This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OnBeyondZebrax (talk | contribs) at 17:49, 12 September 2006 (NPOV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:49, 12 September 2006 by OnBeyondZebrax (talk | contribs) (NPOV)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)NPOV
Hi, the wording may have been done poorly on my part. But what I am worried about is editors doing original, speculative research to characterize the reception of a work of art or music. Instead of a "critic" (which is = prominent expert, you are right), one could argue that in order to present the reception history of, say a piece of music, what you need is a statement from a prominent historian/musicologist that represents the consensus view on how piece "x" was received by the public. .........What I am worried about is this (hypothetical): "N'Sync was the most-loved and cherished boy band of the 1990s throughout the world" (POV, Original research, no source). However, I think the following (hypothetical) line would be OK with Wiki standards: "According to John Smith, editor of the Cambridge Guide to Pop Music and the author of Boy Bands in the 1990s, N'Sync was the most influential boy band in the teen listener market in US and Western Europe in the mid-1990s.<re >Smith, John: Boy Bands in the 1990setc....<re >Nazamo 17:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)