On 27 June 2010 17:47, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Where you draw
the line, though, is quite tricky...
So should the various articles linked to from here be deleted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economic_thought
Economics was a bad example, perhaps :-)
That said, this illustrates the point - we are quite capable of having
an article on [[neoclassical economics]] and one on [[marxist
economics]], but what we don't have is two co-equal articles on
[[economics]], one from a Marxist perspective and one from a
neoclassical perspective.
As I say, fuzzy line, especially with more philosophical concepts - it
shows up the problems with simply saying "we don't like forks".
The original article being discussed here was, I believe, the
biography of a particular historic-religious figure, and this is where
we can hit problems, but also where a "X views on..." article can work
out well if handled correctly.
To take a prominent example, it's reasonable to have [[Jesus in
Christianity]] and [[Jesus in Islam]], but they need to both be
treated as subsets of the article on [[Jesus]], in the same way that
[[Historicity of Jesus]] or [[Cultural depictions of Jesus]] are, and
*not* as seperate forms of the main article. The trick is in getting
that balance right.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk