Talk:Richard Seaford

"Cowardly, Shameful, Grotesque"

This article is a cowardly, shameful, grotesque attempt to discredit Prof. Seaford, a leading authority in Classics, for his legitimate views and positions on the Arab-Israeli question. As it stands, the article violates the Wikipedia principle of Neutral Point Of View: it fails to represent who Professor Seaford is "fairly and without bias". In fact, this article is clearly aimed at discrediting Prof. Seaford by neglecting key information on his life, achievements, and high contributions to the humanities and by presenting his legitimate views and action vis-a-vis the Arab Israeli question as objectively wrong. The article will be thus amended.

"Unacceptable censorship"

In the present state of this page, Richard Seaford’s contribution to Classics and Ancient History and consequently to Political Philosophy completely disappears behind the marginal question (on the intellectual dimension) of the academic boycott of Israel.
Does Wikipedia takes sides? Are they no students or colleagues of Richard Seaford interested in providing a serious summary and discussion of his significant and wholly acknowledged publications?
Of course, I would prefer to contribute to this page with a synthesis of Richard Seaford’s books. I came to this page through the study of the masterpiece of David Graeber : Debt. The First 5,000 years. (Melville House 2012. 534 p.). Key aspects of his argument (the pivotal Chapter 9) come directly from the work of Richard Seaford which appears to provide the historical demonstration of the paradigmatic change which occurred in the “Axial Age” (Karl Jaspers”) in Greece and still rules our thoughts about economy and politics. So I went to Wikipedia, hoping it would provide more information.
This is the first time such a thing happens in my long experience of this otherwise remarkable collective encyclopedia. Sorry for not being able to contribute in a more positive way, but the “raison d’être” of Wikipedia is to talk about what significant people do, and not about what they don’t do!

--Notionis (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Refuses Request to Write Article"

Last update - 21:37 18/05/2006

British professor refuses request to write article for Israeli journal

By Tamara Traubmann, Haaretz Correspondent

A British professor has refused a request to write an article for an academic journal funded by Israeli universities.

Professor Richard Seaford, from the University of Exeter in England, refused to write the article, saying he was taking part in the academic boycott of Israel.

"Alas, I am unable to accept your kind invitation, for reasons that you may not like. I have, along with many other British academics, signed the academic boycott of Israel, in the face of the brutal and illegal expansionism and the slow-motion ethnic cleansing being practiced by your government," Seaford wrote to Dr. Daniella Dueck. Dueck, a lecturer at Bar Ilan University and a member of the Scripta Classica Israelica editorial board had requested that Seaford write a book review for the journal.

Scripta Classica Israelica is published by the Israeli Society for the Promotion of Classical Studies and is distributed to subscribers in Israel and abroad.

Seaford, the head of the Department of Classics and Ancient History at Exeter University, told Haaretz that the academic boycott "is just a small contribution to the long-term raising of international consciousness which represents the only hope for an eventual just peace in the Middle East. In this respect, there is a parallel with the academic boycott of Apartheid South Africa."

When asked why boycotts specifically target academics, Seaford said, "Though many charges of racism have been directed against Israeli universities, we do not want academics of all people to be boycotted: We would be delighted if there were other boycotts."

On May 27-29, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will debate a proposal in favor of an academic boycott against Israel.

The International Advisory Board for Academic Freedom (IAB), established at Bar Ilan University to take action against academic boycotts, published a statement Thursday in which it "warns that a silent boycott between British and Israeli academics is already taking place," and called on an anti-boycott network of some 500 academics around the world to oppose it.

In March, the London Jewish Chronicle reported that U.K. magazine Dance Europe refused to publish an article on Sally Ann Freeland, an Israeli choreographer, and her dance company. The magazine conditioned the publication of the article on an explicit declaration by Freeland against the occupation, which she refused to make.

The academic boycott began in the United States and Europe during the first intifada, and intensified in 2002 after Operation Defensive Shield, during which Israel Defense Forces troops occupied West Bank cities.

The boycott movement began in response to a request by Palestinian organizations, such as The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, an umbrella organization for dozens of Palestinian NGOs.

An attempt is made almost annually in the U.K. to formally instate an academic boycott on Israel, through official decisions by lecturers' unions.

The proposal slated to be discussed later this month by NATFHE differs from previous ones. According to the proposal, the current boycott will deal not only with the occupation, but also with discrimination against different populations in Israel, mainly in the field of education.

The proposal encourages academics to "consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those that do not publicly dissociate themselves" from discriminatory and unequal policies.

According to the IBA, "Such boycotts have no place in the academic community. Scholarship and research, and their expression in the open and free exchange of ideas, are among the foundations of civilization, and without them there can be no true advancement of human knowledge."

Text of Letter

Dear Daniela Dueck, Alas I am unable to accept your kind invitation, for reasons that you may not like. I have, along with many other British academics, signed the academic boycott of Israel, in the face of the brutal and illegal expansionism, and the slow-motion ethnic cleansing, being practised by your government. There is of course nothing personal in this. I am aware of the honest arguments for and against a boycott, and that even some Israeli academics support the boycott and many do not. Whatever your views, I hope you will understand that my view is based on a widely shared moral outrage. You are welcome to report my position (if you wish) to anyone you may like to. With best wishes, Richard Seaford

Controversy

Is there any? Per WP:BLP I removed all unsourced material. The one line left is sourced to a Jewish Newspaper (?), unless there is no 'other side' to hear from, this seems a bit biased as well.

Also, although the newspaper included the info about what he said in The Independent this should be sourced direct if it for inclusion at all (based on whether he is notable for being an academic or being a controversial anti-Zionist) - which I don't know myself. WP:NOT#NEWS says that "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic". --Alf ^melmac 13:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no noticeable controversy, only the man's own view. I've renamed the section. FNAS (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)