Talk:Michael Kulikowski
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Andrew Lancaster in topic Doctoral advisor
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
He really did get beat up after the graduation.
- No, it was wiki-vandalism, Astronaut (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the hell he did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.175.68 (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- 2 questions: Can you prove it using verifiable information from a reliable source? Even if you can prove it, please explain why such information encyclopedic? Astronaut (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the hell he did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.175.68 (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
English Accent edit
I see here that he is listed as an American, but when I see him on TV he has an English accent. Any explanation? 72.86.42.38 (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Doctoral advisor edit
This article is riddled with inaccuracies. Michael Kulikowski's doctoral advisor was not Walter Goffart, but Timothy D. Barnes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.72.50 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- It also spectacularly misrepresents his and Goffarts ideas. Due for a rewrite... — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Mnemosientje I've made some changes, which hopefully meet your approval. Perhaps you can take it further? One theme of concern I found was the use of a colourful, some would say exaggerated, critique by Ward-Perkins as a proxy for Kulikowski's own wordings. There have been discussed on several WP articles related to this one about the use of sarcastic remarks by critics to try to make scholars seem ridiculous, and WP has to do better on this. I believe WP:BLP is also relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Better than before. The reliance on critics' interpretations in these articles is problematic, you have remedied this somewhat, thank you. I have made some minor further edits. To be frank, I doubt I will very often be here to edit these articles, as I don't want to get caught up in the back-and-forth that started at the Goths and Germanic peoples entries too much (might edit a bit here and there tho). I tend to get sucked into long-winded disputes when confronted with rank idiocy or agenda-driven distortion of information regarding topics I care about, and start feeling emotionally involved quite quickly, and end up spending time I should be spending on other things on countering nonsense on the internet. (I've experienced this on Wiktionary, where I usually do most of my editing, and Wikipedia is not very different. Not healthy for the soul, life's too short.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Mnemosientje, very wise, but all of us can avoid most long-winded disputes if we just have enough editors prepared to keep watch and make occasional short comments and edits on such articles. When disputes about things like this actually last, it tends to be a result of there not being enough editors on a topic. Identifying where the problems are coming from is not complicated in most such cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Better than before. The reliance on critics' interpretations in these articles is problematic, you have remedied this somewhat, thank you. I have made some minor further edits. To be frank, I doubt I will very often be here to edit these articles, as I don't want to get caught up in the back-and-forth that started at the Goths and Germanic peoples entries too much (might edit a bit here and there tho). I tend to get sucked into long-winded disputes when confronted with rank idiocy or agenda-driven distortion of information regarding topics I care about, and start feeling emotionally involved quite quickly, and end up spending time I should be spending on other things on countering nonsense on the internet. (I've experienced this on Wiktionary, where I usually do most of my editing, and Wikipedia is not very different. Not healthy for the soul, life's too short.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Mnemosientje I've made some changes, which hopefully meet your approval. Perhaps you can take it further? One theme of concern I found was the use of a colourful, some would say exaggerated, critique by Ward-Perkins as a proxy for Kulikowski's own wordings. There have been discussed on several WP articles related to this one about the use of sarcastic remarks by critics to try to make scholars seem ridiculous, and WP has to do better on this. I believe WP:BLP is also relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)