This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An image used in this article, File:Unger prisons.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Unger prisons.jpeg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
I removed:
this just isn't plausible, and certainly isn't supported by the body of the article William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I'm sure he's a great guy-n-all, but "His writings in philosophy have been critically hailed as successfully grappling with some of the most fundamental and enduring problems of human existence,[2] and have been put into direct dialogue with Hume, Kant, Spinoza, and Milton, among others.[3][4][5][6][7] His work in social, political, and economic theory have been widely praised,[8][9][10] and hailed to be on par in scope and importance with Marx, Durkheim, and Weber"?
William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This page is full of excessive promotion of the individual, and this does not strike me as being in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality requirement. Can we please do something about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceLion ( talk • contribs) 12:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
For example: "His political activity helped bring about democracy in Brazil". This is pure puffery, with no citation or argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.1.186 ( talk) 16:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the relationship of Unger with Obama is an important issue. The YouTube video in which Unger calls for Obama's defeat was a big deal last year. Grupo Juramento ( talk) 01:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The relationship with Obama is worth a mention, but there is clearly a general problem with the article in terms of objectivity ("biting" critique, only 4 lines in, for example). I'm sure he's a good chap, but the whole thing reads like a resume written by his mother.§ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BalthazarBeatitude (
talk •
contribs)
19:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The second sentence in the current lede, right after his name and birth date, runs: "His writings offer a comprehensive view of our humanity, and present a path by which humankind and each individual can hope to rise to a greater life. He has developed his views across many fields including social, political, legal, and economic theory in what he says is an effort to realize the modernist project of the world made and imagined". The source is, surprise, page 1 of one of his own books! - which rules it out in itself per: don't use self-written sources about someone's achievements or history. More importantly, it's blatant peacock language.
And actually, the article looks peppered with statements or inferences that were culled directly from Unger himself. Check out the list of references, there are lots of notes sourcing statements to his own books and newspaper/magazine articles - and most likely some other points that were sourced to various other people are, in reality, highly influenced by his own assessment of his standing or of the importance of his ideas. 83.254.151.33 ( talk) 10:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Is anything going to be done about this article's tone? Perhaps it's just my imagination, combined with other people's complaints, but this article somehow just doesn't feel right. I think am still struck by how this article is subtly full of a fair amount of congratulatory language. I can't help but wonder if his importance as a scholar is not being given proper context as well, or whether it's being exaggerated in places. Reading articles on, say, Noam Chomsky, Judith Butler, or Zygmunt Bauman, you can more accurately gauge the impact, meaning and significance of their work, I think. In their articles the impact speaks for itself and is communicated in a matter-of-fact way that sounds natural to any reader. Here I feel like there is not the same kind of detachment from the work, or not enough knowledge about how it's viewed by people in his field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeneditor491 ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
References
For starters: and together with his politics present a path by which humankind and each individual can hope to rise to a greater life
and: He has developed his views and positions across many fields, including social, political, legal, and economic theory in an effort to realize the modernist project of the world made and imagined.
This just isn't encyclopedic writing. You can write a good biography of a prominent person without the hyperbole which is, frankly, embarrassing to read.
Restoring tag. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Also see discussion above. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This is both shameless promo AND bad grammar: He has further offered a radicalized revision of pragmatism,[3] and his work in legal theory in the 1970s and 80s helped form the Critical Legal Studies movement and to disrupt the methodological consensus in law schools. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I adjusted the opening and added citations that sufficiently correct the WP:FANPOV issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteDavis1989 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
A lot of back and forth today by editors untagging and retagging the article. Can you please use the talk pages to discuss the issues at stake instead of edit warring? I just went through editing for neutrality and adding more references. If there are other, more serious issues with the article, could someone point them out please, and either make constructive edits or concrete suggestions? Archivingcontext ( talk) 01:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Please use the talk page before making such major reversions. comment added by PeteDavis1989 ( talk • contribs)
This article has been flagged for bias and promotion but without any discussion of how or why. Is the article biased or non-neutral? And if so where does it need attention? Archivingcontext ( talk) 00:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Until there is an explanation of the fanpov and peacock banner, I have removed them. A discussion should arise out of the talk page with specific examples that can lead to constructive progress on the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteDavis1989 ( talk • contribs)
Unger was born in Brazil but grew up in the US. To say that he is Brazilian doesn't really capture his background, culture, or influences. Furthermore, in all writings about Unger, none mention Brazilian as his nationality. The recent feature in FT cited in note 1, for example, does NOT make note of this. It is editorial overreach here to insert this information. Archivingcontext ( talk) 13:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
For a brief discussion of Unger defying nationality see Gerard Delanty and Stephen P. Turner, eds., Routledge International Handbook of Contemporary Social and Political Theory, Routledge International Handbooks (Abingdon, Oxon ; New. York: Routledge, 2011), 195-196. Archivingcontext ( talk) 01:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This page has recently been flagged for reasons that were previously discussed and resolved here on the talk pages. If you feel that the old problems have not been resolved or that new problems have arisen, please comment here on what they are and give suggestions for fixing them. Archivingcontext ( talk) 15:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
William M. Connolley ( talk), please stop restoring the sentence that you made the second line of this article, "He claims the human spirit is what really matters; but his critics deride him as a preposterous romantic." This sentence makes the article worse. First, "he claims the human spirit is what really matters" is hopelessly vague, and is not at all informative as to Unger or his work. "Really matters" to what or to whom? Matters in what way? And as to "his critics deride him as a preposterous romantic"? Unger has a lot of critics; how many of them deride him as a preposterous romantic? The only time I have seen that phrase used, "preposterous romantic," in reference to Unger is as the subtitle of a review by Stephen Holmes published by the New Republic thirty years ago, and perhaps the FT journalist quoted that. (I can't tell, because the FT piece is behind a paywall.) But anyway, that is ONE critic (Stephen Holmes, the author of the New Republic piece), not "his critics," as your sentence suggests. So, for you make a sentence that is vague, arguably meaningless, and overbroad, supposedly based a newspaper's reporter's account of a lunch with Unger, is not an appropriate edit and is harming the article. Please do not restore it. - DeRossitt ( talk) 20:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
In review of the article it strikes me that the "Thought" section is a bit long and rambling. Furthermore, much of it draws on primary sources rather than the extent of the scholarship on the subject, hence the tags. I suggest (and will work on) consolidating this section to highlight the key themes of Unger's work and to cite the scholarship.
Does the intro need revision? Because people are not leaving messages here, I can't tell if people take offense to it or if they are concerned with the already tagged sections in the body of the article.
Other suggestions? Archivingcontext ( talk) 19:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Roberto Mangabeira Unger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)