[WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

[Steve Bennett]

On 7/27/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at 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