Slim Virgin wrote:
On 4/25/07, daniwo59(a)aol.com <daniwo59(a)aol.com>
wrote:
... Still, do we want to open the door to these
kinds of articles? Criticisms of
Sylvia Browne could lead to Criticisms of Uri Geller to Criticisms of George
Bush to Criticisms of Tom Cruise to Criticisms of [pick your favorite]. The
very hypothesis of the article is POV. Surely, this is not what we are here
for.
I'd really like some input. Ideally, it should be merged, but the precedent
this poses should also be mentioned.
The original article isn't that long, so they should definitely by
merged. It's bad enough having a separate criticism section in a BLP,
because they end up as POV magnets. To have a separate criticism
article is asking for trouble.
Sarah
Criticisms sections generally suck. They end up being 'list of
potentially unrelated negative media coverage' - or worse 'list of every
article by a columnist who doesn't like this guy'. Often with immaculate
citations.
Whilst, no doubt, they are justified in some places, every time I see
one a red light goes on. So often this is the stuff of hatchet jobs.
Yet, BLP enforcement is very hard here, since each statement may be
referenced and factual.
It has always seemed strange that we allow such things - yet if someone
wrote an article with a section entitled "media plaudits" we'd stick
{{notneutral}} on it in an instant.