Talk:Michel Gelobter

Helper for refs
-- Jytdog (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Note
This person is definitely notable, and has done and is doing important work. I think this article is completely justified and I strove to follow NPOV in writing it. Have not referred to Wikipedia stuff (e.g a connected contributor notice for me) to avoid streisanding. But I will not put this back in mainspace until it has been independently reviewed and if folks think i should have this deleted, I will do. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Notable, yes. Over-adjectivised also here.

"Michel Gelobter is a social entrepreneur and authority on environmental justice who has worked in academia, government, the nonprofit sector, and the for-profit sector." could easily be reduced to:

" ... is a social entrepreneur known for his views on environmental justice."

All the stuff about government and non-government, for-and-non-profit work is pretty much not helpful to readers. I admit to believing that accurate, non-puff material is more useful than interpolated marshmallow fluff . I also tend to disfavor bibliographies, as the longest ones generally have stuff which is unimportant. Some of this is about style, but the issue is that most of the readers get lost in sixty-plus word sentences, and have eyes quickly glaze over.

F'rinstance:

"In 2005, in response to the controversial essay, "The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World," by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, which argues that environmentalism is conceptually and institutionally incapable of dealing with climate change and should "die" so that a new politics can be born, Gelobter and others with an environmental justice perspective criticized it for not addressing the concerns of poor people who are not white,[8] and wrote The Soul of Environmentalism: Rediscovering transformational politics in the 21st century in response"

Try something closer to:

"In 2005, in response to essays[fn] asserting the inability of "environmentalism" to fully address climate change, Gelobter and others responded[fn] that they did not address the concerns of the non-white poor."

The essays can be cited by footnote, and this admittedly first draft does not need to go past that state. I also note that responses to Gelobter by any notable persons should also be noted. List his most important work, yes, but, in my opinion, shorter is almost invariably better. Which means such words as "inequitable" and the like which clearly seem to favor his positions likely should find the blue pencil. Thanks for asking my opinion, for sure. Collect (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Please feel free to edit btw.  :) Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do want to name those two essays. They are pretty core to his whole deal in my view. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with the page satisfying the notability requirements. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working it over!  Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A couple of comments
Overall an excellent article. I think you need more about his academic work. According to the January 2017 event announcement and other sources, he was the founding director of the Program on Environmental Policy at Columbia. A journal article from 1993 gives him that title, as well as "Assistant professor". We also need something about his role at UC Berkeley. Someplace earlier I found a listing for him as a UC Berkeley "lecturer", a term also used at his Singularity University bio. The current UCB campus directory does list him, with his home department being Environmental Science, Policy, and Management  We can't say that he teaches a class every other year, since we got that information directly from him (ironically not a reliable source). He is also listed as "faculty" at Singularity University, but that appears to be a think tank rather than an actual university..

A minor detail: You derived "born around 1962" from the fact that an April 2000 article described him as 38. I do that kind of thing too, but I make allowances for the date of the article; since this was published in April, odds are that he hadn't had his birthday yet that year so he actually turned 38 in 1999. So I would say "around 1961:" And I usually put it in parenthesis after the name: (born c. 1961). I then add the category "1961 births" even though it is approximate.

I agree with not mentioning any of the Wikipedia stuff. AFAIK it hasn't been reported by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Definitely not in the article but i meant via the  template here on the Talk page for me, per BLPCOI which ~could~ be seen as being at play here. I would need to link to the discussion and don't think that would be ... good.  Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)