On 4/25/07, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
The original article isn't that long, so they
should definitely by
merged. It's bad enough having a separate criticism section in a BLP,
because they end up as POV magnets. To have a separate criticism
article is asking for trouble.
Sarah
Criticisms sections generally suck. They end up being 'list of
potentially unrelated negative media coverage' - or worse 'list of every
article by a columnist who doesn't like this guy'. Often with immaculate
citations.
It has always seemed strange that we allow such things - yet if someone
wrote an article with a section entitled "media plaudits" we'd stick
{{notneutral}} on it in an instant.
I agree strongly with both of you and with Tony. criticism sections,
not to mention entire articles, are POV and not interested in balance;
and we rarely allow "praise" sections in our informal style
guidelines. So we should transform criticism sections into useful
information inline in other sections about topics and areas relevant
to the subject's notability... not focus on them as 'criticisms' per
se, since that is not in and of itself a notable quality (though often
salacious and titillating, or great fodder for rants or conspiracy
theories).
SJ