Talk:Joseph H. H. Weiler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy Related task forces (major fields): Philosophers

The entire second half of this article, and perhaps the whole piece, is compromised by aggrandizing terminology. Someone please size it down and even it up. Cjs2111 23:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason why the second half is so laudatory is precisely beacuse Weiler is one of the most influential and leading academics and policy-makers of our time. If we gave the blank facts, then it would be impossible to recognise his unique contribution.Harlay (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Not even in the entry on Beethoven will you find such overblown language. Weiler is, in my opinion, a very good and influential scholar, but even so I find this entry comical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.61.208 (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)