Talk:Richard Seaford

message: In the present state of this page, Richard Seaford’s contribution to Classics and Ancient History and consequently to Political Philosophy completely disappears behind the marginal question (on the intellectual dimension) of the academic boycott of Israel. 
Does Wikipedia takes sides? Are they no students or colleagues of Richard Seaford interested in providing a serious summary and discussion of his significant and wholly acknowledged publications?
Of course, I would prefer to contribute to this page with a synthesis of Richard Seaford’s books. I came to this page through the study of the masterpiece of David Graeber : Debt. The First 5,000 years. (Melville House 2012. 534 p.).  Key aspects of his argument (the pivotal Chapter 9) come directly from the work of Richard Seaford which appears to provide the historical demonstration of the paradigmatic change which occurred in the “Axial Age” (Karl  Jaspers”) in Greece and still rules our thoughts about economy and politics.
So I went to Wikipedia, hoping it would provide more information.
This is the first time such a thing happens in my long experience of this otherwise remarkable collective encyclopedia.
Sorry for not being able to contribute in a more positive way, but the “raison d’être” of Wikipedia is to talk about what significant people do, and not about what they don’t do!
--Notionis (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unacceptable censorship" 

message: Is there any? Per WP:BLP I removed all unsourced material. The one line left is sourced to a Jewish Newspaper (?), unless there is no 'other side' to hear from, this seems a bit biased as well.
Also, although the newspaper included the info about what he said in The Independent this should be sourced direct if it for inclusion at all (based on whether he is notable for being an academic or being a controversial anti-Zionist) - which I don't know myself. WP:NOT#NEWS says that "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic". --Alf melmac 13:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no noticeable controversy, only the man's own view. I've renamed the section. FNAS (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]