Talk:Beowulf

message: Chiswick Chap and page watchers, I have just removed a section on Anglo-Saxon Feminine Condition in Beowulf added by D.P. Halder, which seemed to be citing their own work, however I think a similar section would be useful. Any ideas? There is some relevant material in Grendel's mother and Wealhtheow. TSventon (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, the softer, sweeter side of Grendel's Mum. I recall an article in Scientific American about the kinder, gentler picture of Tyrannosaurs painted by some recent research ... not. Well, I guess that there are several relevant factors to consider. The first is that tens of thousands of primary research papers have been written about (or in this case, around) Beowulf, and even ignoring WP:PRIMARY for a moment, we certainly can't begin to name and cite them all. So perhaps the GA criterion "...the main points" is key here: we have covered those, and the feminine condition isn't one of them. That such things have been touched upon in the two subsidiary articles is noteworthy, but it doesn't of itself mean we have to do so here; the point of subsidiary articles is to cover subsidiary matters, which they evidently do in this case. So, back to PRIMARY. It's not forbidden to cite one's own work, but it definitely isn't a good idea when the work is recent primary research and at a tangent to the main subject of an article. For what it's worth, I think we shouldn't cover it here, for the reasons just given, though if at some stage there's enough reliable material - secondary sources like review articles and textbooks - for someone to write Feminine Condition in Beowulf, then of course we can add a "Further" link over here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

text: @TSventon Thank you. I did not have that idea! I will abide by this for my next contribution! D.P. Halder (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women in Beowulf 

message: Well, the long-standing text has just been cut, twice, contrary to consensus, complete with an accusation that the agreed and formally-reviewed text is POV. Let's put that down to the extreme heatwave across Europe. I have reverted to a suitable status quo ante per custom, it is not acceptable to edit-war an position into an article. Let's take a look at the scholarly texts, one after the other. (in work) ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geats, Liuzza, Shippey, and other scholars 

message: My edit that added a clause to single-authorship claim was reverted because "this is not the place to publicise a primary research article". I am new to the whole editing thing, but I think nothing is being "publicised". The Guardian piece (which is cited in the article now) reports on the paper in NHB. The response that I cited was peer reviewed and published by the editors of the same NHB. The question is as valid as the original claim and readers have a right to evaluate them together. Also, the article is full of primary research citations (?). Perechenpchel (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  We certainly don't want to continue adding primary reports; it's far better to work from reliable secondary sources. The Guardian article makes clear that scholars have differing views - what a surprise - so let's just say that, it's quite enough for that purpose. Maybe in five or ten years' time there'll be a review article analysing the question using all the modern research. I don't know if you are associated with the research article but editors will immediately wonder about that matter also; the citing of one's own work is deprecated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearer now; thank you for keeping at least some uncertainty in the text. The reason I thought adding the reference was because the problem with the original study does not only imply a "disagreement", but very specific methodological and analysis issues. Perechenpchel (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-authorship claim is problematic 

message: Chiswick Chap, I changed four inconsistent -ize spellings to -ise yesterday, one of them had just been added by a new editor. I believe this was correct as the article largely uses -ise rather than -ize spellings and has been tagged with Template:Use British English rather than Template:Use Oxford spelling since 2014. In 2020 you tagged this talk page with Template:British English rather than Template:British English Oxford spelling. TSventon (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks. That seems best to me, as it minimises confusion with AE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  British English 

message: Adding the Star Trek: Voyager takeoff episode might be fun. Misty MH (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubtful whether it'd justify a mention, unless a scholar has singled it out for discussion in this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek: Voyager takeoff