Content deleted Content added
Line 471:
::You're right, there are no membership cards to literary movements. But Hawkins never got past the wannabe stage. He should not be described as if he did. I would be happy with "failed Beat writer" or "unsuccessful Beat writer".--[[User:192.35.35.35|192.35.35.35]] 21:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::But every article ''should'' begin with what is most notable about a subject. If the intro to [[Thomas Pynchon]] doesn't mention his legendary secrecy, then I'll change it myself tomorrow to mention that. When I made my edit to the intro, I wasn't terribly concerned about the focus of the article, which should be of course on Haskins. I disagree that merely mentioning Pynchon in the intro steers the article in any direction at all, it merely mentions the most notable thing about Tinasky, and the only thing that anyone unfamiliar with the particulars will probably know. Perhaps you don't find that terribly interesting or significant, fair enough, but it belongs in the intro. For example, say Band X had a thirty year career with tons of albums and critical acclaim, but were mostly known to the general public for a one hit wonder which is largely ignored/dismissed by the band's fans. That one hit wonder belongs in the intro of the band's article regardless of how minor it is in terms of their greater career and body of work simply because it is the best known song by that band.
:::"Failed Beat writer" is too judgmental to be NPOV, in my opinion, but "unsuccessful Beat writer" is acceptable to me. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 10:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Vandalism==
| |||