This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia Low‑importance David Goodall (botanist) 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Plants Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about a botanist or someone who contributed to the field of botany. Death: Suicide Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Low-importance).

There seems to be too much quotation and not enough citation of secondary sources especially around this guys mental state at 102, eg it’s unclear why a 102yo would expect an airline permit him to travel overseas. And also there’s nothing about the Perth medical association trying to stop this guy from going overseas to kill him self 101.183.21.131 (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User talk:101.183.21.131 he was 104. And, I would like to see other likely responses to his death. I find it utterly pointless, and devalues all his positive work and campaigning in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.228.58 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of this article says:

He was influential in the early development of numerical methods in ecology, particularly the study of vegetation.

Does this mean what mathematicians call "numerical methods" or what somewhat remote from that field calls "numerical methods"? Often those who are naive about mathematics actually treat "numerical" and "mathematical" synonymously. My question is mainly prompted by the list of titles of his publications, which makes it look as if maybe "statistical methods" would be the more appropriate term to use here. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While Goodall's highly publicized death is currently in the news, this article proportionally devotes far too much weight to his final days, creating a tonal imbalance. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine, and don't need to pad with excessive quotations, human interest trivia, or relatively mundane things like an office kerfuffle at age 102. Currently the death section rivals his entire career section in length, despite ultimately worthless for those seeking to understand who he was: a distinguished statistical ecologist. I implore all editors to resist the itch of recentism, or of covering pablum just because 100 newspapers repeat it, and strive to emphasize the facts that will still be relevant in 5 years. For one example of a balanced, well-structured (albeit brief) biography on Goodall, see: McMillan, Fiona (10 May 2018). "In control until the end, eminent scientist David Goodall, 104, dies". Cosmos.. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A death such as his, pointless beyond belief, will always colour and in my view devalue his work. It is impossible to ignore it. Silly old fool. But RIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.228.58 (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article lead with calling Goodall "Australian" or "British-Australian"? There is no doubt he was born and raised in the UK. However, many recent articles describe him simply as "the Australian scientist..." or "British-born scientist..." The contributors notes in the book Evolution of Desert Biota. University of Texas Press. 1976. ISBN 0292720157., edited by Goodall himself, states "after a period of research in what is now Ghana, (he) took up residence in Australia, of which country he is a citizen." (p. 224). Could someone with knowledge on Australian citizenship by naturalisation weigh in on whether this means he held dual citizenship? We should be as accurate as possible, while minimizing pedantry and nationalistic biases (anecdotally, it seems British sources are more likely than Australian to use "British-born", at least in headlines, while other sources somewhat avoid the issue by using the less specific "Australia's oldest..." ). --Animalparty! (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is possible for him to hold duel citizenship, its probably likely as at the time he became a citizen there was no need to renounce British citizenship even now its a technicality that has claimed many standing/sitting politicians forcing them to resign. There's nothing wrong about saying he's an Australian scientist, nor referring to him as british born as both are correct, our problem is buying into the nationalistic claptrap as a way to defining people that predictates the value of a person and their work. Gnangarra 02:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was British as well as Australian. He was born and raised in the UK and there's no evidence of him having given up his British citizenship. Describing him as solely Australian is incorrect. Describing him as British-born makes it sound like he wasn't British, but was merely born in the UK. Jim Michael (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the modern convention to refer to them by their home nation within the UK? (English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish/Irish)? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That varies. English-Australian or British-Australian would both be fine. Jim Michael (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should strive to be consistent with the predominant usage in reliable sources, regardless of what it might sound like. So far I see "Australian" and "British-born" more commonly used than "English-born", "English-Australian", or "British-Australian." Information in the lead should be general, with minor details relegated to the body. For comparison, the article on Nicole Kidman leads with calling her Australian, despite her having dual Australian and American citizenship, as explained later. I haven't yet found sources that speak directly to Goodall's UK citizenship, so perhaps it is better to err on the side of general rather than specific for now, and "British-born Australian" seems straightforward enough to me. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are contradictions in the media and thus in this article which need to be properly researched and resolved. Animalparty is doing a great job, but he is polishing a cannonball in some respects. For example:

1. I have just resurrected an informative statement by one of Goodall's companions (O'Neill). She explains why he committed suicide (loneliness), which is in conflict with Goodall's own statement (reduced fitness). Social isolation is known to be a significant risk factor in suicide. This contradiction needs to be highlighted.

2. The article says he performed in the theatre until his 90s, whereas O'Neill's statement implies he performed until 102. Some newspapers say he read poetry with his circle of friends. My suspicion is that the theatre and the poetry sessions are the same thing. Media research needed.

3. The Guardian stated that he unsuccessfully attempted suicide several times over the past year. It is only his most recent "fall" (yet another suicide attempt?) in his apartment which bound him to a wheelchair. Recurring versions of the Wikipedia article (and the media) imply that the fall was the motivation for his decision to commit suicide. That does not make sense if he had previous suicide attempts. More literature research needed. Start here: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/02/david-goodall-perth-doctors-threaten-104-year-old-scientists-bid-to-end-his-life

4. His failing eyesight features prominently. Is this simply a cataract in his lens (which can be substituted with an artificial lens in a trivial operation taking a few minutes under local anaesthetic)? Can a medical Wikipedian please comment, and therefore guide our further literature research into the medical conditions surrounding his suicide? Many thanks in advance.

We cannot do original research on Wikipedia, but we need to cite and highlight contradictions in the sources, so the reader can make up his own mind. 81.131.173.78 (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been largely avoiding the section on death for the time being, but agree it should be revised for accuracy and completeness, but also think it should be succinct, and not unduly inflated compared to the rest of the biography. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Western Australian sources will be more helpful, there was a lot of information in the time leading up to his departure. Goodall was an active supporter of legal euthanasia 20-30 years before this, the reports here in Perth also said he had tried unassisted euthanasia a number of times before leaving. No doubt there will be more information come out, even from Goodall given his meticulous work as Goodall was himself actively using his departure to highlight what is a political issue in Australia. Gnangarra 01:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]