Does 'obituary' need to be listed twice? I'm taking it out of the 'summaries of knowledge' section for now. Keesiewonder 22:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Merger: one article can certainly cover the whole topic. JMiall 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support unless there's some difference between the two that I'm missing. –Pomte 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Merger if only because the current article is nothing but a useless list of other places to go, completely devoid of useful reference information, whereas Scholarly writing has the rudimentary elements of what will probably be a useful article. -DavidJGross 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Problems with this Article
This is my first comment on a 'talk' page, so apologies if I have got the formatting wrong.
I am writing because there are a number of problems with this article, and I think it should be entirely re-written.
Firstly, as an academic writer myself, I am concerned that both this article and the scholarly writing article are written from a particular perspective of academic writing that is a) not objective, and b) not necessarily representative of the mainstream. For example, while some academic writers like to work with the concept of a 'discourse community', this is a theoretical concept which makes potentially controversial assumptions that many academics would not agree to. In view of this I do not think the article should rely on the concept of a 'discourse community', as though this were an accepted part of how academic writing takes place.
Secondly, the writer makes some unjustified - and, in some cases, patently false - assertions throughout the article, some of which involve taking up distinctive positions regarding matters that are subject to ongoing academic debate. For example, the writer assumes a) that there are standard 'moves' which most academic writers will make, b) that the manifestations of these 'moves' are discipline-relative, and c) that "Facts can be thought of merely as claims".
There are other problems as well which are too numerous to list here. However, suffice it to say that at present the article reads like a post-modern theory of academic writing which involves a dodgy form of epistemic relativism, as opposed to a well-balanced encyclopedia entry.
I agree mostly with what the user above says.
I'm not an expert in this field, but I have found a lead of when and how the mess occurred. On around September 16, 2012, several different users started adding uncited essay to the article and re-added them after being removed by other users.
I have included a screenshot to the right for your convenience. I am not capable of restoring the article, but hopefully this will help whoever working on a fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicjang (talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I've removed a quite long and opinionated quote from the lead. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)