Talk:Quentin Skinner

format
links for the audio lectures are still not working and this sucks, anyone any idea where to find those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.95.131 (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

some very minor formatting and style changes, i believe for at least the slightly better. i hope i didnt step on your toes. feel free to revert. its really a very fine article. 70.110.131.95 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/academic_staff/further_details/skinner.html There's a picture of him on here.

I know a lot about Prof. Skinner and am willing to do a very good page...however I can't seem to work out how to do footnotes...expect more and full when I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webersghost (talk • contribs) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I marked the dead links and found a site where the 2007 Wolfson lecture is, audio and text can be found (I think): www.wolfson.cam.ac.uk/lee-lecture  Jenlee639 (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I am a Research Assistant working for Prof Skinner and have been asked to update some of the details on his page. He is very pleased with the excellent work that has been done on the article. I will only be making minor changes. JoPaul87 (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)JoPaul87

Principal publications, fixing 'indiscriminate, excessive, or irrelevant examples'.
Hello there, I'm a PhD student with a background in intellectual history and a decent knowledge of Skinner's work. I noticed when the checking the page that a new notification has appeared that the list of principal publications is thought to have 'indiscriminate, excessive, or irrelevant examples'. I'm new to editing Wikipedia but am well placed to tidy up that section if someone could explain to me what's wrong with it? I had a look in the style manual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works) and noted that it says 'Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article.' Kj Cheetham (I believe it was your edit that highlighted this problem), is your suggestion that the the list is too long and that (as with a comparable intellectual historian, J. G. A. Pocock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._G._A._Pocock) there should be an abbreviated list of publications on this page and a separate one for a full list of works? I'd very much appreciate any and all advice people have to offer! All the best, Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm not the one who added the tag but my guess is that for a section titled "principal publications" there are an awful lot of them. Given that Skinner has been quite influential and productive in his field of study, I think it would be reasonable to create a separate article with a somewhat complete list of his publications and link to it from this article. This section could be trimmed considerably to what you or anyone else with better knowledge of Skinner than me deems "principal". We usually try to avoid academic biographies to look like resumes, which is why people are encouraged to keep publication lists short. Best, Caius G. (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, that's very helpful indeed. You're right that the title hardly fits the contents. Once I've familiarised myself a bit more with how things work here I'll get on. All the best, Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just realised that you are not confirmed and therefor unable to create an article yet. I'll happily create the list of his works by copy pasting the parts from this article for you if this is what you want. Best, Caius G. (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi both, I placed the original tag, but I'd have no objections to a separate article listing the works. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your offer works very well for me, thank you both. Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , List of works by Quentin Skinner. I have place a hatnote directing readers to the list of works article but left the content on this one as it is, as it is probably less work to remove entries than write the entire section from scratch (although you're invited to do so should you wish). I hope this works! Best, Caius G. (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi just to say that I came across the new article in the uncategorised feed and was about to request WP:A10 speedy on the basis that it duplicates the contents of (sections of) this article, but luckily I noticed the reference to this discussion. All the same, as it stands, that article is sitting there forlorn and vulnerable to an A10 move at any time. So if you do intend to do something with it, might I suggest doing it posthaste? Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the template and reminder! I'll have a go at the main article. Best, Caius G. (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, thank you both. I'll have a look at both articles now and will see what I can do. All the best, Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that and myself have moved the interviews and edited books to List of works by Quentin Skinner, is it appropriate to remove Kj cheetham's warning about 'indiscriminate, excessive, or irrelevant examples' from the list of principal publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulielmus Rosseus (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Following a discussion with on their own talk page, I've removed the example farm tag. If that was premature please do let me know. All the best, Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Methodology and Empirical focus
Hello everyone, it occurs to me now that the principal publications issue has been fixed that more could be done with the methodology and empirical focus sections. In particular, the empirical focus section is quite broad and omits some important elements of Skinner's work that appear in that list, in particular his work on the history of rhetoric and on forensic rhetoric in Shakespeare. The methodology section is more detailed, but also omits some key concepts. For instance, when the article speaks of "what individual writers may be said to have been doing in what they wrote" it does not note that when Skinner speaks of writers 'doing' things with their words he is explicitly alluding to JL Austin's theory of speech acts. That Skinner uses concepts from Austin and Wittgenstein's philosophy of language is one of the most distinctive aspects of his methodology. If no one objects, I would be very happy to take the time to work on those things and provide some meaningful and clear additions to those sections. I'll keep a note of them here so that if anyone disagrees they can discuss them here/undo them. Of course, if anyone thinks that this would be bad idea in the first place please do let me know. Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now added a paragraph about the role of the speech act in Skinner's method, which also led to me rewriting some of the other two paragraphs to avoid repetition. I think that the result is a clearer section on his method but I would be grateful for feedback, especially if someone disagrees. All the best, Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)