Talk:Jeremy Waldron

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 level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	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
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

University of Oxford Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Social and political / Contemporary Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Social and political philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Removed the entire paragraph beginning: "However, despite his claiming to be a liberal, Waldron is anti-free speech." It's clearly not appropriate in tone or content for Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the remaining content of the Ideas section of the article needs, at the least, citations for its characterization of the subject's views and writings. It also has the feel of a non-NPOV categorization.

Babaronwheels (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, shouldn't the tone be rewritten, but the idea kept? If you read the article cited, Waldron clearly has problems with "free speech" as most people, and the US Supreme Court, define it. He clearly seeks restrictions on it in a British -style system, which American scholars have largely criticized. 208.27.111.123 (talk)21:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a citation in the reinserted version of the "free speech" claim. It's unreasonable (and incendary, and hardly NPOV) to make such a sweeping claim in the absence of a specific citation so that the reader can evaluate it for his or herself. I've struck the reinserted claim -- if you put it back, please provide a specific citation.

As an aside, I wouldn't be tremendously surprised to see Waldron advocate some form of such a position. I would be surprised to see him do so in such an absolute, non-nuanced way.

Tls (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waldron is not against free speech. He is against rights-based judicial review. I'm sure he is not in favour of a British system which has extensive judicial oversight of free speech issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.25.25 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, what is that: "and is an outspoken opponent of the American practices of judicial review and torture". That is one of the most ridiculous sentences I ever read here. I mean you can be against or in favor of judicial review, but it's just weird to place these two "concepts" side by side in the same sentence. Someone has to fix it. Mike (not registered) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.77 (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that "most people" in the above comment really means "most Americans". It may surprise the commenter to learn that, no matter what American scholars may say, the advocates of the "British-style system" (i.e. most British people) consider themselves supporters of free speech. I take it that Waldron does too. The definition of "free speech" is a matter of contention, and it's not appropriate for an encyclopaedia to assume, uncritically, one definition rather than another. 129.67.85.178 (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

Waldron is indeed a Christian, have a look at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1823702 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.170.20 (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category, it must be supported by cited text within the article. If the article does not even include the word "Christian", then the category may not be added to the article. We have additional restrictions for living people. There must be a citation to the subject self-identifying with the religion, and their religion must be relevant to their notability. See WP:BLPCAT for details. Unless all our requirements are satisfied, religious categories may not be added to the article, and will be removed if they are added without the necessary support in the article text itself. The fact that the subject wrote a paper entitled "A Religious View of the Foundations of International Law" does not in any way reveal anything at all about his personal beliefs or religious identification - that's an inference on your part. Citation of a statement of belief made by the subject himself, something on the order of the subject stating "I am a Christian" is what is required. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading the article, there are many points where Waldron makes it very clear that he is indeed a Christian. A few quotes from the article:

"Or does international law also have moral standing in its own right as one of the powers that be, ordained by God or ordained by men in response to God’s commandments to do justice, seek peace, and generally order the world? And if it does, how should we as Christians think about some of the distinctive features of this ordering"

"We shared the view of one of our leaders, Robin Lovin, that the conclusions we reach when we think together about these questions as Christians must eventually become part of a larger discussion."

"Either way, if our faith has a bearing on this issue, we cannot confine it (in Robin Lovin’s words) to church and the family dinner table. We have to know our own bearings, and it has to be known where we stand. The duty to bear witness is not only a religious one but a civic one as well."

"Suffice for the moment to say that I am a sort of Christian positivist. Our task is to make positive law that can do human work in the midst of human problems, not to anticipate God’s judgments or His rule upon earth, which we will experience in its glory soon enough."

A better link to the article is here: http://web.princeton.edu/sites/jmadison/calPendar/documents/2011%200323%20Waldron.pdf

Tedmosby83 (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found even more evidence of Waldron being a Christian. His book "Torture, Terror, and Trade-Offs" has a chapter in it entitled "What Can Christian Teaching Add to the Debate about Torture?" In that chapter are several comments indicating the author's Christianity. I'll share the following quote from it:

"The last point I will raise is one we need to approach with the greatest caution, but which can never be far from the mind of a Christian contemplating the issue of torture. Our Savior Christ, we know, was not just put to death; as we say in the creed, He suffered under Pontius Pilate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedmosby83 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Professor Jeremy Waldron.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]