This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Edits have recently been made based on Seamus Heaney's translation. However, Heaney's version is a modern poet's personal rendering; Heaney was not a medievalist or a scholar of Old English, and his version cannot be relied upon for any particular word or interpretation of any specific passage (crux or not). He might choose to write "knife" instead of "sword" to fit the sound or metre of a particular line, whether it was correct (if he indeed knew) or not. This is in my view obviously unsafe as an approach, and certainly not encyclopedic; his version says little or nothing about the original poem. I've given an example in Translating Beowulf of how his approach compares with that of other translators: that is a neutral matter, with no assertion of Heaney's correctness or otherwise. Uncritically adopting Heaney's diction as if it were the definitive text is, on the other hand, quite unjustifiable, and we shouldn't go there. Accordingly I've reverted the most recent edits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
