Talk:Dan Hicks (archaeologist)

Professional career

This section seems a little too heavy on relatively minor appointments, many with no citation, and detail on newspaper articles which also sometimes appear with no citation. It has the feel of a CV at points and this makes it a little uneconomical and clumsy. I have made a minor alteration elsewhere to balance the reviews of one book, which were mixed rather than universally in praise. If any other editors have a view, please do say, otherwise I will tidy up a little more in a few days. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Emmentalist: I tried expanded the criticisms you added but a dormant account that hasn't edited in four years suddenly popped up and keeps removing it giving false reasoning each time. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

A series of accounts that only edit this article (Oxensie, Oxford fad, Archaeofacts) and spa's that only promote Hicks (Anthrofac, Poiuy00, GadsebyE, As998877, Sjceji2 and recently Landscape walker) so the promotion is problematic and goes back years. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @ThaddeusSholto I've made a comment at the COI page. I see now that @landscapewalker reverted my edits more or less as soon as they were made. I have also reviewed your reverted edits, which seem to me to improve the article, and see that the reasons given for reverting them by @landscapewalker are themselves unreferenced and look, to my eye, like an interested party might be editing the page. I will wait to see what happens with the COI report in order to avoid engaging in an edit war with @landscapewalker. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've looked again at the edits since my own on 21 Oct. The reverts made by @landscapewalker to my edits and to others since then appear unhelpful and do not improve the article. A quote, and reference to, a well-sourced (mild) criticism of a book written by the subject has been removed for a spurious reason. @ThaddeusSholto has pointed out a correction made at the source publication has no bearing on the quote referenced here; the reason given for the edit appears disingenuous. I agree with @Thaddeussholto's edits and, while I assume the good faith of all editors, it does seem that there may be COI editing going on here. As things stand, my edits and @thaddeusholto's appear to improve the article and in my view should be reinstated. Emmentalist (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Emmentalist: Well that escalated while I was away! Did you see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NB1965? At least two of the accounts were blocked as socks. I guess the others are too old to know but now there are other eyes on the article making changes to cut down the promotional aspects. Thank you for being the first to start the heavy lifting to fix the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes! I'm going to have a go tomorrow at reinstating our edits. Thanks for doing the stuff which is, frankly, technically beyond me at this point! Good to work with you! Emmentalist (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Following the action on the SPA and sockpuppet accounts, I've re-inserted a quote from the Times and removed a reference to the subject's schooling. I sense that the insertion by one of the COI accounts, specifically including the name of a critic, was political (small p) and although I have not removed the biographical material which relies so heavily on the subject's own website, I could not see a reference to schooling even there. I will come back to this article, I think, as it still relies far too heavily on the subject's own content. Indeed, the article seems that it might have been created by a SPA with COI. I do think that the subject is a legitimate one for a Wikipedia article - his book is quite prominent and he is an Oxford professor - but in my view there remain far too many references to minor articles and media appearances. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Emmentalist: I adjusted the criticism to better format the references but I want to thank you for drawing attention to the work that needs to be done on the article. Hicks is definitely notable and the article should stay but the COI edits and puffery need to stop. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @ThaddeusSholto, and v much agree. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)