Talk:Elaine Pagels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Contents 1 Scholarly references? 2 Scholarship or personal attack? 3 Wrongly cited source? 4 Anonymous critics

[edit] Scholarly references?

It seems that the last external reference (christianity and/or elaine pagels) does not really belong in an encyclopedia. It is someone's personal correspondance, and I was unable to find the source of the correspondance. Any comments? Agentcdog 23:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarship or personal attack?

A an external link was added to an article authored by a Roman Catholic priest, who makes the claim that Pagels is a "very naughty historian" and a "lady novelist" rather than a respected scholar. He bases his conclusion on the analysis of a single quotation (out of hundreds) taken out of context, from her book The Gnostic Gospels. His objection is based on her stated conflation of two different quotes, the reversal of a phrase with its antecedent, and the ironic charge that her quotation of Irenaeus is taken out of context. This priest is entitled to his interpretations, but he steps beyond analysis of Pagels work to engage in the personal attack cited above. In this he is unfortunately perpetuating the unChristian practice of character assassination engaged by Irenaeus in Against Heresies. Such action debases scholarship and is better suited to the National Enquirer than the Catholic World News. I don't think it should be dignified by a link from Wikipedia. --Blainster 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Having just read the article on CWN, I have to say I didn't find it a terribly argumentum ad hominem. The key point IMO,

"The example of 'creativity' here discussed may fairly be called a representative specimen of her methodology, and was singled out not because it's the worst example of its kind but because it's among the most unambiguous. No one who consults the source texts could give Pagels a pass, and that means she forfeits the claim to reliability as a scholar."

As an academic, her method of quoting a source doesn't fit with any rule of which I'm aware. If a student quoted like that in a class I taught I would fail their report. She could have easily got herself out of the mess through splitting the two quotes with an "and elsewhere" but that wouldn't have served her purposes. --Journeyman 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to the language (re: unreliable scholarship) used in the paragraph you quoted, however the claim that the book quotation is representative is specious. There are exactly two quotes in the entire book that are "conflations". That is hardly representative. The objection, to repeat, is that the unscholarly, unkind, and unChristian language used by the priest in his description of Pagels should not be tolerated in civil discourse. I suspect he would never say anything like that to her face. If he had limited his complaint to the professor's work, rather than demeaning her person, his article would have been acceptable. --Blainster 06:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the link ought to remain. The language is often less than kind, but the article does contain a substantive critique of Pagels' work. Sisoyflaco (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrongly cited source?

I have read the article about the one-hundred best non-fiction books and it is an article mentioning the fifty worst and fifty best books not the one-hundred best books. Furthermore, her book is in the list of the worst books so if this source is going to be used the whole paragraph should be changed. I am asking for approval to do it. (Faso 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

The two lists should be linked to in footnotes, to prevent interested "spin". --Wetman (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous critics

The "critics" being cited here should be identified, to demonstrate that these are not straw men set up for counter-argument's sake. Not a single direct quote from Pagels herself yet: all paraphrases. --Wetman (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)