Talk:Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is not assigned to a WikiProject or workgroup. Please help with your suggestions.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · history · watch · refresh) This article is deficient in many respects about its long and illustrious history, including why it was changed from CSIR to the CSIRO (ie the Red Scare and Menzies wish to get rid of Rivett).--Grahamec 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease 2 Warning 3 Divisions 4 NPOV alertness 5 CSIRO diet 6 Move 'recent controversies' 7 Former ACOTF 8 A source of sources...and other things 9 Acronym 10 Fair use rationale for Image:CSIRO.png

[edit] Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease

I am looking for some reviews for the article rabbit haemorrhagic disease. Thank you!

[edit] Warning

There is something basically wrong with this entry. Brya 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divisions

The list of divisions is incomplete and incorrect... however the whole list [1] is rather long! I will leave it up to someone else to decide what to do about it.--Russell E 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is the divisions are constantly being changed, reading through I can see there are divisions (such as the ICT centre) that no longer exist and have been formed into different divisions. There is an inside joke that CSIRO stands for Constant State of Internal Reorginisation. aliasd·U·T 07:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV alertness

I notice on first reading this article is overwhelmingly positive... which is fine, but makes alarm bells ring for me because it makes me think someone biased towards the institution wrote much of the initial content or it was derived almost exclusively from an official website.

Specifically I noticed how the "highlights" of CSIRO have been listed near the start of the article and that these included "the successful introduction of biological controls"... such as Myxamatosis and the Calicivirus. I am not sure that either of these can be automatically termed "successful" or a "highlight". I just removed the word successful but more changes could be warranted. — Donama 05:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the research contributions of CSIRO are very important; more important than its structure, for example. I support them appearing at the start of the article. Of course you are right that NPOV wording needs to be used, and any important "lowlights" need to be given equal footing with the "highlights". Snottygobble 05:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSIRO diet

There is a thing I've heard people mention called the "CSIRO diet" which I assume is a diet designed by CSIRO that's optimal according to Australian nutritional guidelines. Mention of this ought to be included if it is indeed a project of the CSIRO. — Donama 05:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"The CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet" was published last year by a group of CSIRO scientists. It was a national bestseller, but it was panned by Nature for an alleged conflict of interest in that it was funded by the Australian livestock industry, and recommends eating larger quantities of red meat that most dieticians would support. Snottygobble 05:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's encouragement of red was also specifically criticised by some for increasing the risk of bowel cancer, or so they claim. --cj | talk 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move 'recent controversies'

I think the recent controversies section would fit the flow of the article better if it was moved below flagship initiatives, as it doesn't seem to fit well under 2 historical lists. Any objections? Colonel Tom 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I've changed my mind. My proposed move would not benefit the article. Colonel Tom 03:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former ACOTF

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation was the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight on 23 April 2006. For details on how the article improved, see the ACOTF history

[edit] A source of sources...and other things

First off I have to admit that I will not make any substantial additions to this document as I currently work there. However, I will make small edits and points out mistakes when they appear.

I suggest that people wanting to write more about CSIRO, get their hands on a book called 'Fields of Discovery'. The [ASAP website] at University of Melbourne is a good site for information about the history of Australian science.

Spindocbob 13:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acronym

Is CSIRO pronounced as if you spelled each letter out, or as "see-ess-eye-row," or some other way I'm not thinking about? (I assume Australians refer to the organization by its acronym, than its full name.) Just wondering. -HiFiGuy 03:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually "see-ess-eye-are-owe" (said quickly, run together), sometimes "sighrow". --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

ScottDavis is on the money. The shortened form of 'Sigh-Row' is used internally or by those in the science field. The public typically use the longer form. Spindocbob 02:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CSIRO.png

Image:CSIRO.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)