Gareth-
Essentially, an enormous amount (the vast majority of
the article) is highly
critical, based on the criticisms of three people: Hitchens, Shields and
Chatterjee
These three people in turn cite others who have been critical (sometimes
published in primary sources), such as Mary Louden (published in The
Guardian), Lancet editor Robin Fox, the Stern report by W. Wüllenweber
(which in turn cites other witnesses), a priest cited by Chatterjee, and
so forth. The above paragraph is therefore a gross oversimplification of
the actual content of the page.
and a great deal of guilt-by-association (rather
honestly
so-titled).
Actually, not such a great deal -- a single paragraph and two pictures.
I believe the length of discussion -- particularly the
extensive passages of
quotation is unecessary.
Then summarize the quotations. If you don't lose any valuable information
in the process, this is certainly fine with me.
Certainly, the alleged abuses of the movement *must*
be mentioned, and given
some space, but there is really no need to bang on about it at such
extraordinary and tedious length.
There is no size limit on Wikipedia. To remove useful information just
because it is "tedious" would be disingenuous. Cutting down fluff and POV
language which is inevitable when using direct quotes -- sure. Removing
facts -- no way.
Regards,
Erik