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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How is it possible this article doesn't mention this dude's rabid homophobia? Why?, because it's been carefully preened to avoid anything controversial. Excellent work, gentlemen! You've mentioned to produce an article that leaves out everything you're ashamed of! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.29.20 ( talk) 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This article needs serious formatting overhaul. Anyone up to the task? If not, I may attempt over the next few weeks. Scharferimage ( talk) 05:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is notability of Dr. George being questioned? He holds a named chair at Princeton and has been awarded the Presidential Citizen's Medal. Shouldn't that tag be removed? 192.12.184.2 ( talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
the article sounds more like a pro domo for George. A bit .... 'geschmacklos' (bad taste) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.122.57 ( talk) 08:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is none of this sourced?
As a teenager he became active in politics, working as an intern on the staff of Ken Hechler, a pro-life liberal Democratic congressman representing West Virginia's fourth congressional district, and serving twice as Governor of the West Virginia Democratic Youth Conference. As late as 1976, he remained active in the Democratic Party, attending its national convention in New York City as an alternate delegate. As the Democratic Party moved leftward on moral and cultural issues, particularly abortion, he grew increasingly disaffected, and by 1984 identified himself as a political independent rather than as a Democrat. At the same time, by his own account, he began to question the efficacy of federal social welfare programs, and to worry about whether well-intentioned efforts to relieve poverty, especially in his native Appalachia, were in fact having the perverse effect of entrenching it. He grew particularly concerned about poor communities in both rural and urban areas where out-of-wedlock birth rates were skyrocketing, family stability was suffering, and large numbers of children were being reared in circumstances of fatherlessness. Although he remained convinced of the importance of a social safety net, he joined the emerging movement to reform social policies in ways that would strengthen the marriage culture and avoid undermining the autonomy and authority of key institutions of civil society, beginning with the family. He has called the marriage-based family "the original and best department of health, education, and welfare," and "a great bulwark against poverty."
In the early 1990s, he became close to Pennsylvania Governor Robert P. Casey, an outspoken pro-life Democrat, for whom he served as an informal advisor and speech writer. When Casey established an exploratory committee to plan a challenge to President Bill Clinton in the 1996 Democratic presidential primaries, George joined his fellow Princeton professor John DiIulio as co-chairman of the issues committee. Early in the campaign, however, Casey, who had undergone heart and liver transplantation surgery, withdrew for health reasons.
George was educated at Swarthmore College (BA), Harvard Law School (JD), Harvard Divinity School (MTS), and Oxford University (DPhil). At Oxford he studied under John Finnis and Joseph Raz.
On top of not being sourced - "strengthen the marriage culture?" Marriage has a culture? This sounds like he wrote this section himself, TBH. "Marriage-based family?" At the very least, "marriage culture" and "marriage-based family" ought to be in quotation marks, as they reek of POV. On top of this, the "controversy" section is terribly incoherent. 98.168.192.162 ( talk) 11:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Presumably, a politically active, ardent Catholic with last name George who feels comfortable among evangelical Prostestants would be highly likely to have a Maronite background. (The Maronites are a Roman Catholic group from Lebanon, well known for energetically persuing a socially and religiously conservative agenda: See the Lebanese Front and the Falange). Can anyone comfirm? -- Philopedia ( talk) 01:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
A question was raised (NY Times Magazine, Letters to the Editor Dec.27,2009) pertaining to Robert George's commitment to his philosophy and religion because of undisclosed differences with his wife.Can anyone comment on his spouse's influences or differences in academic, political or religious issues with George? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.162.15 ( talk) 00:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted the Stanley Fish section, primarily over WP:BLP concerns (it has no sourcing, and can be read as Fish being easily swayed at debate.) However, I should also note that:
As such, even if the general thrust becomes sourced, it is not clear that the paragraph belongs here. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 01:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the language used here is ambiguous - as I said, the noun clause "laws forcing them to accept [things]" makes it sound as though those laws are a thing, in the same way that "civil disobedience against laws requiring seatbelts" makes it sound as though those laws exist, rather than just that the document claims such laws exist. Hence, I suggest either a phrasing that is NPOV as to the effect of the law - hence "permitting" - or one that makes it obvious that the "forcing them to accept" is the personal opinion of Robert George - hence "laws which they claim would force..." Roscelese ( talk) 16:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Roscelese tried to censor Wikipedia - she removed information about how Martha Nussbaum was criticized by Robert P. George. I have reverted her. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 05:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
This article contains statements about Robert P. George sourced to Andrew Sullivan, an openly "gay" man and critic of George. Sullivan cannot possibly be neutral or objective about George. His comments should be removed from the article. To be completely clear about it, I don't believe that Mr. Sullivan should be used as a source in any article about conservative writers, least of all those who have criticized homosexuality. That was why I reverted the John Finnis article back to an earlier version (I reverted this article back to an older version for the same reason). Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 21:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It needs to be noted that George has not called himself a "Theoconservative." That's why it's a problem that a biased author, who as a homosexual has a bias against George, a critic of homosexuality, calls him one. The material needs to be removed. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 02:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia biographic articles usually start with a paragraph stating what a person is known for, or why the article is of public relevance. None of these criteria will be found in the entire biographical article of Mr. Robert P. George. Instead, it reads as a self-promoting mini biography that is inappropriate for publication in Wikipedia. I propose removal of the article and welcome your thoughts. Best, P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablufu ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I Also proposed for this page to be deleted, I couldn’t find notable achievements even after doing more research than the topic deserved. EnWikieditor ( talk) 01:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Robert P. George. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I removed the following addition to the lead: "He is opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage." Taken by itself that addition is uninformative and completely unhelpful. Many people are opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, but it would usually be unencyclopedic to note that in the leads of articles about them. A statement that someone is opposed to something is meaningful and useful to readers only if it explains the basis for their opposition to it, what specifically they have done to oppose it, etc. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Robert P. George. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Bhit2: I am about to undo most of your recent edits for problems of sourcing,
Taking a quick glance, it looks like there is weak sourcing on some of the material already in the article, but I do not have time to go through it all at the moment or in the near future. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Very weak, and seems to be a result of this article being groomed by adherents. Perhaps we can get some additional sources now that the subject has attacked the depth of President Biden's faith, employing a criterion that seems both false (Biden has never had an abortion, counseled an abortion, or otherwise violated any Catholic tenet) and hypocritical (numerous politicians, Supreme Court Justices, etc. that George supports have stances and actions on capital punishment, fair wages, treatment of the poor and strangers, etc. that very much violate Catholic tenets): https://twitter.com/McCormickProf/status/1406309316722892804 -- Jibal ( talk) 08:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Reads like a résumé and cover letter. No notable achievements and not worthy of a Wikipedia page EnWikieditor ( talk) 17:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
There have been multiple requests to delete the Wikipedia page, you’d never find him in any other encyclopaedia for a reason. He’s simply not notable enough for Wikipedia otherwise anyone who could fog a mirror and be "Presumed" of a notable achievement would have their mothers vote for a Wikipedia page. I still stand with my objection for the page existing because it reads too much like a promotional cover letter and résumé and it can be used as an unfair advantage by the individual in the professional world. EnWikieditor ( talk) 01:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How is it possible this article doesn't mention this dude's rabid homophobia? Why?, because it's been carefully preened to avoid anything controversial. Excellent work, gentlemen! You've mentioned to produce an article that leaves out everything you're ashamed of! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.29.20 ( talk) 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This article needs serious formatting overhaul. Anyone up to the task? If not, I may attempt over the next few weeks. Scharferimage ( talk) 05:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is notability of Dr. George being questioned? He holds a named chair at Princeton and has been awarded the Presidential Citizen's Medal. Shouldn't that tag be removed? 192.12.184.2 ( talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
the article sounds more like a pro domo for George. A bit .... 'geschmacklos' (bad taste) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.122.57 ( talk) 08:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is none of this sourced?
As a teenager he became active in politics, working as an intern on the staff of Ken Hechler, a pro-life liberal Democratic congressman representing West Virginia's fourth congressional district, and serving twice as Governor of the West Virginia Democratic Youth Conference. As late as 1976, he remained active in the Democratic Party, attending its national convention in New York City as an alternate delegate. As the Democratic Party moved leftward on moral and cultural issues, particularly abortion, he grew increasingly disaffected, and by 1984 identified himself as a political independent rather than as a Democrat. At the same time, by his own account, he began to question the efficacy of federal social welfare programs, and to worry about whether well-intentioned efforts to relieve poverty, especially in his native Appalachia, were in fact having the perverse effect of entrenching it. He grew particularly concerned about poor communities in both rural and urban areas where out-of-wedlock birth rates were skyrocketing, family stability was suffering, and large numbers of children were being reared in circumstances of fatherlessness. Although he remained convinced of the importance of a social safety net, he joined the emerging movement to reform social policies in ways that would strengthen the marriage culture and avoid undermining the autonomy and authority of key institutions of civil society, beginning with the family. He has called the marriage-based family "the original and best department of health, education, and welfare," and "a great bulwark against poverty."
In the early 1990s, he became close to Pennsylvania Governor Robert P. Casey, an outspoken pro-life Democrat, for whom he served as an informal advisor and speech writer. When Casey established an exploratory committee to plan a challenge to President Bill Clinton in the 1996 Democratic presidential primaries, George joined his fellow Princeton professor John DiIulio as co-chairman of the issues committee. Early in the campaign, however, Casey, who had undergone heart and liver transplantation surgery, withdrew for health reasons.
George was educated at Swarthmore College (BA), Harvard Law School (JD), Harvard Divinity School (MTS), and Oxford University (DPhil). At Oxford he studied under John Finnis and Joseph Raz.
On top of not being sourced - "strengthen the marriage culture?" Marriage has a culture? This sounds like he wrote this section himself, TBH. "Marriage-based family?" At the very least, "marriage culture" and "marriage-based family" ought to be in quotation marks, as they reek of POV. On top of this, the "controversy" section is terribly incoherent. 98.168.192.162 ( talk) 11:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Presumably, a politically active, ardent Catholic with last name George who feels comfortable among evangelical Prostestants would be highly likely to have a Maronite background. (The Maronites are a Roman Catholic group from Lebanon, well known for energetically persuing a socially and religiously conservative agenda: See the Lebanese Front and the Falange). Can anyone comfirm? -- Philopedia ( talk) 01:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
A question was raised (NY Times Magazine, Letters to the Editor Dec.27,2009) pertaining to Robert George's commitment to his philosophy and religion because of undisclosed differences with his wife.Can anyone comment on his spouse's influences or differences in academic, political or religious issues with George? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.162.15 ( talk) 00:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted the Stanley Fish section, primarily over WP:BLP concerns (it has no sourcing, and can be read as Fish being easily swayed at debate.) However, I should also note that:
As such, even if the general thrust becomes sourced, it is not clear that the paragraph belongs here. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 01:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the language used here is ambiguous - as I said, the noun clause "laws forcing them to accept [things]" makes it sound as though those laws are a thing, in the same way that "civil disobedience against laws requiring seatbelts" makes it sound as though those laws exist, rather than just that the document claims such laws exist. Hence, I suggest either a phrasing that is NPOV as to the effect of the law - hence "permitting" - or one that makes it obvious that the "forcing them to accept" is the personal opinion of Robert George - hence "laws which they claim would force..." Roscelese ( talk) 16:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Roscelese tried to censor Wikipedia - she removed information about how Martha Nussbaum was criticized by Robert P. George. I have reverted her. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 05:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
This article contains statements about Robert P. George sourced to Andrew Sullivan, an openly "gay" man and critic of George. Sullivan cannot possibly be neutral or objective about George. His comments should be removed from the article. To be completely clear about it, I don't believe that Mr. Sullivan should be used as a source in any article about conservative writers, least of all those who have criticized homosexuality. That was why I reverted the John Finnis article back to an earlier version (I reverted this article back to an older version for the same reason). Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 21:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It needs to be noted that George has not called himself a "Theoconservative." That's why it's a problem that a biased author, who as a homosexual has a bias against George, a critic of homosexuality, calls him one. The material needs to be removed. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 02:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia biographic articles usually start with a paragraph stating what a person is known for, or why the article is of public relevance. None of these criteria will be found in the entire biographical article of Mr. Robert P. George. Instead, it reads as a self-promoting mini biography that is inappropriate for publication in Wikipedia. I propose removal of the article and welcome your thoughts. Best, P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablufu ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I Also proposed for this page to be deleted, I couldn’t find notable achievements even after doing more research than the topic deserved. EnWikieditor ( talk) 01:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Robert P. George. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I removed the following addition to the lead: "He is opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage." Taken by itself that addition is uninformative and completely unhelpful. Many people are opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, but it would usually be unencyclopedic to note that in the leads of articles about them. A statement that someone is opposed to something is meaningful and useful to readers only if it explains the basis for their opposition to it, what specifically they have done to oppose it, etc. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Robert P. George. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Bhit2: I am about to undo most of your recent edits for problems of sourcing,
Taking a quick glance, it looks like there is weak sourcing on some of the material already in the article, but I do not have time to go through it all at the moment or in the near future. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Very weak, and seems to be a result of this article being groomed by adherents. Perhaps we can get some additional sources now that the subject has attacked the depth of President Biden's faith, employing a criterion that seems both false (Biden has never had an abortion, counseled an abortion, or otherwise violated any Catholic tenet) and hypocritical (numerous politicians, Supreme Court Justices, etc. that George supports have stances and actions on capital punishment, fair wages, treatment of the poor and strangers, etc. that very much violate Catholic tenets): https://twitter.com/McCormickProf/status/1406309316722892804 -- Jibal ( talk) 08:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Reads like a résumé and cover letter. No notable achievements and not worthy of a Wikipedia page EnWikieditor ( talk) 17:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
There have been multiple requests to delete the Wikipedia page, you’d never find him in any other encyclopaedia for a reason. He’s simply not notable enough for Wikipedia otherwise anyone who could fog a mirror and be "Presumed" of a notable achievement would have their mothers vote for a Wikipedia page. I still stand with my objection for the page existing because it reads too much like a promotional cover letter and résumé and it can be used as an unfair advantage by the individual in the professional world. EnWikieditor ( talk) 01:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)