Talk:Jeremy Rifkin/Archive 1

Link to Video Interview with Jeremy Rifkin
Hello. I have a query. In the past, I have posted a link to an exclusive video interview with Jeremy Rifkin and it has now been removed because, according to the person who removed it, it was considered spam. In fact, the link was posted to enrich and enhance the quality of the article as a whole by providing new and relevant information. Never was my posting of this link done with the intention to create spam or any other malignant activity. It is a pity that readers of wikipedia can no longer take advantage of this video interview, which, I think (and you may judge for yourself by clicking here: http://www.thetalent.org/Video/frm-main.php?show=18&quality=stop) is an important source of knowledge for those interested in his work. Would the readers of this talkpage and whoever who has the authority to remove links please let me know whether they agree to add this link or whether they consider it of no interest to the article in question?Taleinfo 11:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections regarding the above, I have posted the video interview with Jeremy Rifkin. Taleinfo 18:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Hydrogen ?
The point is the adoption of Renewably Generated Energy. Whether or not that entails hydrogen is completely beside the point. I will retract that statement if anyone can show that such is NOT beside the point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.187.233 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Can we get a better picture in here?
The current one is very dark, I can barely see his face. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.222.203.224 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC).


 * done. --Kurt Jansson (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

POV
This article seems to have some subtle POV issues in favor of the subject. It would benefit from reduction of peacock terms and weasel words.D-rew (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Link for book 'the biotech future'
Just wondering what purpose does this link serve?

All it does is take you back to the page you were just looking at (Jeremy Rifkin).

Lachy123 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

date of birth
I'm not sure, but on other webpages he is 2 years older. e.g. on the German wikipage his birth is dated to 1943. But it is not mentioned on the foet website. Can someone take a look at this, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashbangbumm (talk • contribs) 01:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a link but, in these page, the date is 1943. I think it's just an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.54.100 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's strange, 'couse in 5 Wikipedia articles (I mean in 5 languages) it's written like born in 1945, and in the others ones is written like born in 1943. Somebody can look for it in some academic page? --AlexanderFreud (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Region?
Do bio boxes typically include "region," what type of region does that denote, and is "The West" a region of said type?

76.93.141.175 (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Economist or political scientist?
The article mentions that he has a masters degree in international relations (which I would think is a subfield of political science). But he is referred to as an economist. Did he get an economics degree at some point? I know there are examples of people accepted as economists despite the lack of a degree in the field, but is there a good reason for Rifkin?TGGP (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.foet.org/JeremyRifkin.htm, Rifkin's own site, states that he has a degree in economics from Wharton.

76.93.141.175 (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not accurate to say that Rifkin is "an economist". He has an undergraduate degree in economics, but has never held an official position as an economist or instructor in economics. (I have bachelor's degrees in history & biology, but I would never present myself as either an historian or biologist.) Propose that reference to his being "an economist" be removed. 110.8.254.2 (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Wharton?
Is there available evidence that Rifkin is still a Senior Lecturer at Wharton? There's no faculty listing for him on the webpage of the program cited. However, Senior Lecturer isn't a full faculty position, so they might not list him there. It's odd that a search of Penn's site didn't turn him up anywhere if he still has an association, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.122.155 (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

On another note, of more general character: if there's a publicist that continually adds and watches over this, it would be nice if it were shortened considerably. There's a great deal of self-promoting chaff in here, which makes it harder to find pieces of substance. It's not essential to know everything nice that's ever been said about him, for example. He's no Einstein, and since Einstein's article isn't littered with all the nice things that have ever been said, those of lesser persons should not be either. The excess of compliments actually suggests someone's lack of confidence (or that things are conscripted whole-cloth from his own marketing website), rather than an authentic wikipedia article. Anyway, this is doubtless just me being irrationally bothered by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.122.155 (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I just removed 3 consecutive major sections contributed by User:63.139.250.66 in. The last 2 used Rifkin's writings unfairly. The first is not as blatantly copy-pasted, but is more than close paraphrasing looking at and. I don't see any indication that the material copied is suitably licensed for the usage we did. This content was added more than 6 months ago, so I'm sorry for modifications which will be lost.

The problematic IP editor has contributed a lot more to this article and to The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World:. I'm therefore tagging the article Cv-unsure until a topical editor can properly review the other contributions. Some of them are very acceptable. --Chealer (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears the editor now uses the account User:Flourish4520. I removed another section added by that account. --Chealer (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Why no mention that Rifkin is a pseudo-scientist and crank?
This is the nutjob who claimed AIDS was a CIA plot brewed out of cattle kidneys. Why is he being fawned over, and no a single mention of his track record of nonsense and bullshit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.65.173 (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The opening text is conscripted whole-cloth from his own website, so I think that's the general source of the fawning tone. I don't know anything about his more specific views, but I have noticed a shocking amount of cut-and-paste in this article.2601:7:2300:BE:3141:F4C:25E0:D90E (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism of M2 Communications Press release
While wikifying the citation for the Li Hejun quotes, I noticed the entire paragraph was a direct copy paste from the bloomberg article that actually appears to be Bloomberg Churnalists copy pasting a press release from M2 Communications who probably simply put on their wire a Press Release created by Li Hejun's publishers. I don't have time to paraphrase this adequately, but if no one fixes it in the next week, WP guidelines says it should be nuked, and I will do so- even though it appears to be pertinent to the article. J JMesserly (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
Earwig's Copyvio Detector says that it is 98% confident that this is copied from http://www.thethirdindustrialrevolution.com/masterPlan.cfm. I am going to look for a clean version in the history and if I can't find one I will gut out almost all of the stuff that is copied. Not much will be left. What a pity. Not! If the spammers are not happy then they can count themselves lucky this isn't being put up for speedy deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work Daniel. Thanks.  J JMesserly (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ascendancy
Why is he categorized as Jewish American? Does he regard himself as a Jew? Or is it because he had Jewish Russian grandparents? In that case, I think that Russian American is more appropriate. 177.194.38.10 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Jeremy Rifkin. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959181,00.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

General believability...
left a vaguely bad taste in my mouth.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.43.22 (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Biography
The biographical material lacks citations and often contradicts information provided in the Times magazine article found in the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.71.59 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeremy Rifkin. 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/20131203000614/http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/07/113_110723.html to http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/07/113_110723.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602190520/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-24/china-s-new-leaders-burnish-image-by-revealing-personal-details to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-24/china-s-new-leaders-burnish-image-by-revealing-personal-details
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C959181%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeremy Rifkin. 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/20110511115129/http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ucs/cg-chapter-1.pdf to http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ucs/cg-chapter-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Bold edit to trim excess lead

 * Jeremy Rifkin: Difference between revisions

I made no effort to place trimmed information in the text below, some of which is worth salvaging. For a lead this long, do we really need to list every political dignitary? I found those portions extremely tedious. In hockey, they say "act like you've scored before" (e.g. beyond a certain point, name dropping looks insecure).

Some reduction achieved by simplifying language, in addition to the snips.

I think this is now closer in size to what is warranted, without leaving anything less than a sufficiently august perception. &mdash; MaxEnt 04:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Came back and trimmed some books: The Hydrogen Economy (2002), The Age of Access (2000), The Biotech Century (1998), and The End of Work (1995).
 * These don't seem that recent to me. &mdash; MaxEnt 05:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeremy Rifkin. 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/20120325193639/http://foet.org/img/University%20Of%20Pennsylvania%20Student%20Award%20of%20Mert.jpg to http://foet.org/img/University%20Of%20Pennsylvania%20Student%20Award%20of%20Mert.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002055/http://foet.org/press/interviews/EuropeanEnergyReview06-08.pdf to http://foet.org/press/interviews/EuropeanEnergyReview06-08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeremy Rifkin. 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/20110312060718/http://www.vjolt.net/vol5/issue2/v5i2a5-Naik.html to http://www.vjolt.net/vol5/issue2/v5i2a5-Naik.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Links to similar people
See Also Hope you appreciate the kick-off assist,SvenAERTS (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lester_R._Brown
 * Jeremy_Rifkin

Jeremy Rifkin
Please allow the removal of the following from the Jeremy Rifkin page as it is factually incorrect:

Also in 1989 Rifkin with a group of environmentalists attempted to prevent launch of NASa rocket that was expected to lift Galileo space probe, claiming it carried a "very high risk" of explosion and "spraying deadly plutionium" over the territory of USA. The lawsuit was eventually rejected and the Galileo mission succeeded.

, such as claims that theory of evolution is a product of "19th century industrial capitalism" as well as frequent use of strawman fallacy.

"I regard Algeny as a cleverly constructed tract of anti-intellectual propaganda masquerading as scholarship. Among books promoted as serious intellectual statements by important thinkers, I don't think I have ever read a shoddier work. Damned shame, too, because the deep issue is troubling and I do not disagree with Rifkin's basic pleas for respecting the integrity of evolutionary lineages. But devious means compromise good ends, and we shall have to save Rifkin's humane conclusion from his own lamentable tactics."

- Stephen Jay Gould 71.223.147.176 (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This comment was moved from my talk page. Since I'm not familiar with the subject, I'll let those who are asses the merit of its rationale. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of line
Hello,

"Algeny" has been quoted by supporters of pseudo-scientific "Intelligent design" movement and highlighted as one of the books that help "dismantle Darwinism".[52]

Should be removed. If you look at the source, it is a user comment on a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.147.176 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree and done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeremy Rifkin II
Hi M. Bitton,

Thank you for moving my comment from the other day to the Jeremy Rifkin "talk" page. I understand that you do not know the subject matter well enough and are unable to judge the merits. Since nobody has responded on the talk page, I am hoping that you are able to help me with a couple of objective points:

This line should NOT be included in the Jeremy Rifkin Wikipedia entry:

"Algeny" has been quoted by supporters of pseudo-scientific "Intelligent design" movement and highlighted as one of the books that help "dismantle Darwinism".[52]

--- If you follow the source, it leads to a user comment on a blog. This is not a rigorous source. I have never seen another Wikipedia entry that quotes a user comment on a blog. This seems to fall below the accepted standards for Wikipedia sourcing.

This line should be rewritten or removed:

Rifkin's work is controversial due to lack of scientific rigor in his claims as well as some of the tactics he has used to promote his views, such as claims that theory of evolution is a product of "19th century industrial capitalism" as well as frequent use of strawman fallacy.[51]

--- If you follow the source, it is indeed critical of Mr. Rifkin's scientific rigor. However, there is no mention of strawman fallacy. Moreover, the wording of this particular sentence is very broad stroke. The author of the cited article is critical of Mr. Rifkin, but the way that this sentence is written implies that Mr. Rifkin's work is generally accepted as controversial.

This should be looked at:

I regard Algeny as a cleverly constructed tract of anti-intellectual propaganda masquerading as scholarship. Among books promoted as serious intellectual statements by important thinkers, I don't think I have ever read a shoddier work. Damned shame, too, because the deep issue is troubling and I do not disagree with Rifkin's basic pleas for respecting the integrity of evolutionary lineages. But devious means compromise good ends, and we shall have to save Rifkin's humane conclusion from his own lamentable tactics.

— Stephen Jay Gould, "Integrity and Mr. Rifkin", Discover Magazine, January 1985; reprinted in Gould's essay collection An Urchin in the Storm, 1987, Penguin Books, p. 230

--- I do not disagree with including criticism in the criticism section. However, this seems really out of place for a Wikipedia entry. This is a prolonged and lengthy quote about an individual's personal feelings about Jeremy Rifkin's work. This is not reflective of Mr. Rifkin's wider body of work. If you want to include Gould's critique of Jeremy Rifkin, perhaps we should find a way to make this more in line with Wikipedia standards. If the moderators insist on keeping this prolonged quote, I would request that the following be added at the end of the Reception category on Wikipedia:

Jeremy Rifkin has written a most remarkable book on the coming Biotech Century, full of information that, as far as I know, has for the first time been collected in such completeness. It deserves to be read by everybody, be he or she optimist or pessimist." - Erwin Chargaff

In its review of the book, the journal Nature observed that "Rifkin does his best work in drawing attention to the growing inventory of real and potential dangers and the ethical conundrums raised by genetic technologies... At a time when scientific institutions are struggling with the public understanding of science, there is much they can learn from Rifkin's success as a public communicator of scientific and technological trends."[27]

Thank you, M. Bitton! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.153.104 (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above comment was moved from my talk page.


 * @98.190.153.104: I suggest you wait until the semi-protection of the article expires (on the 21st of March) and be WP:BOLD. Just remember to leave an explanation in your edit summary (something like "see talk page" will do in this case). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Almost immediately the protection expires the blanking starts again? I've reverted it as clearly there is no meaningful discussion and no consensus here. I guess we need to protect the article again? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

- Did you not see my commentary above? If you'd like to have meaningful discussion, the floor is yours. Dc4110 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw it. In fact, I saw it pasted in far too many different places. I saw nobody engage with it, which is fair as it is excessively verbose and seems more designed to bludgeon than to persuade. I see absolutely no consensus for removing content. I just see unjustified blanking. Ever since this article was created it has been extensively edited by people seeking to promote the subject in a non-neutral manner by adding praise and removing criticism. This has to stop! If a few established editors favour the removal then I'll accept that as consensus. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove or reduce the year-by-year coverage?
This article is being built up into a tediously over-detailed blow by blow account of every single thing Rifkin does. I think it needs to be condensed down to what is actually important. I also worry that this article is predominantly being added to by anonymous users, which is very unusual for a Wikipedia article, and I wonder if there is promotional editing going on here. It seems that many of the IPs share the same vision of building this up into a detailed CV like article. I'm wondering how extensively it needs to be reduced? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I see some of that stuff just got removed as copyvio. That doesn't bode well. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I just reverted another chunk plagiarised from a NY Times article. It might be worth somebody doing a deeper analysis into how much copyvio and COI there is here. It is likely that the Copyvio detector is only finding the more obvious stuff and there may be more subtle problems too. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)