Content deleted Content added
Haricotvert (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Haricotvert (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 367:
== Thomas Kinkade ==
Hey, this is [[User:Haricotvert | HaricotVert]]. I noticed you reverted mine and some other individual's additions to the "Cristicisms (artistic)" stub in the [[Thomas Kinkade]] article with the concern that it was hearsay. I understand the concern and I am aware of Wikipedia's policies regarding sources and POV, but those were both legitimate criticisms. Under the definition of [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criticism criticism] they both should not be deleted, since they were, indeed, criticisms. A criticism does not require sources or verification - a criticism is inherently an opinion, not fact. This is equally true for those that praise Kinkade - those that enjoy his work may say how quaint or moving or "luminescent" his work is, but that does not stop it from being an opinion as well.
Since the section is entitled "criticism" (and was a stub to boot) it seems natural that people would post critical comments there, including their own. Perhaps it would have been easier to just flag it with "Citation needed" or flag the section with a "this article does not cite its sources" tag instead of outright deleting it? Maybe a "Praise of Kinkade" section is needed to balance out the POV? I guess I'm just wondering what provoked you to delete things that clearly *were* criticisms by definition as "hearsay," as if we need to have a doctorate or be widely published in order to critique the work of artists. Thanks, hope to discuss this with you furter. Wed Jul 19 18:24:50 UTC 2006
| |||