User talk:Ghalibshah
Daniel Pipes edits
[edit]Hi Galibshah,
Regarding your edits to Daniel Pipes, your reasoning is incorrect. While many articles still have "criticism" or "controversy" sections, Wikipedia is, for good reason, attempting to move away from this approach. The style guideline at Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure explains why:
- Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a 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.
- Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.
Moreover, the section you restored included a large number of quotes & information that have been moved elsewhere in the article, and so added a great deal of redundancy. For that reason as well, I have removed it.