On 7/27/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
To me, the guideline, in a nutshell, seems very simple:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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