Talk:Andrew Moravcsik
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
The second half of this article really reads like a vanity page. AcceptThisNameUser:AcceptThisName
- To which part are you referring: the entirety of the "Education and career" section or the "Scholarly publications" subsection? Also, in what way does it read like a vanity page? If it's because it lists several of his accomplishments, that's essentially because most biographical information about Mr. Moravcsik focuses on his academic and political career. Any suggestions on how to improve the article would be appreciated. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Black Falcon. I was referring mainly to the "scholarly publications" subsection, specifically "The book, which has been called "the most important work in the field" of modern European studies...". There have also been many critical voices of his theories and that book from scholars in the field. It seemed a one sided promotion of his work instead of just citing the facts. The phrasing of the citations listing reads as promotion to me as well, but it has some legitimacy since it's counts of citations. Hope this helps explain my view. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AcceptThisName (talk • contribs).
- I see what you mean. I'll see if I can dig up additional scholarly reviews of the book (or of his academic publications more generally) today and tomorrow and will modify the article accordingly. It's important to establish the notability of the article's subject, but it's even more important to ensure neutrality by giving due weight to all significant competing views. Thanks for your insights. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Black Falcon. I was referring mainly to the "scholarly publications" subsection, specifically "The book, which has been called "the most important work in the field" of modern European studies...". There have also been many critical voices of his theories and that book from scholars in the field. It seemed a one sided promotion of his work instead of just citing the facts. The phrasing of the citations listing reads as promotion to me as well, but it has some legitimacy since it's counts of citations. Hope this helps explain my view. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AcceptThisName (talk • contribs).
One of the most notable criticism on The Choice for Europe can be found in a 2004 article in the Journal of Cold War Studies . It's called "De Gaulle, Moravcsik, and The Choice for Europe" (Fall 2004, pp. 89-139). The article clearly shows that Moravcsik has put, to say the least, his theory before the facts. Metck 86.80.169.237 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
