Talk:Jean-Pierre Vernant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

The following 'criticism' section removed here: it is evidently designed to attack Vernant's reputation rather than to inform. Charles Matthews 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Cut from this page; see the page history. Charles Matthews 09:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of shouting a fatwa, why don't you put your too-capable brain to inform me of the specifics? I didn't design it to do this or that, although I (and many, many colleagues) find his reputation overinflated. Regardless, there are no personal remarks, and it is substantiated by references (I did miss one on the last paragraph). If you like him, fine. But there are many people who find his work weak, and since West is one of the most recognizable voices in the field, a section on criticism is fully tenable and appliable. This is done all over wikipedia where there are controversies surrounding a theory or thinker. Being scorned by West and other authorities is thus sufficient. And I won't accept the section being pulled off until every line of criticism is shown to be misguided. Until then, fuck off. 201.19.139.187 23:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Accounts of controversies are quite acceptable, if they are well-sourced and neutral accounts. Saying that his reputation is only high amongst the ill-informed hardly counts as that. Charles Matthews 09:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism in an attempt to damage someone's reputation is libel (see the boxes above). This is especially applicable to the "Stalinist" accusation, which is unsourced and therefore libellous. Your changes are largely attempts to turn this into an article about M.L. West, which is not useful: this is not an exercise in "let's compare every Hellenist to my favourite one". West's views on one of Vernant's books are not notable either; citations that survey all of Vernant's career -- balanced citations -- would be useful. Petrouchka 02:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)