Template talk:Criticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rationale?

I'm not sure why this template exists. It seems to restate standard Wikipedia policy, in a rather forbidding style; it looks a bit like a User talk page warning for vandalism! It seems to contravene our policy of assuming good faith: "Assume that others intend to follow the policies and guidelines of WP participation, unless there is clear and present evidence to the contrary." Is there evidence to the contrary? I guess another of putting my worry is, why wouldn't every page have this template at the top? Stumps 06:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• I actually created this template at the beginning of the Sonnet project, and I've talked with many admins and experienced users about it. It is a bit combative, and I've heard complaints about it, but it really is just a reminder of policy in a place where it is needed. My fear is that the Sonnets or other art pages will be filled with personal interpretations, or, contrarily, that such interpretations will cause a backlash against all interpretations, even respected ones, which I think are valuable. Just as a little sidenote, the incident that led me to create this was when a certain user started comparing one of the images in a sonnet to masturbation and ejaculation. AdamBiswanger1 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• My preference would be to try to do without it, and to possibly rename it to something like 'Please cite sources reminder', maybe ditch the crossed out red circle image, and use it temporarily when needed .... one stage before asking for semi-protection maybe. The article Vincent van Gogh, which I've been working on recently, is a good example of a page that attracts a lot of unwelcome attention, but with an effort by a few editors to provide properly cited sources the article has gained a 'solidity' which really helps it weather any 'vandalism' or strange personal opinion 'storms' ... having good footnotes also sets a visible standard to contribution which might serve to discourage personal opinions. What do you think? Stumps 12:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• I mean, I don't have any personal affinity toward the template, even though I created it, and perhaps its unnecessary when no violation has been shown. I just want to ensure in any way possible that good, solid literary criticism is maintained and allowed. As I said in my last comment, if we let interpretations run wild, we have to deal with a credibility issue for the entire subject of literary criticism on Wikipedia, which is an issue that has sort of slipped through the cracks. (As far as I know, no policies or guidelines speak specifically to this, and I have a feeling that the idea would not impress policy-makers in light of WP:OR). So, how should we proceed? I agree with you--we should play the card when the issue arises. So, I'm at work right now, so if I get a few minutes here and there I'll remove a few, or you can too. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 13:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK. I've removed them, and will have a bit of a think about the future direction here. You are right that we need some guidelines around lit. crit. on WP. Stumps 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A kinder gentler version

I've changed the template to be less combative. (It's so mild now, I could have left it on all those pages! Oh well ... ) Let's when and why we need it and then we can modify it accordingly. Stumps 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transform this template to a general talk header?

Of course there is the standard Template:talkheader which emphasizes civility, etiquette, and reminds users to sign their posts. The current criticism template focuses on the need to cite sources and avoid originmal research. Maybe we should rework this to be a general talk-page-header template, change its name, and add it to Category:General talk header templates. Against this suggestion, is the fact that literary criticism is reasonably specific and perhaps especially liable to "personal interpretations" (as the template currently puts it). Maybe it does make sense to have a special template. Maybe we should call it 'litcrit'?? Stumps 09:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)