| 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NPOV
editThis article is rather 'glowing' and contains a lot of unsourced praise. It reads more like an editorial profile than a wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.83.20 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC) --
The article is obviously written by Theodore Zeldin himself. Zeldin has a very high opinion of himself and is quite clearly mostly interested in self-promotion. He would seem to one of those professors that one encounters around the place who has a drunkenly insane sense of their great importance notwithstanding the utter triviality of their work. The fact that Zeldin had to write this Wikipedia article himself and that absolutely nobody else has bothered to add or edit anything in the text will hopefully implant in the dear man a sense of self temperance in his elder years. Rivelle (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC) --
-- This comment agrees with those above; Mr Zeldin's entry does not meet the standard of an objective article. Its narrative style is turgid and gushing. Specifically, it is written with a clear bias towards Zeldin. Readers should not consider any included information to be reliable or complete, let alone authoritative. Notably, there is no mention of criticism of his work despite the exhaustive list of plaudits. A generous interpretation would be that the article's author did not understand Wikipedia's purpose and mistook it for an advertising platform or LinkedIn. A more cynical view conjures the sad image of an obscure philosopher, alone in his armchair, having to write his own entry. The author should reflect that the article would likely diminish Mr Zeldin in the estimation of those targeted by his lofty ideas. --19/08/19
Terminology...
editAccording to the conventions used in this article the British Mandate of Palestine should be a place of birth. According to its entry in Wikipedia the British Mandate of Palestine was a 'legal instrument'. Did the latter metamorphose into the former? Or was he born in a 'legal instrument'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.51.91 (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)