Talk:Clive Hamilton

Merge

The list of books would fit in fine, and add needed strength to this short article. DGG ( talk ) 13:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Elekhh (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Political orientation

Removed this paragraph from the article due to lack of consensus and emerging edit warring around 5 December - the by-election day, when Clive Hamilton was a candidate for a seat in the Australian Parliament.

Hamilton's work offers a critique of modern capitalism and consumerism, generally from a "left-wing perspective", although he has also been criticised from the left as being right-wing., including his support for internet censorship.

Please find consensus here about best description of his political orientation. In any case, this paragraph should be in the Political career section and not his Work which is much broader than the political realm. Elekhh (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Removed references (not supporting any text)

The following are refs I removed because the information they were supposed to be supporting was removed. They are generally about the response to his book Scorcher and its claims of climate denialist behaviour by Australian mainstream media. Donama (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

1. oz and free speech Hamilton, Clive. "The Australian, Free Speech and Hypocrisy". Newmatilda.com. Archived from the original on 2010-05-31. Retrieved 2010-05-31.
2. feb 2006 speech Minchin, Liz (2006-02-21). "'Dirty dozen' accused over fossil fuels". The Age. p. 3. Retrieved 2010-05-31.
3. wilkinson review Wilkinson, Marian (2007-04-21). "Clearing the air of spin". The Sydney Morning Herald. p. News Review section, p. 22. Retrieved 2010-05-31.

Newer merge proposal

And so the List of books by Clive Hamilton was merged and now appears at Clive Hamilton#books. This change was made a long time ago.

But now it seems we have some new merge proposals. Elekhh, please provide the rationales for the current string of merge proposals. Johnfos (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Elekhh, I second Johnfos' request. I'm not sure I would support it because it would end up making the Hamilton article too long, but will wait for you to provide rationales. Donama (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, was about to provide it: the article is unbalanced with too much weight on Hamilton's political career, while the section dedicated for his writings is virtually empty. Clearly the "Work", section should contain a summary of each of his books, i.e. the lead of the articles on single publications. However most of these articles are barely a paragraph or two, and remained so over the last 2-3 years. In the meanwhile navigating between the separate articles is tedious and does not provide a good overview, as an encyclopaedia should. Therefore I suggest consolidating them into the main article. This will result in two immediate improvements: the article will be far better balanced, and will provide a better and more accessible overview. The book titles would remain as redirects. If the article would grow too long, could be split again, although it seems a long way. Have a look in comparison to Tim Flannery, with only a few books split, it looks more like an article. I am fully open to which articles would make sense to merge, and which should remain separate. Note that I did not tag Growth Fetish, one of his most successful books, which has an article with a bit more content. On the other hand I don't think each of the books would need a separate article, and therefore I would also suggest removing the red links from the list. --Elekhh (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this proposal- I think it's an excellent suggestion, and should absolutely be done.

On a side note, I would like to suggest an article or page on his newest book Requiem For A Species: Why We Resist The Truth About Climate Change (2010) might be in order, as I notice there is no page for it. I have limited access to the intenet currently and do not have the time necesarry to devote to writing a whole new page, but it seems like one should really exist for this, since it's his most current book.

Back to the topic at hand: I am in absolute agreement that this page leans far too heavily towards his political pursuits and not nearly enough on his academic work or career as an author and speaker. I have been planning on making a few additions and alterations to this page (as I've been in contact with him directly and have been provided with some better links and information) so if others will be overhauling it also, I could really use the feedback/ help since I have limited Wiki experience. Esmeralda.rupp (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that several of Hamilton's books are important enough in their own right that they deserve standalone articles, but agree that could be done if and only if the Works section in the Hamilton article grows too long. I think the first step to doing the merge should be to add details of each of his significant works (almost all of them are significant) in summary style. Then we can look at changing the standalone article in each case to a redirect if there's little information being added by having a standalone article. How does that sound? Donama (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Donama- That sounds entirely reasonable and probably like the best way to approach this. Also, I'm going to insert a quote here from a letter that Mr. Hamilton sent me recently regarding this page: "There are quite a few (errors) on the current wiki page, eg. having me as both a professor at CAPPE and holding the VC's chair (they are in fact the same position)..." Is there a good way to fix this that you know of? I really appreciate the help in overhauling this page, it definitely needs multiple perspectives to remain objective and accurate. Esmeralda.rupp (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Esmeralda.rupp

• Oppose merge. One advantage of having the book stubs separate is that they can be categorised more precisely, facilitating reader access to these articles. Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough, The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-Secular Ethics, and Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government Is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate are all perfectly adequate and notable book stubs which should not be merged. Johnfos (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I tend to agree. Donama (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... I also support the suggestion above that Requiem for a Species should have its own article too, as it is quite notable with much media coverage, see [1], [2], [3]. And there is some biographical info on Hamilton here. Johnfos (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see how that is supposed to be the case: the book articles are either in mega-categories like Category:2005 books with over 400 entries, or in indeed more precise categories like Category:Books by Clive Hamilton which almost nobody accesses. Most of the book articles have few incoming links, mostly from trivial see also sections, so is not surprising that the number of views is also very low, below 200 per month. Once again, I just want to make clear I am not contesting the notability of each of these books, I just consider that having one good article is much more valuable than having ten stubs. And I see no indication that any of these stubs would be expanded "within a reasonable amount of time", given that they remained so over 2-3 years. Also consider that all of these articles fall bellow 1,000 characters readable prose size, for which our guideline recommends merging. On a side note, upon further thought, I am ready to remove Affluenza from the proposal, given that is co-authored by Richard Denniss, is the only one with a higher rate of views/month, has a Simple English (stub) version, and in case somebody takes the time to work on the book articles probably should be the first priority. --Elekhh (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Elekhh, I'm in agreement that one larger and more complete article would be more desirable than several fragments or stubs. As a reader, I'd be more likely to read a complete article than click on a bunch of tiny or incomplete ones. Also, @ Johnfos - thanks for the link with additional info- are you planning on incorperating any of the biographical information from that site?I could if you don't want to, though I'll be offline for after today until next Sunday (11/14)Esmeralda.rupp (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Esmeralda.rupp

There is no reason why we can't have a good solid Clive Hamilton article as well as some book stubs which provide more detailed info about his most notable books. Johnfos (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Stubs per definition don't provide more information than should be in the main article. --Elekhh (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Elekhh, thank you for withdrawing the merge proposal for Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough. The other two titles which I mentioned above (Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government Is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate and The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-Secular Ethics) both have more than 1k of readable prose and are both also perfectly adequate stubs. Thank you for also explaining that you are not contesting the notability of these stubs.

With regards to categorisation, consider Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government Is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate. Categories which are included are Category:Books about Australian politics and Category:Books about democracy, so even if someone has never heard of Clive Hamilton, they can easily access this book according to subject area.

It seems to me that you are mainly trying to expand and balance the Clive Hamilton article and saw these mergers as an easy way to do that. But why not just do some internet searching and locate some new content to use? There is plenty of it out there. And why not just keep the book stubs and expand the discussion of books in the CH article anyway. No problem. Johnfos (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, categories like "Books about Australian politics" are barely used and if at all, probably by editors, and not so much by readers. Also I do not intend to start any wikilawyering about the actual prose size of these articles (are bulletpoints counted? is 1040 characters substantially more than 1,000?). The rationale remains the same: sure the articles could be expanded, but they haven't been over a long period of time, and as it stands I believe the dynamics of expanding Wiki content on CH would be improved by some consolidation, as a practical strategy. --Elekhh (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the Clive Hamilton#Works section according to the two main themes in Hamilton's books. Now the article doesn't have that big gap in the middle anymore. So thankfully there is no need to try to merge content from elsewhere to fill it. Johnfos (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tags as more than one week has passed and there is no consensus to merge. Johnfos (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not about merge but the problem raising it; how to handle his work

I've been looking at the Jared Diamond article, particularly the 'Work' section. I think we should try and model a the 'Work' section in this article after that. Note that there is a summary or narrative about his academic work throughout his life with links to books as needed. I think before we think about merging specific details of books into this article's 'Work' section, some attempt should be made to write a coherent section, in summary style if needed, about the his work and how one progressed to another. For this, there needs to be some resource available which has already analysed Hamilton's work. Anyone know of any? Donama (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we don't need a full analysis of Hamilton's work but could just have a paragraph on each of the main topic areas he has explored. This is my rough draft of how we could discuss his climate change work:

Hamilton has written about the issue of climate change politics over a period of some 15 years. His most recent book Requiem for a Species (2010) explores climate change denial and its implications. His earlier books, Scorcher (2007) and Running from the Storm (2001), were critical of the Australian Government's efforts, especially in relation to the Kyoto Protocol. Hamilton's general view about climate change is that the "world is on a path to a very unpleasant future and it is too late to stop it".

This is just a starting point and could obviously be expanded. But it illustrates how each of the book stubs can be linked to as part of a broader picture of Hamilton's work. -- Johnfos (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a possible starting point for another paragraph on another one of Hamilton's pet subjects:

Hamilton has written several books about consumerism and overconsumption. Affluenza (2005) explores the shallowness of modern consumer life. Growth Fetish (2003) became an Australian best-seller and suggests that the pursuit of growth has become a fetish, which has not led to any real improvements in levels of happiness.

-- Johnfos (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellently done. I'd put that into the article for a really good start -- provided you can supply reasonable refs (shouldn't be too difficult) for the latter paragraph. Donama (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... Have added some content to the Works section so the article doesn't have that big gap in the middle anymore. Johnfos (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Copyvio

Esmerelda sent a quote from a letter from Hamilton above: Mr. Hamilton sent me recently regarding this page: "There are quite a few (errors) on the current wiki page, eg. having me as both a professor at CAPPE and holding the VC's chair (they are in fact the same position)..."

Anyway it looks like that information in the lead of the article is sourced from his page at CAPPE (http://www.cappe.edu.au/staff/clive-hamilton.htm) and has not been copy-edited from the original so is currently a copyright violation. Let's first fix that and second, Esmerelda, we need a source to cite from to change information and if his CAPPE biograqphy is wrong he needs to ask CAPPE to publish an updated one. Donama (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

From Clive "On my designation, maybe it's best to leave it as it is. I was appointed to the Vice-Chancellor's chair then we (the University and I) talked about where I should be located (deciding on CAPPE) and what the name of my position should be (we settled on "Professor of Public Ethics"). So it is not wrong, but may mislead people into thinking I hold two positions."

I think than maybe it should just be reworded slightly to improve accuracy. Shall I begin the rewrite of the initial paragraph, or would you like to? Also, good observation about the copyvio donama- I did not even see that. Esmeralda.rupp (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Esmeralda.rupp

You're welcome to reword it, so long as the meaning is as intended by the sources and you don't add anything that's not in the sources. Donama (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and amended the first portion of the article to hopfully avoid the copyvio, and additionally to *attempt* to clarify that the two positions overlap. see what you think. I did, however, notice that the third aticle referenced (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/lets-have-a-debate-aunty/story-e6frg996-1225839746178) referring to his status as a "well known climate change advocate" was a pretty poor source and only gives him cursory mention in the text. I'm sure there's got to be a better article for verifying his status as "well known". Any ideas?Esmeralda.rupp (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Esmeralda.rupp

Talking of copyvio, the new lead image needs an OTRS from the license holder (i.e. photographer or Allen&Unwin), otherwise will be quickly deleted. If you manage to get one for this image or another one, I suggest uploading it to Commons, not Wikipedia, so that is available for all Wikimedia projects, after all this article might be translated into other languages as well. --Elekhh (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted the copyright holder and they have said that they will (probably already have) sent in the form letter to Wikipedia that should resolve the issue with the image. They have said they are happy to have Wikipedia use it. The vio-notice should be removed shortly. When it is, I'll absolutely upload it to commons, but I want to make sure it's cleared up here first.Esmeralda.rupp (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Esmeralda.rupp

That sounds good. Created a category for the growing collection --Elekhh (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate change advocate?

The term "climate change advocate" is in the lede, properly sourced, but has no credible meaning. It's been proposed that it be changed to climate change mitigation advocate, which makes sense, is probably accurate, but does not have a source presented. If someone could provide a good source for that, it would be helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it in its entirety, and the source was not appropriate for claims about a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clive Hamilton. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208102729/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-14358-215.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-14358-215.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Clive Hamilton. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706114105/http://www.cappe.edu.au/staff/clive-hamilton.htm to http://www.cappe.edu.au/staff/clive-hamilton.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110303052903/http://news.csu.edu.au/director/experts.cfm?itemID=072AFA2E03374E63F2595A75111AF7B5 to http://news.csu.edu.au/director/experts.cfm?itemID=072AFA2E03374E63F2595A75111AF7B5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706114151/http://www.cappe.edu.au/docs/staff-cvs/hamilton.pdf to http://www.cappe.edu.au/docs/staff-cvs/hamilton.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041227094526/http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2003111901 to http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2003111901

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)