K P wrote:
On 6/30/07, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
Another example I encountered today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Stravinsky&curid=38172&am...
Was this overtagging? I think so, the article has plenty of sources, just not everything is cited. Plus the information tagged with {{fact}} does not seem controversial or possibly false.
Garion96
Not controversial? Anything that discusses a person's intentions with their artistic work must come directly from source--this is one of the most common errors from sourced materials I see on Wikipedia, an editor concluding what a person intended with their actions by descriptions merely of the events. People's intentions are very difficult to know without biographical material or meticulously gathered evidence.
There were nine such notices in one paragraph. Clearly over the top for things that may very well be found in standard biographies listed in the references.. How did any of these differ from what was in those biographies, or at least from the one that you must have consulted to keep your comments from being anything but pointless not-picking.
"Unfathomable" is not controversial? Again, did these many orchestras declare the works unfathomable? I would not let that slide without a fact tag, it should, imo, be removed from the article rather than fact requested--this a fact request that belongs on the talk page before the information is placed in the article.
I presume you are speaking from your own musical experience with modern orchestras who may have since mastered the techniques necessary for representing Stravinsky's works. For contemporary comments, to what extent do the standard biographies.
The ballets on rolls is very specific information--this was obtained from somewhere, not remembered in someone's head, and it should have come with its source when inserted in the article.
I'd say this article is undersourced and under-referenced for the specificity of information it contains.
The article has 14 references, 8 items for further reading and 6 external links. Are you saying that none of these support the comments which you dispute? Does at least one even dispute the comments? How is this undersourced?
Encyclopedias report opinions in addition to facts, but the former have to be handled differently from the latter--these opinions about the reception of Stravinsky's music can and should be directly supported with facts, to show that that is what is being reported: other critical opinions of the composer's reception in the music world, not the opinion of the Wikipedia editor.
How many other encyclopedias have 28 references for Stravinsky? Our level of documentation in many such articles is already well beyond what is found in other encyclopedias or other works for general readership. Adding a "citation needed" tag carries with it a strong connotation of "I don't believe this." Simply adding it to every statement that does not meet your personal criteria is excessive, and probably leads readers to doubt beyond their own capacities. We want people to question more than most do, but this must also be balanced with the readability of articles and an appreciation for the fact that there are levels of questioning which support mental paralysis. What does the average reader of the Stravinsky article want out of his experience? A serious scholar of the subject will probably already be reading far more than what we report.
I perfectly understand your need for more detailed documentation in botanical and other science related articles, but Stravinsky ain't botany. It doesn't help anybody to have our pool of knowledge overgrown by duckweed.
Ec