[WikiEN-l] Oversized criticism sections and WP:UNDUE (was: Notability and ski resorts)

[Fred Bauder]

Typically in a situation like that, unless there are active supporters of
the person, like Stalin, no one is interested in finding and writing
about their virtues. Often the person's main claim to fame is some evil
thing they have done, for example John Chivington the perpetrator of the
Sand Creek Massacre. In that case, he was a bona fide war hero before he
fell into disrepute, so it is possible to create a somewhat balanced
article without stretching. Andrew Jackson, the architect of Indian
removal who defied the Supreme Court, has, of course, both abundant
supporters and many other accomplishments.

The major problem is with living persons who have had considerable press
regarding some negative action or series of actions. There may not be
significant published material regarding their virtues or even details
about their life. Creating a balanced article in such circumstances is
very difficult, although we've succeeded a few times, for example in the
case of Rachel Marsden. Note that in that case, the critical coverage
which once made up the bulk of the article is now forked off into Simon
Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy. A great deal of work went
into that matter. So when you say you don't have time, believe it.

You say, "One method I heard is effective..." May I ask, what is it
effective at? We can only include reliable material from published
sources. If the available material is negative, and the matter
significant, say Charles Manson, what are our goals?

To answer my own question, in the case of people who lead more or less
normal uneventful lives, it is desirable to not pillory them in Wikipedia
for all time based on one unfortunate event which received extensive
publicity.

Fred

> This discussion about splitting off sections to articles, notability and
> undue weight reminded me of something I encountered recently:
>
> What do you do if you find an article with a short description of the
> subject followed by a huge criticism/controversy section with subsections
> for every negative opinion about the subject ever published? It is
> sourced
> so just removing most of it will get you reverted by the people who wrote
> the article.
>
> I think the ideal thing to do is to expand the other sections until the
> criticism is balanced. Is there anything I can do if I don't have the
> time
> or the expertise on the subject to write a long and good article? This
> must
> be a rather common situation for obscure subjects in controversial areas.
>
> One method I heard is effective is to split off the criticism section to
> a
> separate article leaving a short summary. Someone else will probably
> nominate it for deletion, which will often end in a delete/merge. Then
> you
> just have to make sure the whole things isn't merged back. It just feels
> a
> bit too underhanded.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>