There's a limit to how much I can comment if you don't want to give the specific example (your summary of the events will undoubtedly be incomplete and biased by your opinions - that's always the way with this kind of thing). What I will say is that the important principle here is that of "appropriate weight". Academic criticism in peer-reviewed papers is certainly appropriate for inclusion in an article, but you have to make sure you don't give excessive weight to the criticism compared to the rest of the article. As for jargon - you should at the very least link all uses of jargon, if we don't have an article on the concept you'll have to define it yourself. To some extent it isn't always possible to write for the layman (I edit mathematical articles sometimes and that's a problem we continually face), but every effort should be made to do so. You are summarising the criticism, so you don't need to be quite as precise (although you mustn't misrepresent the author - it's a difficult balance), which means you can use less well defined mainstream terms rather than jargon in places.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l