Talk:Guy Halsall

Balance

It is good that we finally have some biographical details to begin helping to balance up this article, but I suggest that the "2012 controversy" section needs editing down to something reasonable. It has far too much text for a minor incident in a productive and successful career. It is also questionable as to whether Nouse is considered a reliable source here, after all it is just a student paper and, fairly obviously, the THES just lifted the story from its pages, carrying over the bias and errors.--SabreBD (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with this. This article is about a major current historian. More than 50% of the main text is dedicated to oxygenating a local and ephemeral institutional spat that has absolutely no bearing on this person's scholarly contribution. Someone has gone to some lengths to produce this passage, without showing any equivalent interest in actual scholarship. It does not produce a balanced view of this person's professional affairs within his institution. At present the article reads like an attempt to tarnish an individual's reputation on the internet, by maintaining the profile of a minor fracas. Spats like this are two a penny in academia — but don't usually leave such an enduring mark as this. In my opinion the whole section should be removed unless someone can demonstrate why it is of any interest to anyone except those directly involved. I shall make a few small snips to start with. I hope anyone who wants to restore cut sections would explain why it is necessary to keep them. Nonni Fimm (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree. Nonni Fimm's edits are an improvement, but I also support further reductions or cutting the section altogether.Kirsa14 (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you on that: I just didn't want to enter directly into editorial ping-pong with someone desperate to keep this pointless anecdote on wikipedia.Nonni Fimm (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The abbreviated account of the 2012 'controversy' is still unnecessary. It provides no significant information concerning Halsall.CubeDigit (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, it now looks like a much higher quality article.--SabreBD (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that this page is currently the target of malicious and likely defamatory action related to a current controversy (mostly playing out on Twitter) amongst academics interested in the future direction of a major organization for Anglo-Saxon (Early Medieval English Language and Culture) Studies. It might be best to freeze the page to the present edition or to one from before September 10, 2019. JHK (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

To what extent is this article an attack piece on a living person?

I have at least removed this:

Halsall considers his research on Germanic peoples to be of a revolutionary and subversive character.{{Efn|"In the reinterpretation of ‘Germanic’ archaeology I have benefited from discussions with, and the encouragement of fellow-subversives... vive la révolution!"{{sfn|Halsall|2007|p=xv}} |name=|group=}}

The quote is extracted from a jokey line in the acknowledgements section, referring to Halsall's colleagues in the area of archaeology who apparently share his views on some things. It is clearly not intended as a serious description of Halsall's research on any topic. I note that the editor who added this, has similarly used quotes in numerous articles involving specific living academics, and frequently links to Wikiquotes where the same editor collects similar selections about the same genre of academic (Wikiquotes articles so far for Guy Halsall, Walter Goffart, and Michael Kulikowski). IMHO it is obvious that these edits on WP and Wikiquote are chosen, (sometimes cut-up and pasted together in quite strange ways), to give specific well-respected, living, mainstream academics an unrealistically "extremist" look. What links all these academics is that they are connected to the scholarly positions which the same editor has opposed (and distorted, perhaps misunderstood) in various articles such as Goths and Germanic peoples. I raise the issue here informally (as opposed to calling for discussion at the BLP noticeboard, yet) in the hope that this pattern of misleading quotes by and about these academics will be replaced by a more sensible approach.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Should we remove the link to Wikiquote?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)