Talk:Academic writing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 2 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crystalnicole47.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

To do list
I've just rewritten the lead section, to get it in line with Wikipedia style and make it a more comprehensive overview of academic writing.

Other changes I intend to make: Elizabeth.f.chamberlain (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Flesh out the "Academic style" section
 * Add a section on genre
 * Add a section on studies of academic writing
 * Contextualize "Discourse community" and "Intertextuality" within the encyclopedic purpose of the page (or perhaps remove?)

Changes I want to make: Add more detail on iterative, non-linear nature of academic writing acquisition Add more detail on academic writing shared features with other dialects/ registers Add detail on linguistic features of academic writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aullaboutwriting (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment
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)

Merge
The artile Scholarly writing would seem to cover the same subject matter as Academic writing. -- Whpq 22:03, 12 February 2007 (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)

What about a reference to criticism of the genre? It's generally awful stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.162.168 (talk) 14:52, 7 December 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.

5.70.185.252 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

Lead
I've removed a quite long and opinionated quote from the lead. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Brutal trim
Have made an attempt to turn this towards being a useful encyclopaedic article rather that an example of the worst sort of academic writing. Happy to see others expand it in a better direction than it's been for the last few years. - Snori (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

MIL
Acceptings One's Identity 2407:9802:D000:C5:6D49:9A0:A510:4E3C (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition Theory
— Assignment last updated by Pthomas4 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oral communication
Speech about bullying 14.1.64.240 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writ 2 - Academic Writing
— Assignment last updated by Icecream209 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

English Academic
Reaction,reflection and response paper- Moana or 3 idiots

Book critic - 1984 Literary critism- Nobena by nuebe. Moral philosohical approach 203.177.91.127 (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge
The distinction between the article on Scientific writing and this one seem semantic to me. All other-language wikis will link to either on or the other also; at least that should be fixed by one being given primacy. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE No. Both articles should be kept. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:71E0:14D:8C5C:4441 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Care to explain why? --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Based on the English language definitions and content, the difference seems more than semantic. Scientific writing states that it is related to scientific topics, while academic writing is broader and may refer to any scholarly writing (e.g., writing about art). Scientific writing may be a subtopic of academic writing, but they do not appear to be the same topic. I suppose "one being given primacy" would mean that the subtopic would be made clear, and to that end I don't see a problem with mentioning that scientific writing is a type of academic writing page. —Ost (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)