K P wrote:
On 6/30/07, Garion96 <garion96(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Another example I encountered today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Stravinsky&curid=38172&a…
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