On 4/25/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
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.
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.
I agree strongly with both of you and with Tony. criticism sections, not to mention entire articles, are POV and not interested in balance; and we rarely allow "praise" sections in our informal style guidelines. So we should transform criticism sections into useful information inline in other sections about topics and areas relevant to the subject's notability... not focus on them as 'criticisms' per se, since that is not in and of itself a notable quality (though often salacious and titillating, or great fodder for rants or conspiracy theories).
SJ