Talk:Roberto Mangabeira Unger

message: 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 
;What should I do?
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.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
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)
thread_title: File:Unger prisons.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I removed:
: His work in legal theory helped disrupt the methodological consensus in legal scholarship and transformed contemporary legal theory.See esp Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1986. The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
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)
replies: text: Full set of references have been added to support the now commonplace understanding about Critical Legal Studies and Unger's role in the movement. See especially the Hutchinson and Monahan article for a good overview of CLS and Unger's importance. Archivingcontext (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you mean "transform CLS", then you need to say so. But that isn't what the text says. It says transforms legal thought - ie, the whole of legal thought William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In legal studies, CLS emerged in the 1970s and 80s as a force that turned the discipline inside out. Unger was at the head of that. The references cited explicate this in great detail. But this is a Wikipedia article to lay out the knowledge of a topic or individual and how it is understood in the given discipline. It is not a form to debate the literature (but then that is not what you are doing anyway, is it?).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.11.101 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Please refer to the citations. The sentence says exactly what it is supposed to say: Unger helped disrupt the methodological consensus in legal studies. I cited three independent sources there that say as much. Archivingcontext (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  transformed contemporary legal theory? 

message: 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)
replies: text: There are nine (9) references cited from the most prestigious law journals in the country. Can you seriously put up a banner that says independent sources are need?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.11.101 (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

text: The banner you applied here says that independent sources are required. There are at least seven independent references there. I do not see how such a banner is thus justified. But more so, we are trying to write an article here about this individual based on the general knowledge available. Those writing both admirably and critically of the man write about him and his work in such a way. It is not an exaggeration here to say as much. Please refer to the citations. Archivingcontext (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, peacock is justified here. The language is too self promotional: "hailed to be on par in scope and importance with" and stuff like that we do not write here. Aside which, the book reviews you give, for example, generally only cite the books themselves, not critical reviews by others. They are therefore not reliable sources for the significance of the books or their success in demontrating their claims. Sorry about that but you will get the hang of our editorial style in time.  --BozMo talk 20:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your constructive feedback. I have edited out the "hailed," etc. language and replaced it with something that should be deemed more neutral. It still may not be completely satisfactory, however, and I will continue to work on it, and continue to think of a better way to phrase this section. Your point on the book reviews is also taken. Most of those cited are long critical reviews--esp. Anderson and Fish who disagree with Unger but still praise him to the sky. I will look over them again and excise the single reviews. Archivingcontext (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Looking around he is clearly an impressive guy. We just try to stay measured about him. Nelson Mandela is exceedingly cool too, and I admire him deeply, but we try to be measured even about him. --BozMo talk 15:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peacock 

message: 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)
replies: text: I am still not entirely clear of your issue, but I think you are looking for a NPOV or peacock tag, not a fanpov tag. The description of the fanpov tag doesn't fit your complaints here. Perhaps you could further clarify beginning with the appropriate tag. Then, could you give some suggestions about what you mean? The sentences that you point out above don't communicate in and off themselves a point of view, they are descriptive and well cited. It would be helpful if you could give some examples of how the meaning of the sentences could be better expressed. Archivingcontext (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is indeed a bit of WP:PEACOCK going on here, but obviously WP:PEACOCK and WP:FANPOV are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they sort of tend to go together. In terms of how it could better be expressed, well,... how about better expressing it by removing it?Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  fanpov 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wot u talking about? On the 9th, the only obvious tagging activity was an anon de-tagging it  William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untagging and retagging 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RfC: is the article non-neutral?  

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with Archivingcontext. Unger is not "Brazilian" according to any sources that I am aware of. He spent formative childhood years in the U.S., and his entire professional academic career has been at Harvard, and it is true that it is misleading, if not inaccurate, to describe him as Brazilian. Derossitt (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I also agree with Archivingcontext -- he is not pigeonholed as Brazilian by most press, spent most of his life and career in US.  But it would also be inappropriate to call him American, since he spent most of his political work in Brazil.  His writing speaks to an international audience explicitly. PeteDavis1989  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.82.71 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: 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)
replies: text: Could you point us to where these issues were resolved, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagging 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate revision to first paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improving the article 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927070907/http://www.zcommunications.org/buenos-aires-consensus-by-julian-massaldi to http://www.zcommunications.org/buenos-aires-consensus-by-julian-massaldi
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) 04:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified