Talk:René Girard

message: I have no idea what was going on here but the introduction was horrendous. I rewrote something which is certainly an improvement but I'm sure it could also be improved upon further. What happened to the introduction in the first place? CS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.238.96 (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: It would be really nice if this page included an explanation of what Girard calls "the scapegoat."  This to me is a major concept in his work. Stevenwagner 18:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold! Add something. We don't scapegoat people for that ... Charles Matthews 18:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scapegoating

message: "Réné" is a typing error. --WAJP 17:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[René Girard]]

message: When I first looked at this article 15-18 months ago, it was pathetic. I'm really impressed by how much it has improved since. A big pat on the back to everyone involved. Perodicticus 10:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done 

message: According to the article:
Recently, empirical studies into the mechanism of desire have verified Girard's exact theory on the subject. For instance, Dr. Scott Garrels mentions that "the parallels between Girard’s insights and the only recent conclusions made by empirical researchers concerning imitation (in both development and the evolution of species) are extraordinary." (Garrels, 2006).
... but there is no "Garrels, 2006" reference anywhere on the page. (There's a reference to something by Garrels which is cited elsewhere in the article as "Garrels, 2004".)
In any case, "there are extraordinary parallels between A and B" and "Research into A has verified that B is exactly right" seem to me to be entirely different claims.
It seems to me that a WP article should not say that empirical studies have verified something exactly without at least some indication of how to find out about those empirical studies. Especially given the occasional tendency to hyperbole in this article (e.g., from later on, "today there is an amazing amount of convergent support for his claims coming from empirical research").
Gareth McCaughan (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct reference for Garrels is probably: Garrels, Scott R. "Imitation, Mirror Neurons and Mimetic Desire: Convergence between the Mimetic Theory of René Girard and Empirical Research on Imitation”, in Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture, vol. 12-13 (2006), p.47-86.--ChristopheS (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "verified Girard's exact theory" 

message: Not doubting the notablility of the subject, but much of this page needs sources, expecially the criticism page, which reads almost like an essay... ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More sources still needed in the subsection "The Bible and myth". For example: "Some critics claim..."; "All religions, (...), even the most violent ones, are aimed toward peace": sources?? --ChristopheS (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, Sources, and more Sources... 

message: I understand mimesis -  "If two individuals desire the same thing, there will soon be a third, then a fourth. This process quickly snowballs. " and how this would lead to competition and antagonism between the competitors. I can also see how "the mimetic conflict transforms into a general antagonism," and how "the antagonists will no longer imitate each other's desires for an object, but each other's antagonism [for each other]." The antagonism is for each other, and not for the (above mentioned) same thing. So it is unlcear to me how a general (but presumably mutual) antagonism becomes converts into a desire to "destroy the same enemy," i.e. sacrifice the original, "sacred" "same thing" - the object of desire. This part of the article does not seem to make sense. Is this because Girard does not make sense or because the article is not making sense of Girard?--Timtak (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is part of Girard's hypothesis and that he would say the ultimate proof of it is found in myth. However, he does offer what might be considered indirect support for the claim, when he notes that an impassioned animal can easily have its aggression turned from the original target to a new one. From p. 72 of The Girard Reader: "Konrad Lorenz makes reference to a species of fish that, if deprived of its natural enemies (the male rivals with whom it habitually disputes territorial rights), turns its aggression against the members of its own family and destroys them."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the step from "all against all" to "all againt one", according to Girard, goes more or less like that. A group of people can't survive in the state of generalized violence that arises from mimesis. It will eventually fall if violence persists. However, once the appetite for violence has emerged, it won't be easily stopped. As SgtSchumann said, he argues the target of the wrath is not as important as indulging in violence. So, people eventually "understand" that they all can redirect their violence against a single victim and satisfy (albeit temporarily) this urge, achieving a period of peace. André Lima (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I read him too - I've read Des Choses cachées fairly closely plus some other texts by Girard or about him. The direction (more or less)suddenly homes in on one person. And of course that's a side where his thought can seem very depreciating of human endeavour, because this comes across as so totally interwoven with random violence, ever since the advent of time, since the first sacrifice - though he makes it clear that this is not biological, innate human nature. He says quite often in Choses that queries are not useful they just stimulate mimetic violence or modish illusions of liberty. I find him fascinating but he does come across as very hectoring and even reactionary sometimes...83.254.150.118 (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Paris didn't want Helen because she is beautiful.  The paradox you identify is the nature of the desire - Zizek describes it from a Lacanian view as the necessary limitation on the fulfillment.  Man is the only animal who can endlessly prolong pleasure by denying himself the very thing he wants - a form of what Zizek defines as "perversion."  Rather, Paris wanted to be a great king like Agamemnon.  We desire to emulate those who we wish to be like - and live out that process by the acquisition of things that are emblematic of that person, but we simultaneously hate that person for being the thing we want to be - the paradox thus shows itself, as a demand to be the only one with the characteristics we essentially stole, which they themselves stole. Historiaantiqua (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: From Competition to Sacrifice

message: I'm going to undo a number of edits made by 81.17.197.42. The section zie edited is already tagged for being poorly referenced, and zie has made the claims that are already in the section stronger without adding any citations. Also the grammar in the section is poor. I'm also changing the name of the section from Controversy to Criticism, as in Wikipedia Controversy tends to indicate that someone has done something scandalous, and setting aside Girard's understanding of skandalon, he has not. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I would like to enter a comment that René Girard was made a Doctor of Letters from St Andrews university, Scotland. A reference link can be found here -> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/Title,22420,en.html Brownpoodle (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't anticipate a problem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 04:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be more in favour of a separate sections with prizes and honorary degrees. René Girard received several honorary degrees, and I don't see why the one from St Andrews would be more important than the other ones.--ChristopheS (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorary degrees 

message: ... and especially in the section Criticism. My english is not very ghood but well (I think) my informations. I accept all the propositions to changewhat i changed... José Fontaine (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I add perhaps too much things 

message: It's vitally important that one never use ibid in a Wikipedia article. Even one person's adding a reference could make the reference unreliable. Instead take advantage of ref tags; see WP:FOOT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I fixed all the ibid references. --ChristopheS (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibid 

message: I am influenced when I am speaking (but with Lucien Scubla), about the agnostic theory of Girard by Girard himself who is speaking about his naturalism and Camille Tarot wich made a comparison between Mircéa Eliade and Girard. Tarot wrote about Girard: According Girard, the scapegoat has nothing to do with metaphysics, it is since the beginning a pure social and anthropological process which nobody was wanting, it is not thought from the god's death, but from an actual human being. Man begins to think  it after, when the rituals are beginning. (Tarot, pp 657-658). I translate the French sentence: Pour Girard, le bouc émissaire n'a rien de métaphysique, c'est au départ un pur mécanisme socio-anthropologique non voulu, il n'est pas pensé à partir de la mort du dieu, mais d'un homme réel. IL commence d'être pensé seulement après coup, quand il est question de ritualisation. There are many other considerations in this spirit into the book of Tarot, but also in Girard himself. That is the reason whay I am underlining the citation of Lucien Scubla describing Girard's theory as agnostic. Even if Girard is a catholic. I will take other citations.José Fontaine (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements of Camille Tarot about Girard and christianism 

message: The section on mimetic desire contains a quote from an interview with Marie-Louse Martinez; the same quote also appears (in French) in the French version of the Wikipedia article. What is the correct reference for this interview? The text cannot be found in the interview Entretien avec René Girard: Propos recueillis par Marie-louise Martinez (le 31 Mai 1994 au CIEP à Sèvres) or suite. --ChristopheS (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Two web pages containing the same quote connect it to Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque: René Girard, le sommaire and Perspectives Girard: Oeuvre. Still no good reference... --ChristopheS (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The quote was probably introduced by an anonymous user; see the version of 2 August 2006. --ChristopheS (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entretien avec Marie-Louise Martinez 

message: I'm dumping some content from the introduction here because it made the text unbalanced. It will find a new home elsewhere in the article.
His work is also attracting increasing interest from empirical researchers investigating human imitation (among them Andrew Meltzoff and Vittorio Gallese). Girard's views on imitation (developed decades before empirical research prompted a resurgence of interest in the matter) resonate with the most recent findings. Although regarded as having important contributions, Girard's work also tends to be very controversial due to his harsh criticisms of modern philosophy and his outspoken Christian views (i.e. he claims that the anthropological evidence, from looking at religious texts, shows a clear distinction between Judaism and Christianity on the one hand, and primitive religion and mythology on the other).  
Recently, empirical studies into the mechanism of desire have suggested some intriguing correlations with Girard's theory on the subject. For instance, clinical psychologist Scott Garrels mentions that "the parallels between Girard’s insights and the only recent conclusions made by empirical researchers concerning imitation (in both development and the evolution of species) are extraordinary."Garrels, Scott R. "Imitation, Mirror Neurons and Mimetic Desire: Convergence between the Mimetic Theory of René Girard and Empirical Research on Imitation”, in Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture, vol. 12-13 (2006), p.47-86.
--ChristopheS (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The above content found a new home in the new subsection "Psychology and neuroscience", except for the following: "Although regarded as having important contributions, Girard's work also tends to be very controversial due to his harsh criticisms of modern philosophy and his outspoken Christian views (i.e. he claims that the anthropological evidence, from looking at religious texts, shows a clear distinction between Judaism and Christianity on the one hand, and primitive religion and mythology on the other)." --ChristopheS (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced introduction 

message: I read in the "Cahiers de l'Herne" that Sandor Goodhart wrote (but it is a translation):On peut êtrre juif, chrétien, musulman, hindou ou bouddhiste, et être en même temps girardien. (People may be jew,christian etc and girardian)   I am thinking I would buy this book, but in any case, I have not it. Of course, it is possible to translate the translation, but... And that is an interesting statement. Paul Ricoeur wrote nearly the same thing but it is perhaps interesting to have several sources? Nevertheless I think that Girard have good arguments in favour of  the originality of Christianity and of the Gospels. But these  opinions are relevant and wp...  Hartelijk en proficiaat voor je uitstekende veranderingen in Girard's page. José Fontaine (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonjour José, I can recommend  on . Did you know that it contains excerpts from his thesis on "" and from his PhD thesis? Regarding atheism etc, I found who was the first to call Girard's work an atheistic theory of religion: it was  in a review of  in  (27 Octobre 1972): "" His review is reprinted in the  edition of , which I recently added to the bibliography. Cordialement, --ChristopheS (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The question I think is what is meant by "Girardien" (Girard disciple, person influenced by him) here. Of course one may pick up some of his work and develop it, take it as a starting-point of reflection, but if one would accept all of his system it seems to me it has to include a Christian conviction too, and subscribing to his particular re-evaluation of the Gospel and History. I don't see how one could be a Jewish or Muslim believer in a faith-based sense and accept his exposition of the gospels and of the nature of man. In Des Choses Cachées he declares that the gospels and Jesus affirm the pre-eminence of Judaism (probably right), but he implies that this is only for the pre-Christian age and that Judaism, the Jewish community and culture, has no real reason to exist post Jesus, and that the destruction of the second temple (maybe the first one in 587 BC too) was ultimately due to a drift into violence, chaos and mimetic rivalry within the Jewish people. In fact his theory begs the question how it is possible that Judaism has stayed alive for 2.000 years after Christ, often under the most severe persecution. Because, for most of that time, it has been wholly unsupported by a state or empowered, dominant cultural order of its own and it has been the subject of efforts to convert its members to other religions and to dismantle its social presence outright! As far as I know - I haven't read his later books, past The Scapegoat - he makes no effort to explain this. Strausszek (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews, Christians, Atheists ... 

message: As far as I can tell, the first edit to disambiguate the variety of English used in this article was made on April 16, 2005 in which it is said that Girard is the "Honorary Chair" of the CV&R. This would mean that US English is the variety appropriate to this article. (See "National Varieties of English" in the MOS.) If no one supplies evidence to the contrary, I'll make appropriate changes to the article in a few days. --SgtSchumann (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The spelling of honorary is the same in US and British English, even though the spellings of honor/honour and honorable/honourable are different. So the spelling of "Honorary Chair" does not disambiguate the variety of English. (A few days ago, I changed something to US English and José Fontaine undid that change, so I checked for spelling elsewhere in the article.) I hope we won't have an edit war over this; there is more valuable work to be done here. (By the way, I checked "National Varieties of English" in the MOS before I made those changes.) --ChristopheS (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that info. That'll teach me not to use Google as a spell checker. In that case an edit made on 2006 Aug. 2 may be the first edit to disambiguate (with the word behavior), so per Wikipedia guidelines US English should still be the variety we use here. But if you or José Fontaine want to use UK English, don't worry: I won't start an edit war. --SgtSchumann (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ChristopheS,  I  changed  perhaps in favor into in favour? I don't remember, sincerely...  I am used to speak French which is a language theorically with one only spelling, theorically... It is likely the reason why I changed in favor  into in favour, (as I would have done it in French with the opinion there is only one  good spelling). I must begg your pardon. I am able to give many informations about Girard but I speak bad English and I write a terrible grammar: if you would change something I wrote, you would be always right. I speak English scarcely at an intermediate level and you (and Sgt) are absolutely better than me. If I am correcting you or if I am changing a spelling or something so, you may undo what I have written. Hartelijk and sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US English 

message: I made a proposal. This title must to be more ambitious: the origin of language is also the origin of humanity, culture etc., the birth of humanity. I am perhaps wrong but I think there was not a so accurate description of this origin: you have the murder  into the work of Darwin or Freud but it is in a sense, vague. Into Girard's thought - even if it is during million of years - it is not vague.That's the whole human being: language, culture, State, Justice, religion, wars (old and contemporary wars as for instance in Achever Clausewitz but also in Things hidden...), violence... You have the explanation of funerals, dance, carnival, feast, envy, laugh, genocids, etc .This anthropology is not only anthropology but a very important philosophical system. In my view, it is stronger than Rousseau (I learned, Girard doesn't like Rousseau but it would be possible-not on Wp - to show that Rousseau is not so far from Girard);or Kant, or Hobbes (I learned a little). A paradoxical evidence of that is the fact  Girard has now (now!), a better reception in France.  It would be interesting to have (as on the French Girard's site), some pictures of Francisco Goya for instance, Abraham and Isaac or something else. It is only a proposal. José Fontaine (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonjour José, I have no problem with the current title because explaining the Origin of language is no small thing; I think it's actually very ambitious! It is possible to expand this section, but I am also concerned about the balance of the article: we should not devote much more attention to it than Girard does in his own work compared to other parts of his theory. (Neither Girard nor Eric Gans are mentioned in the Origin of language; I suppose a theory on the origin of language would also take into account biological issues, such as those discussed in The Biology and Evolution of Language by Philip Lieberman (1984), and cognitive issues (which are now also being researched through simulation, see Simulating the Evolution of Language with Cognitive Agents and Robots ).) Cordialement, --ChristopheS (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Goede morgen ChristopheS. You are right : itis a great thing. I am worry about that : what is the most important thing in Girard's thought? I would reply very basically : the theory of the wole humanity. The ambition of the title Things hidden.... Françoise Giroud was very critical about that, but Girard has this theory. I think we must strongly  underline this aspect which is not only anthropological but philosophical. I.E  the shift from animality to humanity. Perhaps we must say  that firstly in the introduction? I heard so many naïve opinions about the birth of humanity (superstition, human, being who are almost animal without  being very clever and all these stupid things - Levi-Strauss  is also severe about that and all the antropologists), about domestication, about religion, about society. I will make a more accurate or concrete proposal, perhaps a new section as for instance the critical view of les maîtres du soupçon Marx, Nietzche, Freud, who are so important in our current contemporary  spirit or culture. Hartelijk, José José Fontaine (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The origin of language 

message: I am able to translate a part of the statements :Girard's thought was for us (i.e. Aglietta and Orléan) essential. What's more,  it was a conceptual schock because of its solution: the unanimous violence is making order (...) In economy, this unanimity which founds the market... French:La pensée de Girard a été pour nous essentielle. Mieux encore, elle a été un véritable choc conceptuel par l'originalité de la solution qu'elle propose: c'est la violence unanime qui est productrice d'ordre. En économie, cette unanimité qui fonde l'ordre marchand... (After, it is hard for me to translate) c'est la polarisation mimétique de tous les désirs des acteurs en quête de richesse sur un même objet, polarisation qui clôt la crise en donnant une forme socialement reconnue à cette richesse si vivement désirée (...) la monnaie. (Cahiers de l'Herne, octobre 2008, p. 265). José Fontaine (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment of Orléan 

message: This section needs another title. The current title suggests that there is a big dispute about this, but the content of this section doesn't bear that out. The (overly) long quotes are evidence of awareness of mimetic desire in other sources but don't justify the word "dispute". I think that something like "other revelations of mimetic desire" would work better.  --ChristopheS (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Goede avond, ChristopheS! The dispute (but I am aware of the exageration), is about the fact Girard thinks the mimetism was only in literature. It is also in philosophy. He said also he is very original in philosopohy with this theory (the desire's mimetism).  The citation of Tocqueville is now horter. In my view, it is hard to make shorter the Palaver's citation. It seems to me that there is a new idea in each sentence : (1) Girard's thought) (2) The more our pride (3) all rivals (4) insurmountable obstacles (5) we increase the resistance (6) the fatal conclusion that violence is the true God (7) we seak defeat (8) ontology of violence and Hegel. This citation "must" explain the Montréal Massacre. It is possible to have a much shorter citation of Tocqueville. Hartelijk, José Fontaine (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Girard's view about literature revealing mimesis disputed 

message: The infobox allows us to add notable students of . Sandor Goodhart was a "student of  in the Department of English at the State University of New York at Buffalo" (Sandor Goodhart: "The End of Sacriﬁce: Reading René Girard and the Hebrew Bible" in Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 14 (2007) 59-78); Eric Gans was a student of Girard and got his PhD in 1966 at Johns Hopkins University (while Girard was professor there) but it isn't clear if Girard was his supervisor. It seems that Gil Bailie was also a student of Girard, but I don't have the right details. --ChristopheS (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gans and Girard have opposite views about the shift from animality to humanity, but Girard hold Gans in  high esteem  (he wrote it  somewhere) and the latter wrote an an article over Girard in Cahiers de l'Herne (octobre 2008)... José Fontaine (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonjour José, In spite of opposing views, "The Girardian element in GA [Generative Anthroplogy] is well known," according to Eric Gans, in the  "Introductory Remarks" to Anthropoetics II, no. 1 (June 1996). 
Another student is . From the back cover of  (1994): "." --ChristopheS (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Students of René Girard (infobox) 

message: Hey everyone,
I don't have anything for discussion in particular. I just want to post a note saying great job to the people who put this article together. It's one of the best I've seen, and the links to information on Girard and on interviews that are available online are very helpful. Thank you!
~ Aaron 
165.134.140.102 (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done 

message: Robert Price is not a respected academic and his literary output is clearly directed to a lay audience.  Further, Price is not particularly notable at all and, as such, his criticisms of Girard are not relevant to this article. Deleted. Eugeneacurry (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Eugeneacurry, why is it so hard to give other editors time to look at your arguments? Robert M. Price (you didn't even bother to identify him correctly) is a theologian and I don't see any evidence that his book Deconstructing Jesus is for lay readers (it may be more readable than some other theological publications, but for lay readers?) References to Robert M. Price were apparently introduced by User:SgtSchumann (see this diff from July 2008). Can we please have a proper discussion instead of an edit war? --ChristopheS (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Academics judge works by their contents, not by their intended audiences. Consider, for example, that the book Behind the Ballot Box has been cited in quite a few academic papers, despite the fact that it is obviously aimed at laity. As for Price's credentials, he has a Ph.D in theology, and Deconstructing Jesus has been cited by a number of scholars. If nothing else, we should leave the article as it was until a compromise can be reached. (In the interest of full disclosure I am the user formerly known as SgtSchumann.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having heard no objections to the above, I've reverted the edits. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. --ChristopheS (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I can see no evidence that the criticisms violate the biography policy in any way whatsoever. The claim that the author is non-notable is contradicted by his article. It is inappropriate to remove criticisms simply because one disagrees with them. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting criticism of Girard from Price would be like quoting criticism of a politicism offered by David Duke. Price doesn't teach at an accredited school and his book mentioned here is from a marginal press. Eugene (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The status of the institution in question is irrelevant to a consideration of the criteria for inclusion here. You've made bogus claims about the nature of the criticisms, which, to be honest, make your objections dubious. The author's article is fully sourced, as far as I can tell, and clearly establishes notability. Unless you can establish your claims that this represents an extremist criticism with citations that support them, the section should remain. Restoring in lieu of that evidence. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Eugene, you have once again removed this material, making the claim that it violates the policy on biographies of living people and promising to provide evidence supporting your claims at a later date. That is most inappropriate. Firstly, it is clear to any neutral observer that there is no violation. If you feel there is, you need to detail that here first. Secondly, you cannot remove material on the basis of claims about its notability and relevance when other Wikipedia articles, which are sourced, refute your claims. You need to provide the evidence to support your deletions here first before deleting it from the article. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misrepresenting my statements.  The material in question is of two kinds: criticism sourced with a book written by Robert Price, and other criticism not sourced at all.  I will continue to remove the unsourced criticism as often as needed as it violates WP:V, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Further, such removals on my part are exempted from 3RR considerations according to WP:GRAPEVINE.  As for the material sourced to Price, I will leave it in pending a review of the source material. Eugene (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Price 

message: I know this is a complicated point with many modern theologians and not just Girard, but since he affirms so strongly that the insight about the innocence of Jesus the victim - who, when he hung on the cross, was perceived, roughly, as a troublemaker who had provoked endless trouble and whose death would bring the books in order again - of Jesus and, by extension, the innocence of all sacrifical victims - cannot come from within historical human culture itself. Okay, then the question becomes pertinent: does he see the resurrection of Christ as an actual physical and historical event (the sudden resuscitation in some kind of body of Jesus, as it's told in the gospels) or as a metaphor of some kind of "change of thinking" in the disciples? Remember, they all sided with the crowd who wanted Jesus killed, and Girard's insistence on the all-encompassing fever of mimesis and its lies, breaking down all resistance, seems to make it hard to claim that the disciples might have thought it up for themselves that Jesus had been innocent unless it was triggered by an actual major event or some kind of intervention from the "Word". 
Girard points out, as he is discussing the first lines of John, that the Logos (Christ) is shown as someone who is chased out of the world of men, who is not allowed a place, so the outsider position of the truth would seem to imply that the new insight, soon after the death of Jesus, must have been born out of a sudden "intervention" from outside into the experience and the minds of the disciples. This intervention is shown in the gospels as the resurrection and the following weeks up to Pentecost, but if it wasn't a physical event then what does it stand for? Girard makes it very clear that the idea of "a cheap juggling of life and death" is unacceptable and mythical, but at least in Things Hidden he never addresses the issue of what the resurrection stories actually refer to as other than literature. Strausszek (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The resurrection of Christ 

message: To make it short and simple.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Mimetic-desire
Takima (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mimetic desire: simply the model-obstacle 

message: Rather astonishing that this subject could be discussed without any reference to James G Frazer IMHO  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.178.171 (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he makes many references to Frazer when discussing sacrifice and primitive religions in his seventies books; he uses some of Frazer's material and claims JGF was on to important things but dismisses him as naive as per his theoretical framework - a criticism also made by many other people in comparative religion, e.g. Mary Douglas. There is a link to Frazer, but it's difficult to describe it clearly here under WP norms without falling either into plagiarism of RG, into vagueness (when Girard criticizes other scholars he is sometimes more swaggering than in-depth clarifying) or into what some people would regard as WP synthesis.Strausszek (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  James G Frazer? 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/arts/international/rene-girard-french-theorist-of-the-social-sciences-dies-at-91.html -hugeTim (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT obit 

message: Substituted at 04:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on René Girard. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429013257/http://www.unipd.it/en/area/area-51.htm to http://www.unipd.it/en/area/area-51.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214123114/http://www.gf.org/gfellow.html to http://www.gf.org/gfellow.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on René Girard. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074007/http://girardianlectionary.net/covr2004/garrelspaper.pdf to http://girardianlectionary.net/covr2004/garrelspaper.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074008/http://msupress.msu.edu/journals/cont/pdf/Cont.%2012-13%20Garrels%2047-86.pdf to http://msupress.msu.edu/journals/cont/pdf/Cont.%2012-13%20Garrels%2047-86.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119161211/http://mimetictheory.net/bios/articles/Anspach_UNESCO.pdf to http://www.mimetictheory.net/bios/articles/Anspach_UNESCO.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074008/http://web.ustpaul.uottawa.ca/covr2006/Document/RebeccaGirard.pdf to http://web.ustpaul.uottawa.ca/covr2006/Document/RebeccaGirard.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074007/http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/bulletin/Bulletin_26.pdf to http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/bulletin/Bulletin_26.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517200619/http://www.french-ital.ucsb.edu/substance/ to http://www.french-ital.ucsb.edu/substance/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003122417/http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/apocalypse-now to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/apocalypse-now
*Added  tag to http://library.ispso.org/library/how-scapegoat-leader%E2%80%A8-refresher-course-those-who-do-not-need-it
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090102225719/http://linguaromana.byu.edu/trevor6.html to http://linguaromana.byu.edu/trevor6.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074008/http://www.preachingpeace.org/documents/Girard_Christology.pdf to http://www.preachingpeace.org/documents/Girard_Christology.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074009/http://www.preachingpeace.org/documents/Plato_Girard.pdf to http://www.preachingpeace.org/documents/Plato_Girard.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074011/http://www.preachingpeace.org/documents/Patillo_Ellul_Girard.pdf to http://www.preachingpeace.org/documents/Patillo_Ellul_Girard.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Les immortals" should be "Les immortels".
Ken McAloon
2601:19D:400:6B50:3426:C3BA:6377:4D88 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling mistake 

message: In my sincere view, this article is really well done considering the large contribution of so many different people. Historiaantiqua (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is one of Wikipedia's best articles 

message: Under the "Non-mimetic desires" section, the sentence "In Girard's defence on the other hand, Jean-Michel Oughourlian exemplifies the situation by noting that "one homosexual admitted to me that he just wanted to be somebody else,"' is uncited and seems entirely irrelevant without the source text to give context. And at any rate, an anonymous claim from "one homosexual" is not a counter-argument.
Additionally, the "Beneficial imitation" section needs its tenses changed, since Girard passed away several years ago.
I'd consider making these changes myself, but I'm not familiar with the source material, and this is the first time I've contributed to Wikipedia. Fibinock (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section may need new revising 

message: Im tired of guarding this page, so I'm not going to change anything, but I really think that the edits that changed most of the first few introductory paragraphs miss the point of Girard's thought and instead introduce concepts from psychology that read into what Girard was saying, and then present what he never thought or argued.  Girard didn't believe that mimicry is incidental to the pursuit of material things, he believed that the mimicry is the end goal itself.  He didn't think it made any sense for a person to desire a car in and of itself - they desire the car because they want the life of the person they imagine they would be - relative to other people - while owning the car, which Girard believed had to have been perceived at some level of someone else.  
It isn't that mimetic reciprocity is about learning what to desire, it's that even desire itself is copied from observation of the state of being of the one being mimicked.  He didn't believe merely that the two subjects would get into conflict over their rivalry over a particular object, especially such an object is rare, he believed that the two are almost inevitable to get into conflict because the person being copied is invariably in a position of greater power and status, and since the pursuit isn't actually about the object, the desire of the other person will either assume their position or higher or will be defeated, or the two will blame someone else, as an alternative to the peaceful resolution doesn't exist even if the second subject were to take the object of their desire - unless the first subject dies or loses their status, the copier will continue desiring the life of the person being emulated. 
This was his way of understanding particularly why the most closely related groups hate eachother the most - Irish Protestants vs Catholics, Serbs v Croats, Russians v Ukrainians, French Canadians vs English Canadians, etc.  His conclusion was that because they are fundamentally identical, they have to create an oppositional identity for themselves in order to somehow separate from their double - by scapegoating or demonizing the other identity for everything wrong in their lives.  And long after the conflict is over and the seeming substance of the issue in dispute, say some piece of territory, is resolved, you can see that the object wasn't in fact what was actually causing the conflict since the conflict invariably perpetuates and continues and simply switches its causes and reasons. 
Historiaantiqua (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As is often the case when replying to academics like Girard, it appears that the "missed point" is more to the point than the point itself. 64.85.227.176 (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits miss the point