Watchmen/Talk

Should critical analysis be a part of entries about pieces of art? The false document section of this article comes from the talk section of that entry and was posted there as a quick justification for why Watchmen might be included as a false doc text. In that context, it was written without NPOV in mind because it was expressly made as an opinioned argument. But now that it is on an entry page, it raises some questions for me about what should be included in our "synthetic knowledge" of a piece of art. While I am flattered that someone liked the little riff enough to put it on this page, it is not a wholly formed piece of analysis in the first place... but even if it were, should it be here? And if such kinds of texts were included on these entries, where would they go and how would they be contextualized within NPOV? I'm probably making too much out of something small. -trimalchio

Well, I am not sure what to do. (insert moment of intense navel gazing). The text need not be returned anywhere. A copy yet exists in the false doc talk section, so for what it is worth, the original will stand. And the issue really isn't about improving it as analysis... your addition might work, my improvment might work... the issue is whether analysis belongs in an entry at all. (more navel gazing). anyway, I think there is such a things as "true analysis". But is that NPOV? This is a very different issue then determining if a fact is true, like the date of someone's birth. Can literary analysis, even rudimentary stuff like this, be NPOV? Or should there be a place like wikipedia commentary, but under a different title, for wannabe critics and college analytical papers? --trimalchio