Content deleted Content added
m syntax |
Stevertigo (talk | contribs) Fixed A6 - one-sided and inaccurate summary of the ongoing debate both here and site-wide. -Stevertigo |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
{{FAQ row |
{{FAQ row |
||
|q=Q6<nowiki>:</nowiki> Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? |
|q=Q6<nowiki>:</nowiki> Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? |
||
|a='''A6''': There may yet be one, and that section may in fact simply link to criticism/controversy article. Note that such sections are both conventional (common on Wikipedia) and controversial (often flagged for deletion). The debate, both site-wide and here, is ongoing. The arguments against and for such a section here are as follows: |
|||
: '''Against:''' Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per [[WP:CRIT]]. |
|||
: '''For:''' It is Wikipedian convention to create such sections on controversial articles, to serve as a portal into criticism of the topic. The argument against such sections is a site-wide one, which defies the site-wide convention, and is in fact a [[WP:SHOULDNOTEXIST]] argument that has yet to find the support of site-wide consensus. Creating a "criticism of" article likewise helps the other Obama articles, by sandboxing POV editors seeking to disparage the President in other articles, yet allowing the dimension of "criticism" to be handled in an NPOV way. |
|||
: To discuss this issue in particular, see '''[[Talk:Barack Obama/Criticism of]].'''}} |
|||
{{FAQ row |
{{FAQ row |
||
|q=Q7<nowiki>:</nowiki> Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article? |
|q=Q7<nowiki>:</nowiki> Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article? |