Talk:The Bookworm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
A fact from The Bookworm appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 23 December 2007. |
 |
[edit] OR
A lot of this seems to be based on the writer's own view of the painting, particularly regarding what the bookworm is thinking and what certain elements symbolise.... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Most of it is a normal description of what an educated eye detects in the painting, like an expanded caption, which simply sends the viewer back to the illustration. It sets The Bookworm in its cultural context, making it encyclopedia material. Does the text trouble any standards of neutral, mainstream discourse? What in the article is the least bit controversial? Is some statement not liked? No doubt it can be edited to satisfy even the most fastidious standard of intellectual honesty.--Wetman (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, its true, I have found myself doing that too. I think their should be some cement policy about how much description can be ventured by the editor - I think at least some is nigh inevitable. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps some of us would prefer common sense applied on a case-by-case basis to a hardcore policy, whether cast in cement or cast in bronze. --Wetman (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still think there should be a vague guideline of sorts detailing approximately where information ventured by an "educated eye" crosses over to become opinionated speculation. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps some of us would prefer common sense applied on a case-by-case basis to a hardcore policy, whether cast in cement or cast in bronze. --Wetman (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
