Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote: I agree that this is a common difficulty that does not admit of the easier solutions. But I don't think it is in any way insurmountable, nor do I think that we need to appeal to some non-NPOV decision rules. We're all by now quite good at such techniques as "going meta", i.e. rather than making some claim, we just cite that some important group or person makes such a claim. Usually, though not always, this resolves the issue to everyone's satisfaction. But we're less sure about how to find a neutral ground, by which we mean a ground of mutual agreement between opposing editors, when the issue involves questions of prominence. I think that the best resolution here is to lean towards "completionism" rather than "deletionism". If an article is one-sided, then grow it. And then after it grows too big, it will often be much easier to see how to break parts off into sub-articles. Here's an example from the current dispute. "Mother Theresa is just about to be elevated to Sainthood. Here's 20 paragraphs about why, her good works, why she is beloved by so many and so forth. And here's one sentence of criticism consisting mainly of a link to a separate page." OR "Mother Theresa is just about to be elevated to Sainthood. Here's 2 sentences saying way, followed by 20 paragraphs of criticism of her and her order." I would say that in *either* case, the right solution is *seldom* to 'balance' the article by *removing* valid material that is otherwise NPOV. More likely, what is needed is *more material*. And then hopefully, in that process, we can find that both parties are satisfied to have some of the material moved out as necessary to auxiliary articles. We've also seen this recently in a Danny/RK edit war over 'Anti-Semitism'. Danny wanted to (and actually did win out, eventually, I think, at least at last viewing) simply remove one huge section of the article that he didn't like. I don't think that was the right move at all. (Of course, RK responded badly, which he and I have talked about.) I think that deletionism forgets that Wiki Is Not Paper, and that completionism is likely to lead us to a better final article. --Jimbo

Delirium wrote: Well, if the page gets too long, we can break it down conceptually somehow. This is what we do all the time, right? Yes. In some cases that's the right thing to do. In other cases, it would make more sense to break it down chronologically or by some other conceptual schema, right? There are some downsides to putting "pro" and "con" in different articles. (And upsides, too, esp. if it keeps the peace around here!) As it stands, I think that the article needs a major rewrite, and that it is, in fact, unbalanced in its current form. Notice that we have a section (3) "Campaign on abortion and contraceptives" and a subsection (5.7) containing on criticisms of what is presented in (3). That strikes me as stylistically poor, and I think this also lends to the unbalanced 'feel' of the article. (1) is Life and Work, which is symmetrical with (4) about her death. I can envision that a future revision of the article might combine (1) (2) and (4) into a general biographical section, and then there could be links to more detailed articles on her specific work -- and these articles would of course be written in such a way that both a supporter of Mother Theresa and a detractor would consider to be fair. I can only assume that somewhere easily accessible, when we get around to it, there are the facts we'd expect to find, like "Mother Theresa provided care for 100,000 poor, and got a law passed to prevent thus-and-so, and found 347 clinics in villages that had never had anything of the sort, and blah blah blah." Presumably, those facts are needed to give a well-rounded picture here. --Jimbo