On 27 June 2010 17:47, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@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.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l