Talk:Philip Carl Salzman

Salzman notable
This guy is an academic whose work is being discussed regularly in major newspapers. On a larger scale, I think wikipedia has a bias against academics. Even extremely minor actors have wikipedia pages. Why not academics whose ideas are drawing notice?American Clio (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)American Clio
 * I don't understand, was there some suggestion that Salzman not be in Wikipedia? In 2017 Salzman's work is considered foundational in helping Western scholars remember that non-Western societies frequently are not nation-states, a notion of the self relatively recent even in the West. It was all about blood relations, in a word, "tribe." England in the 1700s does not think it odd to invite a Hanoverian George to take over, who doesn't even speak English. Personally, I'd expand Salzman to show his influence but have a mss must finish before semester starts. Profhum (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Balance?
One quote praising him and his work, none of the entirely relevant criticism he's garnered? This seems like a bit of a puff piece. JamesG5 (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This is entirely a puff piece, and one that glazes over some unfortunate implications in terms of Salzman's political rhetoric and other beliefs at that. However considering that Salzman apparently seems to think that Arabs in general (although he has a particular antipathy towards the Palestinians) are lesser and less civilized in general as a people, I wouldn't be surprised if the creator of the article doesn't see those views as unfortunate or extremely hyperbolic in the first place. 2607:FEA8:A4E0:11EC:DCD4:645F:5F8B:9692 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)