Talk:Tim Cresswell

Wikifying

I deliberately de-wikified some words and dates as there were too many blue links (I felt) for such a short text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:46, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Mel, for future reference, an article is over-wikified if it has more links than lines. This one has 18 links in eight lines. Other guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Position

Is Cresswell a professor in the English sense i.e. does he hold a chair? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:31, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

He is indeed a professor 'in the English sense'. He was only a lecturer at Lampeter, became senior lecturer at Aberystwyth, then awarded a chair, all in a relatively short space of time. Twrist 10:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He has just left Aberystwyth for Bristol Uni

Who cares? This is really taking fan-dom to the extremes, along the lines of school juniors asking their housemaster whether Cholmondly-Fotheringay is going to captain the first XI this year (‘please sir, please sir, is it true that…’). Some people do really need to get a life…. 17/01/07

The peninsular (sic) of submerged hope

'The peninsular of submerged hope: Ben Reitman's social geography' should really be 'The peninsula of submerged hope...' but I haven't corrected it as it appears that the error appears in the name of the paper. Dave.Dunford 10:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why yet another entry on an obscure academic?

Wikipedia, it appears, has been colonized by academics who seem determined to achieve celebrity status. What is the reason for yet another entry on yet another obscure geographer? Who is doing all this? His cv is no doubt of interest to him and (perhaps) those who employ him, but apart from them, who cares? Is this another entry by el zalamero? If it is, then the latter should be awarded an additional BAPPP, to supplement the one he has already earned (see the discussion about David Harvey). Kip the Jiggler, 17/10/7.

Not obscure. He is a prominent geographer, people may want to look him up. Over and out. Zigzig20s 13:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong – he is obscure, since there is no contradiction between being obscure and being ‘a prominent [sic] geographer’. As for the fawningly deferential sentiment ‘people may want to look up to him’, this is just sad. No wonder the concept ‘prominent’ as applied by geographers to geographers is so devalued a term, with supplicants crawling around on their knees looking for someone to worship. Kip le Jacker, 18th January, 2007.

It's easy. You can sign your comment by typing --~~~~. It will make everyone's job easier. Thank you!--Francisco Valverde 15:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone who doesn’t understand English very well seems to have missed the point entirely. Why do such people intervene, when the issue being discussed goes completely over their head? Or is this just another geographer parading his (her?) erudition? Jic the Knacker, 18th January, 2007.

I don't suppose you are talking about me. But anyway...I was just trying to be helpful in reminding you of the use of --~~~~ to sign and date your contribution. You may consult the following link Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages

Let me quote Signing your posts on talk pages and other Wikipedia discourse (but not on articles) is not only good etiquette; it also facilitates discussion by helping other users to identify the author of a particular comment, to navigate talk pages, and to address specific comments to the relevant user(s), among other things. Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing as it helps other users to understand the progress and evolution of a work. Perhaps that way "we" so called "geographers" may help you...(!) Apart from that, I understand, my mother tongue, English, perfectly, thank you very much... --Francisco Valverde 18:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

About the above comment one can make the following observations. First, the insistence on a signature carries an implied threat, along the lines of ‘I want to know where you live…’. Given the problem of comprehension, however, this may not be evident to the person making the comment. Second, the continuous harping on an irrelevant theme (‘you must write in black ink, you must write in black ink…’) suggests that the person doing this mistakenly believes that such an intervention constitutes evidence of his/her erudition. And third, contrary to the assertion that English is ‘my mother tongue’, the constructions above (‘we so called "geographers"’ – either you are a geographer, or you are not) and below (‘In the contrary…’) do indeed suggest that English is not a language with which the person making the above comments is comfortable. In short, there is a problem of comprehension. To return to the issue under discussion, broadly speaking entries such as these – about purportedly ‘famous’ geography professors – resemble nothing so much as mini-fanzines, inaugurated/curated by a fan base composed (one imagines) of clients and acolytes (who else would want to do this?). One is tempted to suggest that the apparent erudition of a senior academic geographer labelled ‘famous’ by the fawning subordinates who post his/her ‘achievements’ on wikipedia is an effect less of the intellectual stature of the senior academic geographer concerned and more of the ignorance on the part of the fan/client (‘the ever-so-famous geography professor [fill in name, lots to choose from] discovered penicillin/gravity/the-meaning-of-life/[etc.] in the year 2004’). 20th January 2007.

As you please...You don't know me and it seems you won't either... Keep on fighting your own personal war. What a shame...! I won't bother anymore. Bye... "geographer figher"... --Francisco Valverde 12:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here he is http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2731 --203.214.69.199 16:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

More sources needed, not just a homepage

We should try not to depend on just a source, and specially, not just a homepage, it is a very biased source to include. Include a few more, please. In the contrary it is easy to be the victim of accusations of being obscure. Anyway, this article has more credit than many others I have read in wikipedia. --Francisco Valverde 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Imo this article should be split into a brief biography, and then focus on his ideas. Surely people care about this prominent geographer because he has put forward some interesting ideas about geography. Zigzig20s 15:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The first observation has missed the point, which is why the subject has an entry in the first place. Academic geographers appear to be the object of a promotional campaign via wikipedia. Whether or not any information about the subject of the entry is drawn from a different source is thus irrelevant. As for the second - ‘people care about this prominent geographer’ – oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! This fawning is becoming soooooo embarrassing (the ground is positively covered with drool, and the air smells of incense). Why not nominate the subject of this entry for a Nobel prize, and suggest that he get a knighthood as well? 18 Jan 2007.