 Missing Section  I definitely support splitting off the controversies, with one caveat. Shouldn't there be a brief synopsis of the criticism? As the article is, it doesn't look like anyone had any issues with the book, which has been very well documented. Not asking to recreate the whole thing, just a link to the other article and a mention how much of an issue this book has stirred up? I would be WP:BOLD and do it myslef, and maybe I will later when I am not on break at work, but as is the split is a little misleading.     