[WikiEN-l] BLP conundrum

[K P]

On 4/25/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/25/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com>
> wrote:
> > Best-case scenario is yes, merge.  Obviously, a "criticism of GWB"
> article
> > that may exist is going to have difficulty being merged when the main
> > article is already 70kb long, but there's no reason not to take this on
> a
> > case by case basis, assuming good sourcing.
>
> Why is "criticisms of Uri Geller" (or whoever) a valid encyclopedic
> subject?  Would we accept an article called "instances of undiluted
> praise of Uri Geller"?
>
> We're supposed to adopt the neutral point of view, so it would be
> "evaluations of X".  And then...and then we'd have to perform a
> critical synthesis.  Which is okay, encyclopedias do that.  But I
> hesitate at the thought that Wikipedia could do that kind of thing
> well.  How would we do a decent "evaluations of X" on Osama Bin Laden,
> for instance, if nearly everything we write will be an uncritical
> thumbs-down on the fellow?  He has his followers, in their millions
> but we don't generally have access to their publications.



The media thrives on negative articles, there are probably sufficient
criticisms of Uri Geller to merit an article about the criticism of him *in
academia*, so that Wikipedia could include an article based on these other
works.  But praise?  Is there sufficient praise of him?  Are there really
whole societies that meet at major scientific universities, societies that
are devoted to praising psychics?  Are there?  Well, there are such groups
devoted to criticizing and exposing charlatans, and it is a genuine area of
study in academia, and there are journals devoted to it, and websites
devoted to it, and articles in a variety of peer-reviewed journals about it,
and classes on it at major universities.

If the other topic exists, if there are societies devoted to praising
psychics, then let the articles begin.

KP