Talk:Joseph H. H. Weiler

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal 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 articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Social and political Unassessed

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 articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Social and political philosophy

The entire second half of this article, and perhaps the whole piece, is compromised by aggrandizing terminology. Someone please size it down and even it up. Cjs2111 23:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the second half is so laudatory is precisely beacuse Weiler is one of the most influential and leading academics and policy-makers of our time. If we gave the blank facts, then it would be impossible to recognise his unique contribution.Harlay (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Not even in the entry on Beethoven will you find such overblown language. Weiler is, in my opinion, a very good and influential scholar, but even so I find this entry comical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.61.208 (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The petitesse of the previous commentator shows itself. Judging from contributions by the same contributor, am academic, maybe a fomer student of Weiler. For those who actually know about this subject, Weiler is unquestionably the greatest living scholar of EU law and has done even more - he is part of and influences the European integration debate. How many other professors of EU law get to go to Davos? Why does he get honorary doctorates at an unusually early age? One may not like him, but it is impossible to deny his towering presence. If he is so bad as the other commentators say, why would Federico Mancini, Habermas and others engage publicly with him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlay (talk • contribs) 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]