Talk:Armand D'Angour

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armand D'Angour. 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/20140201193840/http://www.isis-innovation.com/news/newsletter/edition40.pdf to http://www.isis-innovation.com/news/newsletter/edition40.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801203115/http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/arts_at_oxford/120723.html to http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/arts_at_oxford/120723.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

COI of major editor of page

The major editor of the page Armand2012 has a likely conflict of interest (username and nearly all edits are to this page). The editor has also published attacks on other academics. The subject of the article is notable by position, but neutrality of the article is disputed. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A silly experiment, now reversed, and not to be repeated. Apologies are owed to Wikipedia and to RB, for whom there is genuine respect. Armand2012 (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

COI tag (August 2022)

The major editor of this article Armand2012 has a conflict of interest in the article -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Understood. I will restrict further additions to citation of public material, and ask my guest editors to do likewise, with no jocular or partisan amendments.

Armand 213.243.249.19 (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Socrates & Aspasia section

The framing of the section on Socrates & Aspasia in this article is... interesting. Both Tim Whitmarsh's (a trained classicist) review in the Guardian and David Sansone's in the BMCR seem rather selectively portrayed to only quote the bits which praise D'Angour. Whitmarsh early on observes in his review that "This is a learned, agile and slickly written book, but it is not without its problems"; he concludes that the portrayal of Socrates and Aspasia in it is a "donnish just-so story ... best left to the Victorians." Sasone is even more cutting: "it is necessary to ensure that all the evidence be presented accurately and evaluated with care. It cannot be said that D’Angour has succeeded in doing this." Even the praise quoted in the article "an intriguing alternative" is prefaced with the much less complimentary "one feels like a spoilsport pointing out its deficiencies in documentation and reasoning".

I can't help but feel that this section (written mostly by apparently D'Angour himself, and an IP who is almost solely interested in D'Angour is not a neutral reflection of the reception of his thesis! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree about too much much apparent contribution from the subject himself. It would also be preferable if that charge came from someone using their real name, but that does not alter that fact that in this instance it is valid. Whilst I do not agree that coverage of two damning reviews from a much larger number of good ones constitutes balance--there will always be outliers among professional scholars, as in any field--I have added the particularly harshly worded censure of those two reviewers, copied from the above comments, back into the article, and removed the balance notice. John Birchall (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)