Slim Virgin wrote:
On 4/25/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I recently came across the following article: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sylvia_Browne) ...
... 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.