Talk:David Harvey

message: Good article. Could perhaps do with being a little less hagiographic. Icundell 19:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: top

message: Yet another puff for an obscure academic. Wikipedia appears to be inundated with this kind of thing - 'I touched the hem of His garment, and He made me whole' - particularly as regards geographers. Has someone decided to put all the outpouring of their mutual admiration society on Wikipedia? We should be told. 15/9/06
Hey, I coughed recently, and a friend told me the noise it made sounded like 'geographee'. Can someone now write me up as a famous geographer? VS 8th October 2006
I'm working on it right now, in furtherance of my BAPPP qualification (see Discussion about Derek Gregory). 02-11-06
I didn't realize "fame" was the requirement to be included in wikipedia, virtually all academics are obscure.  In the grand scheme of things, the most famous intellectuals around are still obscure compared to say, Britney Spears, so should we just only include the famous?...11.30.06
If 'fame' is not the criterion for a wikipedia entry, then why are some academics but not others given write-ups as if they were 'famous'? The point concerns not those written-up in this manner, but those who do the writing-up. What do the latter hope to gain from this client-like behaviour (on which see the discussion about Michael J. Watts)? 02.12.06
Fair enough, the write ups could be better and less obsequious.  The Watts entry is particularly horrid.  Both of these geographers, while not particularly famous, are influential among geographers and non-geographers alike.  The Harvey entry here isn't as fawning as the Watts entry (which should be scrapped and re-written), but could be more critical.  Nevertheless, the intellectual influence of both these authors (Harvey especially) is such that the question of their inclusion in wikipedia should be beyond discussion.
Nothing is ever 'beyond discussion'. You’ve missed the point, which is the way ‘fame’ (or ‘influence’) is generated and reproduced. As is clear from the discussion about Watts, the writer of that entry is responsible not just for sycophantic reviews of books edited by Watts but also for similarly fawning entries about other geographers holding senior academic positions. The discussion about Watts details the errors made by the same wikipedia writer in attributing to geographers the critique of post-development that was in fact made earlier by non-geographers. What all this suggests is that ‘fame’ or ‘influence’ is an effect of unwarranted – and in this particular instance, inaccurate – puffery of senior academics by subordinates in the same discipline. 02.12.06
I agree that it is possible for both fame and influence (two distinct concepts) to be generated through wikipedia entries, although it is highly unlikely.  Your beef seems to be with the discipline of geography as a whole, where even its most influential figures are unworthy of an entry, with all such entries being merely "puff" pieces.
Again, you are wrong. As my reference to non-wikipedia materials (book reviews) demonstrates, the problem is much wider in scope: wikipedia is merely one particular manifestation of this. My beef, as you so inelegantly put it, is not with geographers per se but with academics who now aspire to celebrity status, and either on their own account or as a result of action by clients, are involved - either directly or indirectly - in self-promotion. Part of this involves making claims to have been the first to criticize this or that wrong theory that ignore earlier critiques which did the same. In this geographers do seem to feature prominently: perhaps it is just the one geographer responsible for a rather large number of sycophantic entries in wikipedia about his senior colleagues, a fawning approach that applies also to his non-wikipedia pieces of puffery, of which there are many. It is a problem, and will not be defined out of existence by claims about the intrinsically worthy nature of those puffed in this manner. The two things - clients composing puffs about senior academics, and the inflated reputation of the latter - are connected. 04.12.06
I don't know how any of you can be debating whether David Harvey deserves a Wikipedia entry or not! Come on - this is DAVID HARVEY. Do you know anything about this field? 19/10/2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.0.24 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there any Geographers who are not famous?

message: So...when is it a piece a piece of "puff" and when is it a legitmate entry?  That is the original issue raised here and in the Watts discussion.  Should the Harvey entry be deleted or not?  How about the entry on Marx?  That reads like a fairly fawning entry to me.  If your beef (sorry, I'm American, we're not so elegant over here) is with, as you concisely put it, "puffery", what are the standards for this?...12/4/06
You might start by asking what the purpose of these fawning wikipedia entries is. Alternatively, you could question the epistemology that underwrites them. Rather than focusing on a person, which immediately takes the entry into the territory of celebrity, in the process reproducing academic hierarchy, there could be a focus instead on ideas, where an individual is identified as one among many who have contributed to a process of intellectual formation. Such an approach has the additional advantage of moving away from the pervasive concept of academic-as-hero (carving ideas out of the ether) that informs these kinds of sycophantic presentation. Intellectual formation is never simply a case of one individual contribution, but a synthesis of knowledge generated by many. Recognition of this fact would also be a useful beginning. 04.12.06
Two additional points: being the ‘the world’s most cited academic geographer’ means nothing, in the sense that we do not know what is said by those who cite Harvey. It may simply be that ‘he is wrong’, or that ‘these ideas are not new’. And second, his being ‘credited with bringing back class…in the critique of global capitalism’ ignores the fact that for a lot of social scientists (especially non-geographers) the issue of class never actually went away. 26/12/06
Wikipedia isn't concerned with academics or epistemology, nor does it have a concept of what such things are, nor is it seeking one.  Wikipedia is a database of information that humans have been thought to seek due to its references in secondary sources, that is pretty self evident. Perhaps you could focus less on David Harvey's scholarly ability and more on your own? Just a thought. 76.103.47.66 (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Puffs?

message: ::"It has been cited widely (over 1000 times, by 2005, in a discipline where 50 citations are rare), and it makes a significant contribution to Marxian theory by arguing that capitalism annihilates space to insure its own reproduction."
::Shouldn't it be "MarxIST" instead? I may be wrong but I've never heard the word 'Marxian'...Zigzig20s 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim Cresswell, in Place, a short introduction, mentions David Harvey's marxist take on the notion of 'place'. So did my lecturer. I was not questioning that. However, does the word "marxian" actually exist? Zigzig20s 16:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to the point. This subsection is about the word 'marxian'. If you wish to hold forth about something else, feel free to edit another subsection. Anyway, should anyone know if this word exists, please enlighten me. If no one does, I shall change it to 'Marxist'. Zigzig20s 01:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  marxian? 

message: Any source to the school he attended? It was listed as Chatham Grammar School for Boys (and included in that article) but this was changed by an IP. Gary Kirk [Talk] 09:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt it was there, but sadly no longer. The Independent's miserably under-funded online service will be the explanation. Not to be found via my library's expensive online newspaper search service, either. Wingspeed (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: One of my university libary's expensive online news search services, newsbank.com, finds 7 articles when searching for Boyd Tonkin in 1998.  All 7 happen to be in The Independent, both before and after April 23, but none of them are anything like the article mentioned above. Petershank (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  School? 

message: :Image:DavidHarvey.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a misunderstanding. The image used now is :File:David Harvey.jpg. :File:DavidHarvey.JPG was deleted in 2008. --Beao 20:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DavidHarvey.JPG

message: Is it really necessary to mention how often Harvey is cited?In my opinion this is no criteria for the quality of his work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.136.52 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "is cited in..." 

message: I disagree that Harvey is most well known as a geographer. His influence in popular culture (where most readers of wikipedia come from) know him best for his social criticism. His social criticism and geography are intertwined, so I modestly suggest that we should refer to him as a 'social geographer'. I will be bold and make the move; until there is some discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 September 2011
:Social geography (an article I've admittedly left half-finished) is usually considered a subfield of human geography in the English-speaking world, so your attempt to catch his wide influence by a single phrase might actually result in the opposite. Personally, I've never considered him a "social geographer" in this narrow sense, and when performing a web search on this combination of words, I find a lot of results, but not a single one by anyone I would consider to be a "social geographer" him-/herself, so it seems to be a label from outside the field. Interestingly, those who dub/dubbed themselves "social geographer" (for example, Emrys Jones, Anne Buttimer or David Ley) are barely called that by their colleagues, either (I realise there generally is a big difference between them and David Harvey in total citation numbers and especially those from outside of geography, but still...). It seems social geographers know best about the ambiguous nature of the word. I'm afraid that the attempt to find a "catch-it-all phrase" is exactly why we're discussing such vague terms here, just like "social theorist" used before. To put it briefly, I'm of the opinion that the article's name should, first and foremost, lead to disambiguation in the shortest way still describing the article's subject in a sufficiently precise manner. Imo, that's what "geographer" does. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvey is a social geographer 

message: Man, what a hagiography this article is!--201.81.226.68 (talk) 13:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seriously is. 84.206.25.242 (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on David Harvey. 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/20040628140545/http://www.megacities.nl/lecture_4/possible.pdf to http://www.megacities.nl/lecture_4/possible.pdf
*Added  tag to http://132.239.126.220/mp3/8800.mp3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061017185906/http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/8800.rm to http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/8800.rm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002001343/http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~tbarnes/chapters.html to http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~tbarnes/chapters.html
*Added  tag to http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=753
*Added  tag to http://coblitz.codeen.org:3125/uc.princeton.edu/main/images/stories/podcast/DavidHarvey.mp3
*Added  tag to http://coblitz.codeen.org:3125/uc.princeton.edu/main/images/stories/podcast/vodcast/DavidHarvey.mp4
*Added archive https://archive.is/20080907110347/http://urban.ssc.upenn.edu//events/lecture/2006lecture.html to http://urban.ssc.upenn.edu//events/lecture/2006lecture.html
*Added  tag to http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1461
*Added  tag to http://coblitz.codeen.org/uc.princeton.edu/main/images/stories/podcast/20070209DavidHarvey.mp3
*Added  tag to http://coblitz.codeen.org/uc.princeton.edu/main/images/stories/podcast/vodcast/20070209DavidHarvey.mp4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100913233843/http://www.thersa.org/events/vision/vision-videos/david-harvey-the-crises-of-capitalism/ to http://www.thersa.org/events/vision/vision-videos/david-harvey-the-crises-of-capitalism/
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) 00:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified