On 7/27/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Hang on, I'm starting to get an idea. A guideline: If you could write an article about the criticism, without at any stage actually mentioning the reasons behind the criticism, then maybe the "criticism" article can fly.
I don't see the big difference between "Criticism of George W. Bush" and "Criticism of Microsoft". If Microsoft had a corporate approval rating, I doubt it would be very high -- and conversely, the people who actually take to the streets to protest Bush's policy only form a relatively small subset of those who disapprove of the job he's doing.
I too would prefer to read about the _perception_ and _reaction_ to Bush's actions, rather than criticism (the current article mixes both ideas). For instance, Americans generally "rallied behind the President" after the 9/11 attacks, and many of the people who supported him then became vocal critics of his policies later. A criticism/praise split breaks this narrative, and seems more geared towards pleasing current Bush supporters and critics than delivering a coherent and truthful presentation of the facts.
To me, the guideline, in a nutshell, seems very simple:
1) Sectioning negative vs. positive views is generally considered poor writing (AKA "the easy way out"), but not prohibited per se. It could be deserving of a {{cleanup}} tag.
2) Views cannot be moved to separate pages selectively. An article may be split when it gets too long, but the primary topic article should retain summaries. [[George W. Bush]] presently meets that requirement.
3) A disproportionately long criticism section in an article that, as a whole, does not exceed our length guidelines should generally not be moved away -- instead, the rest of the article should be expanded, and criticism should be carefully reviewed for relevance.
I'm certainly glad that POV forks are now widely considered unacceptable. This was not always the case.
Erik