says it's a free image. If the license is available online, you can post the link here. It's not a major problem since book covers can anyway be used under a non free license. KensplanetTalkContributions 08:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll resove these minor issues. Rest all sources, external links checked. All look Good. Since this article satisfies Good article criteria, it will be promoted. Good Work. Hope to see this article at FAC soon. Thanks, KensplanetTalkContributions 16:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation consistency

[edit]

Hi, Bwark. There is some (exceedingly trivial) citation consistency that might be fixed on page nos:

  1. Franklin (Reader), pp.16 & 137. (uses & with spaces)
  2. Swenarchuk, pp.5,6,9,12,16,29,34. (uses commas with no spaces)

Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SandyGeorgia. I'm wondering if I should go through and modernize the citations so that page numbers are not needed. Do you think that's a good idea? Bwark (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably spend your time in more valuable ways, but that is up to you :) My entirely personal opinion, though, is that I hate some of those "modernized" citation methods, because they are so hard to work with. I don't see anything wrong with the method you used here. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll go through and make the citations internally consistent. Thanks. Bwark (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death?

[edit]

There are many recent edits indicating that Ursula has passed away, but no citations. Please check before editing; I can find no other references online. --scruss (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are now several extensive write-ups in major news sources, including two Toronto Star articles ([1], [2]), and CBC News. In my opinion, there are too many references to primary sources in the article; perhaps some of them could be replaced by references to the information in these new articles.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bwark, I wasn't suggesting removing all of the citations to the primary references, just maybe a few of those backing up straightforward facts about the subject's life and activities which could be supported equally well by independent, third party documents. That would make the reference section stronger and more balanced. I agree that being recent doesn't make the newer documents superior to older references (except about the death, of course). The link you provided also includes some useful information, although because it's a personal blog rather than an article vetted by an editor, and also, as you say, a tribute rather than a neutral article, it should be used with caution.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Delong, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say there are too many references to "primary sources in the article." Perhaps you're referring to the many citations based on The Ursula Franklin Reader. That book's introduction by the late Michelle Swenarchuk (pp. 1-37) is probably the best and most detailed overview of Franklin's thinking about such subjects as pacifism, feminism, ethics, technology, education, politics and religion that can be found anywhere. That introduction also contains biographical information, including, for example, details about Franklin's work with the Voice of Women. Or, if by "primary sources" you mean Franklin's own papers, talks and articles, why would these sources be in any way less authoritative than a couple of brief newspaper articles published the day after Franklin's death? I believe you put too much faith in what you call "an article vetted by an editor" as opposed to "a personal blog...a tribute rather than a neutral article." The article vetted by an editor has to get its information from somewhere even though no source is given for much of it. And, just because an article appears in the Toronto Star or on a CBC website, does not necessarily mean the information in it is accurate. News editors do not typically check facts. They look at spelling and punctuation, then slap a headline on. (Rigorous fact checking is done only at quality magazines.) A crucial test for Wikipedia editors is their assessment of the source of information. Judy Rebick and Michelle Swenarchuk worked closely with Franklin and are therefore credible sources of information about her life, work and ideas. I'm not saying this Wikipedia article could not benefit from additional information based on sources published after Franklin's death. Michael Valpy's extensive Globe and Mail piece, for example, could provide additional citations because Valpy himself is well acquainted with Franklin's life and work. (He is already cited in the Wiki entry.) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ursula-franklin-canadian-scientist-and-activist-had-a-passion-for-peace/article31123033/ Bwark (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bwark, some comments in reply:
  • Reputable news sources employ fact-checkers as well as copyeditors; I can't agree with your blanket characterization of them as basically unverified.
  • A biographer may write a 500 page book about a notable person, containing perhaps 5,000 pieces of factual information, as well as opinions, comparisons, analysis, and speculation. Which items should be in the encyclopedia article? It's indicative of the significance of a given event, activity, or expressed idea if it has also been included as key information in one or more other short articles published by reliable independent sources - so short articles have their uses.
  • A lifelong friend or close colleague may know from personal experience a great deal about a notable person's body of work, contribution to society, influence, etc., but may not be in a position to view the information dispassionately, especially if he or she participated in its development. Any of this type of material should be sourced where possible from independent sources (for example, someone knowledgeable in the field who has not worked closely with the subject). This is the same principle as peer review in academic journals. The Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS and WP:V both say that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources. ("All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality.")
  • About the blog: WP:V says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." But now that the subject is no longer living, the guideline says it's okay to use "with caution" personal blog entries from "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".
I've enjoyed discussing this with you, and I learned more about Ursula Franklin too, but I have to get back to my usual beat of improving and promoting abandoned draft articles before someone deletes them all.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Delong, I too have enjoyed our discussion. I am a retired journalism professor who has worked as a journalist for more than 40 years. Unfortunately, I know from experience that newspapers such as the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail do not routinely employ fact checkers, nor do their copy editors routinely check facts. They depend on their reporters to get things right. The same is true for the CBC's daily news programs, newscasts and online reports. While it's true that news organizations often have carefully researched and beautifully written obituaries prepared in advance of a prominent person's death, this was not the case with Ursula Franklin. It appears that the Canadian news media did not regard her as important enough for that kind of treatment --- although to be fair, the Globe did finally rise to the occasion by publishing that lengthy piece by Michael Valpy. Bwark (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ursula Franklin. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ursula Franklin. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ursula Franklin. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Journal of Physics festschrift

[edit]

The April 2018 issue of the Canadian Journal of Physics contains a commemorative festschrift in honor of Franklin, with tributes, essays, and perspective on Franklin's contributions. See Special Issue: Ursula Franklin commemorative Festschrift April 2018 Volume 96, Number 4. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ursula_Franklin&oldid=1213226942"