On 6/30/07, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, C.J. Croy cjcroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@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=pr...
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=pr...
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&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.
"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