On 4/25/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Best-case scenario is yes, merge. Obviously, a "criticism of GWB" article that may exist is going to have difficulty being merged when the main article is already 70kb long, but there's no reason not to take this on a case by case basis, assuming good sourcing.
Why is "criticisms of Uri Geller" (or whoever) a valid encyclopedic subject? Would we accept an article called "instances of undiluted praise of Uri Geller"?
We're supposed to adopt the neutral point of view, so it would be "evaluations of X". And then...and then we'd have to perform a critical synthesis. Which is okay, encyclopedias do that. But I hesitate at the thought that Wikipedia could do that kind of thing well. How would we do a decent "evaluations of X" on Osama Bin Laden, for instance, if nearly everything we write will be an uncritical thumbs-down on the fellow? He has his followers, in their millions but we don't generally have access to their publications.