Difference between revisions of "Template:Criticism section/doc"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Adoniscik
(added a redirect)
imported>Thumperward
(split the rationale to its own essay article in projectspace)
Line 5: Line 5:
  
 
This template is meant for articles with ''Criticism'', ''Controversy'' or similar sections that segregate all the negatives into one place and leave the other sections overly positive.
 
This template is meant for articles with ''Criticism'', ''Controversy'' or similar sections that segregate all the negatives into one place and leave the other sections overly positive.
 
'''Although present in many articles, and sometimes appropriate, this style of writing is not generally recommended'''. When inappropriate, such sections should be considered a temporary solution until the article can be structured more neutrally, with criticism moved into each relevant section.  '''This does not imply that criticism should be removed from the article; only that the current organization of content on the page results in an unbalanced presentation.'''
 
 
{{quotation|In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in
 
many cases they are not necessary.<br />
 
And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing.  That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.|[[Jimbo Wales]]|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/045586.html Criticism sections on bios of living people]}}
 
 
{{quotation|<p>Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.</p>
 
 
<p>Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.</p>|[[Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure|Wikipedia:Words to avoid]]}}
 
 
{{quotation|<p>Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and Undue Weight. Examples that may warrant attention include: articles that "segregate" text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;<sup>7</sup></p>
 
<p><sup>7</sup> Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Pro_&_con_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Pro_&_con_lists, Template:Criticism-section)..</p>|[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure]]}}
 
  
 
== Usage ==
 
== Usage ==

Revision as of 12:26, 29 October 2008

Template:Template doc page viewed directly

Description

This template is meant for articles with Criticism, Controversy or similar sections that segregate all the negatives into one place and leave the other sections overly positive.

Usage

Place {{criticism-section}} at the top of the section.

This template sorts articles into Category:Cleanup from section.

See also

Redirects