Talk:Andrew Joseph Galambos

Original name
He most definitely wasn't born to be Andrew Joseph Galambos if he was born to be a Hungarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.180 (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hagiography/NPOV dispute
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)

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)

Flowstream
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  &#124; contribs) 13:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)