Talk:Anthony Giddens

message: I feel this article fails the first criteria that the prose should be well-written, compelling and accessible for the non-specialist reader. An admirable effort has been made in synthesising summaries of Giddens' work from academic books, but the text is still dauntingly dense for the non-specialist reader. The text also needs a thorough going over for wording, misspellings and syntax e.g. "The problem is, however, that conflicting viewpoints in social science result in a desintrest of the people. For example, when scientist don't agree about the greenhouse-effect, people will withdraw from that arena, and negate that there is a problem. Therefore, the more the sciences expand, the more incertitude there is in the modern society. In this regard, the juggernaut even gets more steerless." (sentence also doesn't distinguish clearly between social science/scientists and natural science/scientists). Also there is a lack of NPOV issue as this article is comprehensive in its positive portrayal of Giddens' theories and concepts but it neglects to convey that while he is a very influential contemporary theorist, he is also a much-criticized (as all influential social theorists are) and even academically controversial one (controversial even at Cambridge SPS). Bwithh 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the POV tag is a little extreme and needlessly off-putting to potential readers. The article appears a fair representation of the man and his theories regardless of whether they are agreed with or not. As mentioned above, most influential theorists are criticised, that is the point of critical study and analysis. Therefore have removed the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.139.126 (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It reads like a puff piece and begins like a book jacket.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.104.153 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I totally agree! I'm a sociologist, and this article is unreadable (and hagiographic). Just like Giddens, the article remains abstract and moves in circles, with little substantial/empirical/critical content. Yuk! Rafael Willems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.41.102 (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA nom and adding POV tag

message: This may not be significant, but the statement, "He has been described as Britain's best known social scientist since John Maynard Keynes", bothered me.
I decided to check the source, and found the exact statement in Blackwell's Companion (bottom of p.248), but the source didn't indicate where they had garnered that notion from. Is it a legitimate claim since it's from Blackwell's? Or can it be removed?
Jy10 18:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it bother you? Eyedubya 00:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It bothers me because it sounds like hype. Rafael Willems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.41.102 (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Is 'Anthony Giddens, Baron Giddens' a standard name for a Wikipedia article? Seems odd to me. Also, the title currently used at the top of the infobox does not seem to be consistent. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all part of the hype. Sir, Lord, Baron - who cares? Rafael Willems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.41.102 (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title?