Talk:Thomas Pangle
| 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dispute Tag removed edit
This article needs some sourcing, an anonymous editor IP address 70.240.13.248, has added quite a bit of information that strikes me as questionable- now I may be very uninformed and wrong to question the information, but it strikes me as odd. In particuliar the information of tenure at Yale seems flawed, or retrohistorical. The writer says it was a highly noted happening (Pangle getting denied tenure, and the issue about 'Straussians), then they should try to add sources to verify this either by citation or hyperlink to article on the web- not just mention the publications the writer credits with reporting on the issue. This naming with of publications is almost worse than having no sources since it gives the inexperienced reader a false sense of authority.
I went to University of Toronto and took an undergrad course taught by Pangle in 1989 or 1990- and Pangle had been teaching there for quite some time I believe. Did the term for Leo Strauss students- namely "Straussians"- already exist then (early-mid 1980s?)? Would a Yale University Prof have such a bias and prejudice against Strauss back then? This claim needs much more explanation. I read Shadia Drury's first book on Strauss published in 1988 and do not believe she ever used the term.
What I am trying to say is the article doesn't quite make sense, and there is too much personal paraphrasing of what Pangle is supoose to think, although it does sound like the writer does have a competency to write the material, they need to better source it. --Mikerussell 02:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Dispute Tag removed edit
An Anonymous editor provided many sources, which was the main reason for added the Accuracy tag, so I removed it; although the article could still be improved as far as other matters, in my opinion, it is pretty short and general now.--Mikerussell 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Assessment comment edit
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thomas Pangle/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| This article provides a good account of the basic biographical facts, strong account of major ideas of this thinker (a difficult task) and a well sourced account of an historical controversy. Good bibliography. Weaknesses of the article include lack of an info box and photo of the subject, and more cites or sources are needed to document the impact of this thinker. annie 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Annie06 |
Last edited at 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Dispute tags removed edit
Dispute tags were added by two editors in March 2020 with no reason given. These have been removed. Future editors are requested to discuss changes here before making unilateral decisions on the article.2604:6000:141A:2EF:8DF3:6F5E:8C32:53B (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)