This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
As it stands, this article is pretty much a hagiography, with most criticism of his ideas being brushed aside and dismissed with no effort made to understand the criticism. Brendan Rizzo (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm not sure whether Wikipedia accepts "bad vibes" as violations of neutral point of view, but I certainly got them reading this article; its tone seems far too flattering, almost propagandic. Like, am I correct in feeling that Wikipedia biographies of political ideologues generally don't try to replicate the arguments that person made to promote their ideology? Some bits were particularly egregious: "a social structure that seeks to maximize human peace and freedom" in the lead section seems like an awfully empty and promotional statement to make about something. There is also the flagrantly non-neutral and judgemental "Galambos rejected the term social science, in part because most social scientists do not employ the scientific method to test their hypotheses." in the "Volitional science" section, while the "Criticism and controversy" section's "The mere idea of a stateless society is controversial because the vast and overwhelming number of people cannot conceive of such a thing." is extremely condescending and defensive. So with all that in mind, I think that an NPOV check is in order. Skozik (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article credits the roles of LeFevre, Bos, and Estes in the development of Galambos' views. Might any editor have an approach toward incorporating their roles into the Overview? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)13:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]