Andre Engels wrote:
We are to state that there is criticism, and what the criticism consists of. But there is no need to get into detail to prove those criticisms or spend two paragraphs per criticism to give examples. I don't see what the value is of spending eight paragraphs giving examples and evidence of insufficient care in Mother Theresa's homes. One paragraph specifying the criticism, and one with some examples would in my opinion be enough to give the relevant information in NPOV. Wikipedia is to state what criticism exists, and why. It's not our task to provide the necessary information for everybody to make decisions on the issue.
Why should we not give complete information? Wiki Is Not Paper, after all, and we have no particular space constraints. If the article gets too long, then we can break it down topically in some sensible fashion.
I disagree. An article that basically is arguing both sides of an issues extensively is NOT how I see the ideal, NPOV article.
Well, I do not think articles should "basically argue both sides of an issue". It should not be arguing for or against anything.
But omitting details -- why? There's plenty of room on the hard drive.
--Jimbo