On 6/30/07, Garion96 <garion96(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/28/07, C.J. Croy <cjcroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freecycle_Network
Have you ever seen a greater quantity of "citation needed",
"neutrality disputed", and other such tags and templates in one
article?
Yes. Your article wins if we judge solely on the controversies section,
but
this article<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=p…
wins
if we judge based on tag density in the overall
article.<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=p…
I
don't know why people do this. I suppose it's an improvement over
deleting the info with a vague edit summary such as "Per BLP".
OH MY GAWD. {{dubious}}? {{cn}}?? {{an}}??
Agggggh. Just edit the freaking articles, already. If people want to get
into flamewars, do it on the talk page.
_______________________________________________
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.
"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.
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.
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.
KP