On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 12:30 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Can you explain the obvious to people it isn't
obvious to? With references?
Your comment there reminds me of a mini-battle I had on Wikipedia.
I started articles on various forms of published 'criticism'. We
already had 'music journalism' but I started ones on, for example,
'dance criticism'; you can see the template that arose at the bottom
of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_criticism
So I just started off several articles stating, as blandly as I could,
what criticism of those things meant. But I couldn't provide any
references and my stubs were tagged for deletion as being original
research. Find *examples* of such writings, sure, not a problem at
all.
I was merely trying to state the obvious existence of these forms of
writing, but because it was so obvious nobody on the web had written
*about the writing* itself. There wasn't any meta-level discussion of
these things.
User:Bodnotbod