Talk:David Suzuki

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, and Joseph C. Ben-Ami, Executive Director of the Institute for Canadian Values, noticed that David Suzuki Foundation annual report 2005/2006 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)