On 7/27/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Yeah I think I do agree with you after all on these.
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.
An eternal battle: what does one do if one section is
"disproportionately long" for an article which is "too short". Keep
it
there and hope the rest gets longer? Move it somewhere and risk being
accused of censorship?
It happens in lots of cases...recently, a guy went around adding
massive unedited slabs from the Catholic Encyclopedia to articles on
small towns in Europe. What was previously 3 paragraphs about the town
became 10, 7 of which were about obscure ecclesiastical history in the
middle ages. Had the article been 5 paragraphs, that might have been
excusable...
Steve