From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
[edit] Original research in the "Subtextual Interpretation" section
Aside from its truly hideous title, the "Subtextual Interpretation" section is problematic because it makes interpretive statements without giving any citations to secondary scholarship. I feel quite sure that the interpretation given is the idiosyncratic view of the editor who wrote it, rather than a widely held view in scholarship, but if I am wrong, it should certainly not be difficult to give references, following the example of WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE. I have posted an {{Original research}} template on Charmides (dialogue) and Theaetetus (dialogue), which also have sections bizarrely entitled "subtextual interpretation". --Akhilleus (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- As I also said on the project page and edit to Theaetetus, there is no place in these articles for this type of section at all. It's an excuse to run wild with original interpretation. What would be nice, though obviously more time consuming to create, would be a section outlining some notable interpretations and debates among scholars about aspects of the dialogue. This sort of thing is notably sparse in philosophy topics on wiki. Zeusnoos 16:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
