On 7/27/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)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