Wikipedia talk:Criticism/Archive 2

Lack of sources about the criticism of the subject.
For religous topics it is common to have summaries and syntheses of criticism such that criticism pages aren't just reams of claims and links. But topics such as Criticism_of_Microsoft and Criticism_of_Family_Guy lack these aggregate criticism sources which allow a wikipedia narrative/article to exist without violating WP:OR. --TrollHistorian 14:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section template
Can we make a Cleanup template for articles with set-apart criticism sections? For articles which would be better if the criticism were integrated directly into other sections. — Omegatron 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I created criticism-section. — Omegatron 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ...which has already been nominated for deletion. I guess when people see something in every article they come upon, they get to thinking it's supposed to be there? — Omegatron 00:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Different kinds of criticism
I suggest that these guidelines distinguish between types of criticism. I suggest separate guidelines for three types of criticism: (1) artisitic (music, fiction, movies, TV, etc.), which are generally regarded as matters of opinion; (2) scientific and historical claims, which are generally regarded as matters of fact; and (3) religious, political, motal, and philosophical claims, which may be regarded as involving issues of fact or opinion depending on ones POV and approach. In my view, for scientific/historical claims it is mopre likely useful to intermingle criticism; for cultural matters it is more useful to describe the phenomenon first, then discuss its reception; and for religious/politics/morality articles it is useful to describe the main phenomenon, then have explicit criticism as a separate section. While having a separate section may be a troll magnet, intermingling criticism in these latter articles can have the effect of undermining the POV represented, and in my view a separate section makes vandalism and trolling much easier to identify and manage. --Shirahadasha 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what is meant by "intermingling criticism in these latter articles can have the effect of undermining the POV represented" - there shouldn't be a POV represented in the first place. Religion, philosophy, and politics articles have the worst abuses of "Criticism" sections, and any policy/guideline/essay on this issue would accomplish very little if we excluded these subjects. Djcastel 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How can Wikipedia have have articles whose subjects are points of view (for example, Capitalism, Communism, materialism, Left wing politics, Right wing politics, Judaism, Christianity, and much else?) In order to describe what the subject is, one has to describe a point of view. My belief is that an article on Christianity or Left wing politics should fairly describe what Christians or leftists believe, then present criticism of these viewpoints in a separate section. Too much intermingling of beliefs with criticism may lead to confusion about what adherents believe as distinct from skeptics. It may also suggest Wikipedia is disfavoring the POV. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Added "Kinds of article subjects" section to the essay incorporating this proposed distinction. Comments welcome. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

FairTax
The FairTax article has criticism woven into the article as suggested and is an FA. However, it is often being attacted by people that stop by and expect to see a criticism section, since they're so prevalant on Wikipedia. They have recently taken on the challange of an NPOV tag and nom for FAR since they say they have concensus for a criticism section. A couple of us have point out this and NPOV policy that recommends otherwise but I think we may need some more editors to weigh in and lend support to the fact that we do not want a criticism section. Thanks Morphh   (talk) 0:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Makes a laughing stock out of Wikipedia
Having criticism sections is just a magnet for lunatic fringe groups and trolls. If Wikipedia is to have any credibility at all they'd reign them in. Does Wikipedia seriously believe that opinions belong in an encyclopedia? Until then, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, it's a board for fringe groups to present their absurd opinions as "criticisms" masquerading as an "encyclopedia".--71.232.157.145 (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um did you read the essay at all? Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of "constructive criticism"? It helps in the long run. Undeath (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Constructive criticism is meant to be sent directly to the entity that is at fault. If a person, product or company needs to be criticized, Wikipedia is NOT the place to do it. Write to the company. Write to the person. Write to your politicians. Whatever you do, do not use Wikipedia to expose a problem. Soap boxing is not to be condoned here. That's what blogging is for. Groink (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If something is criticized by a reliable source, that criticism is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. This has always been the way WP has worked and always will be. - Merzbow (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've often noticed the criticism sections in other encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Columbia Encyclopedia. Oh, wait, no I haven't, because those are actually encyclopedias. Criticism sections in articles is one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia. People use them merely to add POV material that would otherwise be excluded. They think that by adding a reference to a random opinion they are "sourcing" the material, when all they are really doing is linking to an opinion that they want to push. The only case for including a criticism is notability. So, let's say Amnesty International issued a report and some government criticized it -- that might be noteworthy. 99% of the time, however, what you get are people linking to random opinions online that support their _opinions_ about a particular entry. For example, "Some critics say the music of Sammy Davis, Jr., is terrible." You can find "some" who will say anything you want and then link to it. Voila.. "sourced."  It's a joke. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What Merzbow said. (quote: "If something is criticized by a reliable source, that criticism is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia.") Also, Ashe, remember that "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia." This article even says: "Evaluations in a "Criticism" section: A dedicated section can make dealing with criticism easier by keeping these aspects compartmentalized, as criticisms may be similar and can be combined in a fashion that will reduce repetition." Even Jimbo Wales is quoted saying they're legit and needed.


 * Don't invoke Jimbo unless you are Jimbo. Ultimately, though, it's not a question of what we can include, but rather a question of what we should include.  I would wholly endorse Groink's comment on what Wikipedia is not, even if WP:N and WP:V are met.  Wikipedia is not there to change the world, or bring forth the light of WP:TRUTH, it is simply there to answer the basic questions (what company was involved in the Bhopal Disaster?) with straightforward information (Union Carbide), not to pass judgment or to provide a voice to those who would pass judgment on the topic.  SDY (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Many subjects do have critics and controversies. To ignore them is dishonest. And to distribute the criticism around the article often does not make sense. If someone can cite a reliable source than what is the problem? The "some critics say" problem is more a problem of weasel words (WP:AWW).

It is fine to say "there should be no criticism sections" for most articles on factual subjects. But there are subjects that have a great deal of controversy associated with them, such as Scientology (I picked Scientology at random as a good, heavily controversial article for use in these examples).

How is WP to describe such a topic? To avoid controversy is almost inevitably to pick a side. I do not see this issue well addressed, here or elsewhere.

What ends up happening is that articles become mixtures of two opposing points of view in the attempts by editors to obey all the WP policies. Each succeeding sentence can contradict the previous, yet all have reliable references to secondary sources. The result is that articles become difficult to read, pulling the reader violently between the two (it's almost always two) points of view.

I say, write articles that can be read easily. If the topic is very controversial, use controversy sections to isolate the controversies, so they are described, but can be avoided by the casual reader who just wants the point of view of the topic itself.

For example, in the Scientology article, why not just use the point of view of Scientology, and present the facts of Scientology as that church itself presents them? Then, in a separate section or article, write all the reliable refutations and objections that you can find. The reader will be able to read a coherent article presenting first the POV of the proponent side, followed by the POV of the opposing side. The same, complete information will be available, but in a form that is far more readable.

The only other alternative I can think of is to force controversial topic articles to be neutral by omitting all controversial statements. But, as discussed above, there is little inherent neutrality in a heavily controversial subject! The Scientology article, for example, becomes little more than the sentence, "Scientology is a religion and a set of practices founded by L. Ron Hubbard." And even that one sentence probably contains a controversy according to some reliable secondary source. David Spector (user/talk) 20:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Rationale: integrating extreme views regarding the presentation of criticism in Wikipedia
This proportion and emphasis guideline attempts to find the middle way between these two extreme stances:
 * 1) One extreme: "All articles should always contain criticism about its topic. When Fred criticizes hats, that criticism belongs in the "hat" article."
 * 2) The opposite extreme: "No article should ever contain criticism about its topic. When Fred criticizes hats, that criticism belongs in the "Fred" article -- or, if notable enough, in a "Criticism of hats" article."

I removed the above as it does not represent the extremes of opinions, nor do I think it reflects the urrent purpose nor do I think it will continue to. Hyacinth (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for "Criticism of ..." articles
I've been working on an article that involved lots of criticism-related topics, and I found that Wiki policies guiding "Criticism of ..." articles seemed to be scattered all over the place. If you look at the many "Criticism of ..." articles, they are treated very unevenly. Based on the POV and OR and POVFORK policies, I've crafted a set of guidelines for "Criticism of ..." articles, and put it into this essay as a suggestion to help guide other editors that are looking for a more standard way to approach the formatting. These suggested guidelines are not anything new: they are just other guidelines that are consolidated into one cohesive place, and applied to "Criticism of ..." articles. I think they could be helpful to future editors working on "Criticism of ..." articles. Noleander 17:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Please read the page before whacking something on it, even if it has merits"
 * ...by which I meant, make it integrate at least:
 * a part of what you were adding was already on the page, I don't like redundant double content;
 * a part of what you inserted contradicted the page: the general idea regarding "Criticism of..." pages was to discourage them, so if you want to change that: don't leave "...discouraged" in one place and add something as if it is generally OK in another place on the same page. A minimum of internal consistency would be appreciated.
 * Some of your ideas were new. Maybe they're better, maybe they're not: let's concentrate on the new slants of your approach. --Francis Schonken 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor writing
What backs up the arguments that a seperate criticism section is often poor writing? What sources on writing non-fiction say that this is poor form and style and what are their reasonings? Hyacinth (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess it's a quote from Words to avoid: "tortured form of writing". Hyacinth (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Issues regarding this essay

 * Does a neutral description count as promotion?
 * Should criticism be required of articles?
 * How does one criticize simple topics?
 * How does one deal with one criticism from multiple or countless sources?
 * Is there a different standard of notability for criticism?

I moved the above comments from the page. Hyacinth (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

En-1 mailing list thread

 * As of 6 May 2006 there has been a EN-l mailing list thread about "criticism", starting here: Criticism sections on bios of living people - discussions however not limited to "living persons" alone. Some ideas:
 * Being careful about verifiability founded on reliable sources:"> 4. If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources? > What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for > determining this? Tough call, but editorial judgment of good editors should prevail. What I mean is: just because some troll tries to reinsert hate speech over and over again, citing some blog as an excuse, well, not good enough. (reply by Jimbo Wales)"
 * Is there a need for new "criticism" guidelines?"> 5. Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this > kind of criticism in their biographies? WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy. (reply by Jimbo Wales)" > The guidelines are perhaps adequate, because this is partly a cultural > issue. But it's been clear for a while that we have serious systemic and > cultural issues on articles dealing with living people. Indeed. (reply by Jimbo Wales)

I also moved the above from the page. Hyacinth (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

quotes from MOS
Please find the version that these MOS quotes are from, I vaguly remember a discussion that removed the aformentioned section so it may now be invalid.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the page
I made a few changes. Comments welcome. -Stevertigo 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When integration is impossible
I've added this sentence:


 * Some larger high-level topics may inherently be unable to integrate criticism sections at all, as the aspects of the topic being criticized may not all be significant enough to merit much space in the article, but the criticism is still widespread enough to justify inclusion.

Having spent years working on articles like Windows Vista that have criticism sections, I've long since come to the conclusion that the idealistic form of integration promoted by this essay is not possible. Nobody seems to have a way of doing it, and the only people who think there's something wrong with it are people who've read this essay and WP:NPOV and have concluded that all criticism sections must be destroyed.

Using Windows Vista as an example: there has been criticism of the signed-driver requirement for 64-bit versions. This isn't a new requirement for Vista (64-bit XP had the same), and is an extremely small part of the overall topic of the operating system (historically, technically, market-wise, etc.), so it doesn't really make any sense to make space for it. The only reason we would do so in a top-level article is because some folks have been critical of it. Which, of course, runs afoul of NPOV's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT qualifications.

It's a tricky balance, but I believe the model of criticism section + article used by Windows Vista is stable and works very well. I think editors should be encouraged to use this approach in order to achieve article stability when dealing with large-scale topics.  Warren -talk- 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Or you could just leave it out. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies, and documenting every possible gripe about the system isn't shouldn't be the point of the article.  Arguably you could include it in a separate article that covers some broad aspect of the system where covering it is not undue, with the caveat that WP:COATRACK can happen.  SDY (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's very nearly impossible to leave out something that has been widely covered in published, reliable sources, especially if it's criticism. If it's removed, eventually someone will perceive it as a gap in Wikipedia's coverage of a topic, and add it in again.  *shrug*  At some point, for the sake of article stability, you have to say, hey, clearly this needs to be here, even if there is no place for it other than a specific section for criticism.   Warren -talk- 05:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How Vista handles drivers generally should be sufficient for at least a short paragraph in an article. That it has been criticized could be worked in there, rather than just an "oh, it also sucks because of this" section.  It could also be added to comments (that I'm sure exist) that Vista doesn't "play well with others" in general.  There are many ways to do it, and having a "nattering nabobs of negativism" section is not the only possible solution.  SDY (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, we're being forced to incorporate discussions of minor sub-topics because someone has criticized it? We have more than a dozen reasonably major documented issues with Vista: poor battery life relative to prior versions of Windows; gaming performance; the Vista Capable lawsuit; pricing; promising of, then removal of features prior to release; Ultimate Extras; it's really big... etc.etc.etc. Criticism of Windows Vista is a 40+ kb article, there's no way we could reasonably integrate all of that into Windows Vista, itself a 100kb article. Nor should we have a separate criticism article without a Summary style-section to go along with it....  Warren -talk- 15:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So... no consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you going to participate in the discussion or are you going to edit-war?  Warren -talk- 15:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think all criticism sections should be destroyed, but I still don't see what your proposed elaboration is doing about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just concerned that the proposed addition is an excuse for lazy editing that allows editors to insert their critical comments of a topic without covering them in context. If they're unhappy with Hugo Chávez or Bill O'Reilly or the Toyota Prius, that's fine, but Wikipedia is not the place for them to air their grief.  That Vista (and the other topics we have criticism of) has been broadly criticized is encyclopedic and reasonably covered in a section about reviews and reception by notable individuals, detailing every possible sin is not the purpose of this project.  If someone wanted to write an article about Vista as a gaming platform, it would be appropriate to make that article relatively negative (see WP:YESPOV), but that doesn't mean that criticism gets covered out of context.  SDY (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of section Evaluations in a "Criticism" section
This section is written in exactly the very tortured form of writing that should be avoided and has been modified one too many times by "clarifications." Another wiki I've dealt with refers to this process as "Parabombing." Starting from the ground up again:

-- A dedicated section can make dealing with criticism easier by keeping these aspects compartmentalized, as criticisms may be similar and can be combined in a fashion that will reduce repetition. Separate sections containing negative evaluations may become a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section.

(jimbo quote)

(deleted line that refers to a section of WP:WTA that no longer exists)

These sections must not be used to hide or marginalize negative views by separating them from the relevant sections of the article. They also must not imply that the criticism section is in any way less important or less truthful than the rest of the article.

Many criticism sections started as separate from the main body of articles by editors with a strong point of view on the subject or who are concerned that the article does not present a balanced view of the subject but do not have the time or resources to integrate the criticism effectively. Sections created for these reasons may be temporary and may eventually be integrated into the main article in appropriate places. The "separate" section might be tagged, , or similar to indicate that it is expected to be temporary.

Sometimes a criticism section is used because of a single notable critic or group of critics on the topic, and these sections are often better titled as such (e.g. "Views of foo, bar, and baz") than as "criticism" sections. These sections often include sources which are only used as a source for the criticism, and combining them into a group simplifies referencing.

Criticism sections should not be used to describe attributes that are likely to be criticized unless and until a meaningful individual has criticized the subject for that attribute. All criticism in the dedicated section should be attributed to a specific critic. Attributes which are likely to draw criticism may be documented elsewhere in the article if relevant. --

I'm primarily trying to condense the information that is already there into writing that makes more sense. SDY (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Example of an article with a criticism section
The example of the Igor Stravinsky article appears to be outdated since that article no longer has a Criticism section. I have temporarily added an alternative page (albeit not a high quality one) that should not appear to carry any particular political/religious/etc. biases - but I'm sure a better example could be used, so this is an open call to find a better example. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

3O
Hey. I saw that there is a pending 3O request for this page. In general, 3Os are requested after the two parties have had some discussion about the issue, and I don't really see any of that here. All I see are two editors directly editing a Wiki essay. So.. what exactly is the problem here? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's a "pending 3O request"? I don't see anything pending at Third opinion - am I missing something? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was there; I removed the request since I'm taking it. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is/was user:SlimVirgin left out ( - )?
 * Please also see Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't know, to be honest. The 3O was listed by User:Stevertigo, so that was all I had to go on. Since it seems that there are more than three users active here, then it's technically not eligible for a 3O. it also seems that this issue is part of a larger problem that's related to an arbitration case, I'll take my leave and consider this one closed. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism articles and POV forking
Alexander Pope is the one generally credited with the observation "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." I've come to believe that Wikipedia's "nutshells" are similarly dangerous -- they represent a little understanding of Wikipedia practice.

Take, for instance, the current page section Criticism. There, we have someone's sweeping generalization based on a misreading of the nutshell of WP:POVFORK: "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork, per Wikipedia:Content forking: 'Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.'"

Okay, first of all, that's a really crappy nutshell. Why? Because Wikipedia articles are never supposed to advocate any stance on a subject. Period. If you have an article which is advocating a stance on a subject, it doesn't matter what relationship it has with any other article on the subject; it's wrong even if it's the only article Wikipedia has on the subject.

So we move on from people reading into the nutshell restrictions that were already blindingly obvious, to reading in restrictions that aren't there. That word "solely" is there for a reason, people. It means that it is perfectly normal and accepted and even meritorious Wikipedia practice to cover the same subject in multiple articles, with varying degrees of overlap, as long as it's being done for the right reasons. "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms ... would usually be considered a POV fork --" WRONG. "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of ... elaborat[ing] individual points of criticism ... would usually be considered a POV fork --" WRONG. If there is so much legitimate content relating to criticism of a particular topic that to include it all in the main article on the topic would violate WP:Undue weight, then organizing that content into articles separate from but linked to the main article is not only legitimate but a very sensible way to handle the situation. Wikipedia should be split into multiple articles when it means that people can get the right level of detail that they need on the subject they're looking for.

The idea that a particular subject which has sufficient importance and complexity merits its own article but criticism of a particular subject which has the same amount of importance and complexity must be deliberately deprived of its own article -- that is not preserving NPOV but blatantly violating it.

Consider this: Psychiatry is considered a subject of importance and complexity, which quite legitimately gets its own article. There are of course quite a number of people who disagree with psychiatry, some very vehemently (even violently) and on quite a number of grounds, ranging from merely criticizing current implementation of psychiatric medicine to philosophically opposing the fundamental idea of medicalizing and treating anything that could be claimed as someone's freedom of thought. The depth and breadth of these criticism deserves consideration but there is no way to cover it adequately in the main psychiatry article without violating prohibitions against undue weight. Yet, despite criticism of psychiatry being a very substantial subject, there are those who look at their dogma against "criticism of" articles and declare that it is a substantial subject that should definitely not have its own article, since it is just "grouping the criticisms or [elaborating] individual points of criticism on a certain topic" and that means it can only be covered on Wikipedia to the extent that it is blended, Velveeta-like, into the larger psychiatry article. That is, until someone realizes that criticism of psychiatry is also called antipsychiatry at which point it does get considered worthy of its own article -- even though it's the exact same content, just under a different name. Does this make any sense? Obviously not.

The myth is dead. It is exploded, it is exposed, it is no more. There is nothing inherently POV about devoting an article to a critical viewpoint, just as there is nothing inherently POV about devoting an article to any positive viewpoint. That is the key to NPOV: we describe POVs without endorsing them. It is a blatant violation of NPOV to automatically give positive viewpoints more attention and credibility than negative viewpoints and that is what we do when we automatically tar all "criticism of" articles inaccurately as POV forks. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * NPOV is more than the sum of the parts. I could make a list of criticism articles with cleanup flags and make a convincing argument that they are a very bad idea.  The individual elements of the list may be perfectly neutral, but the sum of the list paints a picture.  A criticism article is a one-sided argument: not false or neutral in any element, but the sum of neutral parts can very easily paint an extremely biased picture.  SDY (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If an article is written as a one-sided argument, that makes it wrong no matter what the title is, whereas if the article explores the relevant evidence for and against a viewpoint, that means it is handling that POV exactly according to Wikipedia's principles of NPOV, even if the viewpoint being examined is critical of another viewpoint. Yes, you can probably find a whole bunch of articles with "Criticism of" titles that are written as one-sided arguments, just as I can find a whole bunch of articles that are one-sided arguments in favor of their subject viewpoints that aren't "Criticism of" titles.  But the idea that an article which examines criticism of some particular subject is inherently one-sided is a fallacy. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's not criticism (and I'm assuming we're using the living definition of criticism, i.e. negative criticism), then it isn't relevant to the article, so a "Criticism of..." article has trouble not being a one sided argument. I agree wholeheartedly that other articles can be one sided arguments, but dedicated criticism articles are one-sided by nature.  SDY (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "If it doesn't agree with the viewpoint being described, then it isn't relevant to the article." Does that claim hold up when examined?  Does it reflect Wikipedia's actual policies?  Then neither does "If it doesn't agree with the critical viewpoint being described, then it isn't relevant to the article." -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing viewpoints with coverage, but I'm not sure I follow you. Even with perfect neutrality of viewpoint, an exclusive list of coverage of negative events is a one-sided negative article.  A "Criticism of foo" article would only include negative events about foo, and thus has NPOV problems.  SDY (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never seen a criticism article that was "an exclusive list of coverage of negative events". Certainly an article that was nothing but a listing of events that reflected negatively on some given entity would violate NPOV, as would an article that was nothing but a listing of events that reflected positively on some given entity.  A "Criticism of Foo" article would certainly be likely to reference some negative events, if these happened to be relevant to the more general themes on which Foo was being criticized, but this would not be "an exclusive list of coverage of negative events". -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So what non-negative events would reasonably be covered in an article dedicated to coverage of criticism of a subject? SDY (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdenting) -- I really don't understand your strange focus on "events". If there is any article whose subject is theoretically a viewpoint, but which is instead devoted to a series of events, that seems like a very strange article that probably needs severe re-writing. That applies whether the viewpoint in question is pro or con. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll rephrase then: what "pro" viewpoints would reasonably be included in an article about criticism, which is by nature about "con" viewpoints? SDY (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Any refutations to the criticisms, obviously. And if there are no refutations to the criticisms from reliable sources, then either a) the criticism really is so well-founded that no one can deny it, or (more likely) b) the criticism is a viewpoint held by not even a significant minority and it would be violating WP:WEIGHT to give it its own article.  See, I'm not saying that all "Criticism of" articles are justified.  I'm just against ill-considered blanket policies which would pre-emptively declare them all un-justified, especially under the false premise that they are POV forks. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that defense, defense, defense isn't a neutral article either. People reading an article like Criticism of Albert Einstein without reading the context of that criticism will assume that Einstein was a pretty bad guy who just happened to have a lot of good excuses.  That's not neutral.  Criticism has to be covered in context so that the reader has a full understanding, not just what the whiners want to talk about.  SDY (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I have to point out that you've just changed the topic, from discussion of the proposition "Criticism articles are POV forks" to "Criticism articles violate NPOV because they don't have enough context." This new proposition is admittedly more convincing than the "POV forks" argument, but it still is not convincing enough to justify a blanket rule.  People reading an article like Bay of Pigs Invasion, which focuses solely on one of the biggest disasters of John F. Kennedy's administration, might well come to the conclusion that this JFK guy was the biggest blunderer who ever held US office.  No one has proposed a blanket rule that prohibits articles which focus on single political incidents.  Context is an important consideration for all articles, not merely the ones which you specifically dislike. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as your idea that I changed the topic, I don't think it really matters: policy should already ban dedicated criticism articles, but it's not enforced very well. Which policy we use to ban them is irrelevant.  For the Bay of Pigs, we can cover the topic without beating the dead horse of "smooth move Mr. President."  I concede that a criticism article theoretically could be appropriately written, and I'd prefer a guideline to a policy, but every criticism article I've seen has the quacking and feathers of a not very neutral article, and it should be the burden of the person creating the article to show that it's appropriate rather than a lawyered "it doesn't say we can't!" by an editor with an axe to grind.  NPOV articles persist because the silent majority doesn't have the time, effort, or inclination to bang heads with the edit warriors, and putting a little "right makes might" into the policy gives an edge against the lone barbarians.  SDY (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "policy should already ban dedicated criticism articles ... which policy we use to ban them is irrelevant." Well, that makes your position perfectly clear:  the defendant is guilty, guilty, guilty and sentence will be carried out immediately and maybe at some point we'll actually figure out the charges but God knows that's not any sort of priority.  See, I thought you were arguing because you had actual arguments; I didn't realize you were just employing your fine ability to detect policiness. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Arguments ad hominem will convince few. If you're arguing that I'm concerned with the spirit of policy and not the letter of it, I gladly accept the accusation.  My position is simple: Every criticism article I've ever seen is either a POV fork or has massive NPOV problems and is owned by someone who appears to have a massive grudge about the topic who will not be dissuaded except by another hardened edit warrior.  The title "Criticism of..." implies and invites one-sided coverage, and NPOV applies to titles of articles as well as content.  It also invites cherry-picked arguments without proper context.  These problems can happen in any article, they inevitably happen in criticism articles, and they are therefore, rare exceptions aside, inappropriate for wikipedia.  People who have a grudge on a topic can write about it in their blog.  SDY (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem argumentation would be if I argued that there is something wrong with you and then argued that that transferred automatically to your arguments to make them wrong. That is not the case here.  The case here is that you publicly admitted that you are not carefully weighing the arguments to see if they support a blanket ban on criticism articles, but instead starting at the conclusion ("criticism articles should be blanket-banned") and accepting any argument which purports to support that conclusion.  You misdescribe this as being "concerned with the spirit of policy" but I don't remember anyone awarding you the authority to decide single-handedly just what is against the "spirit of policy". -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)It's an ad hominem argument because you've ceased disputing the points I'm making and have resorted to attacking me (i.e. I'm arrogant therefore I'm wrong). I humbly concede that I am an arrogant SOB, but I don't see how that makes my interpretation of policy wrong. Your initial post, where you claim that "Antipsychiatry" = "Criticism of psychiatry" is misleading. Antipsychiatry is a notable movement that involves people, places, and events. Their views can and should be indicated, but the article should be about the people, places, and events, not just their criticisms. It's the same way we handle Roger Ebert. All of your arguments to allow criticism articles have been WP:OSE arguments, and not very convincing ones at that. If other stuff exists we should fix that other stuff instead of allowing more of the same. SDY (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Melting Crit Sections Into Articles - the new plague
I propose that a line SERIOUSLY needs to be drawn here. I'm seeing (and hearing about) Crit sections being torn apart (especially in product pages (see IPod Touch / IPhone discussion pages - and see the "FAQ" at the top of each, saying Crit sections are removed because they're discouraged - WTF) - most likely many others as well), and scattered into the articles - even if those articles are grotesquely long - all because of a few lines in this Crit article saying something about it being good to try to mix Crits into other sections. - What do others think? (and see "Proposed Paragraph" below) I don't want to change stuff without any consensus.-- [ Dario D. ]  12:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly propose drawing 2 lines here: 1) this scattering/diluting of Crits is good for SHORT articles, because they're short enough to not NEED a dedicated Crit section in order for people to even find them without undue weight, and 2) scattering crits into articles is NOT for weighty, highly relevant Crits (like in a Product article, where the very core of the product may be blasted) from reputable sources, SAYING the issues are worth the attention.

Proposed Paragraph
Looking for help with this, in relation to the section I put above this (though please keep this one relevant to the proposed paragraph here). I'm currently in a dispute where some editors are trying to dismantle the IPhone/IPod Touch's entire Crit sections, and disbanding it into the (long) articles, and I've realized their entire premise is on a few lines in this article here, that are incredibly open to interpretation (somewhere, it says that's it's sometimes good to scatter Crit sections into the article). I think what just about every other dispute about "should we keep the Criticsm section, or should it be scattered into the article" needs is a clarification on when exactly Crit sections are needed, and when they are not. I propose adding this to the article, and would like to find some consensus, because what I've realized is that BOTH sides of the disputes I'm in have NO clear guideline to enforce when and where Criticism sections should appear. So, it's now just a war of who has more supporters, and we've resorted to just flinging mere opinions (we have no guidelines or policies to cite, and that's BAD. The only one we have is too subjective).

Proposed addition to this article:

When Criticism Sections are Needed:

 * When reliable sources suggest or imply that the issues (even just one) may be weighty and relevant.
 * When those issues are connected to the reader's overall perception of the article-subject's image. (example: criticism about a large company's choice of employee name-tags isn't relevant to the reader's perception of the company, but criticism about their complete lack of staff restrooms is)

I also very highly disagree where the article says "Reception" sections are preferred, because, for instance: If you start talking about a new movie's reception, you don't just start listing off detailed, point-by-point criticisms of individual parts... like saying, "Reception of the sex scene wasn't very good..." Who's "receiving" the sex scene? Or who's "receiving" a new TV's faulty power button? You put stuff like that in a Criticism section (if reliable sources blast the issue, and call them weighty, and central to the soul of whatever is being talked about), because this just isn't ABOUT what you think of as a movie's "reception". - Reception is so vague; it's what people "GENERALLY" think of something... and it also presupposes that most people have HEARD about whatever it is that's being "received", whereas criticisms are more about FLAWS, regardless of whether or not something has even come out yet. So, in short, I'm proposing that a line be drawn that specifies that "Reception" sections are for talking about overall reception in its most obvious sense, and Criticism sections are for talking about just flat, raw criticisms... (which OFTEN are not even widely known, and thus can HAVE no reception. Example: say The New York Times does an investigation of one of NASA's satellites, and blasts their decision to use dead puppies as fuel... That's not the New York Times' "reception" of NASA, that's their bare-bones *criticism* of it. And even if everyone in the world knew about the issue, you wouldn't write a section called "Reception of NASA's puppy-fuel", you'd write one called "*Criticism* of NASA's puppy-fuel").

Opinions?-- [ Dario D. ]  19:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If the criticism isn't notable enough to include in a reception section, why is it in the article? The most frustrating thing about criticism is not "where should we put it?" but rather "should it be included at all?"  A neutral encyclopedia would never include a point-by-point criticism.  My revisions to your rules would be:


 * When multiple independent reliable sources state or clearly imply that the issues (even just one) are important and relevant. For example, The latest McBain movie was given poor reviews, with critics panning the a predictable plot and poor acting.
 * When those issues give important context that helps to provide a balanced view of the subject. For example, Itchy and Scratchy are popular media personality, but they have been the subject of heated criticism due to the violence presented in the program.
 * When almost all available sources mention the issue, regardless of how relevant it is. For example, Kent Brockman has been widely criticized for his gloating about lottery winnings on air, but it does not appear to have affected his career.


 * Again, the focus is on broadly-reported criticisms that are widely known and would be strange to leave out, not to create a comprehensive collection of anything and everything that could possibly be wrong with the subject. See WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE 24.21.177.191 (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am reverting this series of edits, which: (1) seems to significantly change the thrust of this essay, (2) does not seem to have consensus, (3) does not make a whole lot of sense to me, and (4) should be discussed before making such a widespread change. If anyone wishes to continue the discussion let's take it a step at a time, but in the meanwhile this is a very influential essay that affects editing on a lot of pages so please don't be hasty in making major changes.  Wikidemon (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't oppose all of the changes and much of what Dario D. says makes sense (a "criticism" section for a politician makes more sense than a "reception" section), but being bold on an article where active debate is taking place isn't in the spirit of collaboration. --  At am a chat 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The above 2 posters followed me here, and posted right after being involved in heated debates against me on other topics, but even considering their comments, there's no real meaningful claim as to how the changes aren't worth posting as a base, then just allowing people to pitch in their individual edits (the above 2 just pointed out tiny, theoretical uncertainties, and also bypassed my "be bold" right, and didn't refute the changes I made in line-by-line detail that people can actually work with). So, if any further issues are had with the changes, discuss and seek amendment to individual lines, don't axe the whole thing, and say, "Wait for consensus that isn't coming (the discussion here has been 0 for half a year)." I've waited for other editors, but they aren't here (though 2 of the above 3 editors don't see anything wrong with the overall message, just that one of them claims that the whole, entire thing doesn't "make a whole lot of sense", somehow), so work with my edits properly, as policy demands.-- [ Dario D. ]  06:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Be bold, but not too bold. I for one do not agree with the proposed changes to this page, mostly the wholesale deletion of discussion of why "Criticism of..." articles are a bad idea.  I agree that this page is a mess, but massive deletions without discussion are not the way to fix it.  If people are "following you" when you attempt to rewrite resources to support your arguments on another page, I applaud them.  Being bold isn't a "right" it's simply a prodding to get involved instead of sitting on the sidelines.  Specifically, I reverted your changes because:
 * Wikipedia isn't the opinion page: evaluations by reliable and significant sources are facts worth reporting, whining (i.e. criticism) is not.
 * The [sic] thing has been discussed. There is no error, it's just a dated quote that's gender-biased.
 * The exhortations regarding NPOV were deleted, and are very important given the nature of criticism/evaluation/etc.. content.
 * The paragraph about making sure that readers know about how evil a subject is flies in the face of everything that NPOV demands: if it is important, it will be mentioned in due WP:WEIGHT, not because some editor has a personal crusade.
 * Just my opinions. Also, "Critical reception" of a movie is a common enough phrase, if you were looking for some common ground.  "Critical" in this case referring explicitly to critics-as-commentators, not critics-as-people-who-didn't-like-it.  SDY (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my word. Why don't you have an issue with the whole BULK of the points first, before just axing EVERYTHING over such petty details? If you have issues with things, fix them, rather than taking such a personally infuriating course of action (you have no idea how much time went into that - I believe in it 110%, and will waste your stinking time over it if all you're going to do is kick up dust and mass-delete. I respect the contributions of those who are willing to ammend it with sound, understandable logic, but not this). Reverted.-- [ Dario D. ]  01:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into some petty edit war over an essay, but it's clear that we are not agreeing on much. Please explain your logic for how your revisions to this essay are consistent with NPOV.  "Being bold" is not an excuse to rewrite controversial topics in a way that you see fit, and people that disagree with you may in fact have perfectly good reasons, some of which I stated above.  You should be careful with your edits, since you've arbitrarily deleted things that aren't even contentious, like an interwiki link.  This criticism essay has been standing for a while, changing it at an individual user's whim is not helpful or appropriate.  SDY (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Although only an essay this is a rather important essay that affects a lot of disputed content in heavily edited articles about important subjects, so we should be careful to make sure that things here have consensus, or at least that things without consensus are clearly stated as the opinion of some Wikipedians but not others. Many editors, including me, feel that for most articles sections devoted entirely to criticism and/or controversy about the article subject, are not encyclopedic and are of little or no help to the reader to truly understand the subject at hand. Further, they become platforms for settling grudges, jealousies, complaints, dislikes, and political opposition, and thereby become Wikipedia battlegrounds. They encourage disputes among editors, and polarization of the article content, so that even if one could find a "balance" (if that's even desirable) between positive and negative portrayal of the article subject the fact that the balance is made up of praise and criticism rather than noteworthy facts is itself a skewing of the encyclopedia, towards being a catalog of people's opinions rather than of things and events. There are certain subjects for which relevant people's opinions are paramount, for example, entertainment content, politicians (inasmuch as it affects their vote), philosophies and religions (which may gain wide acceptance or none at all), and fashion styles. But there are other subjects like web services, consumer products companies, armies, and charitable institutions, where the criticism or controversy over their actions and results usually does not make a lot of difference in the long run to their operations or place in the world. There is a temptation to use Wikipedia as a consumer guide or political soap box. For example, nearly every article about a Web 2.0 company attracts editors who want to list all of the scandals, bugs, supposed security flaws, terms of use enforcement mistakes, crimes, accusations, and supposed flaws, all of which can be sourced to sometimes-reliable tech blogs written by people who criticize each other as a hobby. If Facebook goes down for three hours, or accidentally deletes five thousand accounts, someone will write about it, and someone wants to add it to the "Criticism of Facebook" article. Everytime a listing on Craigslist leads to a robbery or assault, someone wants to add that to the Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users article. And of course every time bloggers invent some new theory about Barack Obama being a communist, illegal alien, Muslim, or what have you, it goes to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. At least those articles are mostly about real accusations and issues, encyclopedic stuff. But if we turn them into mere listings of opinionated people's criticism, there is no structure or value to that. Anyway, however much time went into this, any significant change would require consensus and I'm not sure how much consensus there would be to substantially tilt this essay in favor of expanding criticism articles and sections. Further, because the changes are extensive and widespread it would be a massive job to evaluate them one by one and undo only the ones disagreed with. We should stick with the status quo and if necessary go over the proposals one by one in manageable pieces rather than a yes / no vote on the whole thing, or treating the proposal as a new status quo, its faults to be chipped away at. Accordingly I am restoring the October 8 version, which I take to be stable and to reflect consensus at that time. Let's slow down and think each issue through. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Talking specifics
The paragraph:

"For example, a very long article about a controversial form of alternative medicine where all criticisms are mixed into the article, a reader anywhere between a few minutes to close to an hour to discover that the subject is criticized at all, and this can leave the impression that the criticism does not reflect heavily on anything) Thus, scattering weighty Criticisms into articles can have the same de-informing effect as scattering any other type of relevant information that needs its own section, because the reader can no longer find them, and marginalizes their weight when he does. Scattering any relevant section at all into articles also contributes to turning articles into Literature (that is, expecting all readers to read the entire article before forming an opinion), which reduces referenceabilty, and makes Wikipedia less encyclopedic."

I totally disagree with this. A dedicated criticism section is far, far easier for a reader to "miss," especially in a long article. If a subject is widely and weightily criticized, this criticism should be obvious in the lead, and a dedicated criticism section is just bad writing. The criticisms should be put with the claims, so that the article reads as a single document and not alternating one-sided diatribes which are easily dismissed by those who have found WP:TRUTH. SDY (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with SDY here. There is no way to miss the criticism if it is properly incorporated throughout the article. However, if it is stuffed away in a criticism section, someone may simply read a section of the article that doesn't contain the criticism, and not read the rest of the article. DigitalC (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Titling evaluations
This discussion moved from WP:HELPDESK. Jan 1 naD (talk • contrib) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Section WP:CRIT contains this text: Because it is inherently biased and perceived as a generally negative term, section and article titles should not use the term "criticism" yet when you follow the link it lists these synonyms for "criticism": appraisal, appreciation, assessment, comment, commentary, critique, elucidation, essay, estimate, evaluation, examination, exposition, judgment, notice, observation, opinion, pan, rating, rave, review, reviewal, scorcher, sideswipe, sleighride, study, write-up. In other words, the list includes terms that are positive, negative and neutral. As the supporting link does not in fact support the policy, what is the best way to correct this? Jan 1 naD (talk • contrib) 16:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably by opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criticism. FWIW I disagree that the words criticism is inherently biased and perceived as a generally negative term. Criticism can be either positive or negative - for example, theater and restaurant critics are not invariably negative, nor is textual criticism. – ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The inherent meaning is context-dependent. When someone is a critic of a politician, it's generally not constructive or dispassionate evaluation.  The dictionary definition is technically neutral, but outside of the formal worlds of film and food, the technical definition of "criticism" has generally been replaced by the term "review" and the person is a "reviewer" and not a "critic."  While the term isn't technically incorrect, it can be misinterpreted and this is less an issue of NPOV and more an issue of bad writing.  SDY (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While context-dependent, there are only a few few cases in common parlance where criticism is anything but negative IMHO. Yes people may still talk about film critics and restraunts critics or a criticial analysis or something without meaning the negative, but if you say someone criticised a film or restraurant, this almost definitely implies a negative. Similarly if you talk about criticism of a restraurant and particularly film this usually means the negative rather. (Probably talking about restaurant criticism or literary criticism in general doesn't imply the negative.) P.S. As an example of this perhaps Restaurant rating only has two uses of criticism neither of them mean anything but the negativeNil Einne (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Newsflash
Newsflash: Many Wikipedia articles are really LONG. Who has time to chop up a criticism section and distribute it throughout the article? More importantly, say I am only interested in the criticisms. Are you going to make me read the whole article to find them? No thank you. Just give me a section I can click on. Wikipedia will never be a perfect encyclopedia. At least it can be socially useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.171.99 (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want biased rants against various topics, blogs are generally better sources than wikipedia. SDY (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. If you do not have the time to read an encyclopedia entry, go elsewhere. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism vs article size limits
WP powers-that-be have decided that an article should be no more than 40Kb. How then to argue against those who justify the creation of a "Criticism of..." article on the basis of this rule? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * q.v.this section of that guideline, which is in fact just a guideline and explicitly states that cutting down the size of articles is not an urgent matter. 40 KB is not a hard limit, see WP:SIZERULE.  At any rate, the rules aren't ironclad laws, and avoiding POV forks is far more important than articles that are convenient to use (the main argument for limiting article size).  SDY (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Rethinking Criticism
I think the whole idea of Criticism could use some new thinking. In my opinion, the current policies leave some huge holes open... (and, in the main article, so incredibly little ever changes... it's like nothing happens here). Here are some additions I'm proposing, that I wrote a while back: http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6026/criticism.png (could use some editing, but you certainly get the idea) That link is an image, so that you can isolate just the part I'm proposing. If you need the text, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=325552772 (look for the "Criticism Sections" section) -- [ Dario D. ]  02:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There was very little support for this last time it was proposed. Not sure what's changed.  Is there a specific issue you're trying to address?  SDY (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I forgot I've presented this here once before. (been so busy) In the last discussion, there was only yourself, and two editors that followed me here from a debate in another article. For obvious reasons, I'd like for there to be a discussion among a meaningful number of editors this time, so things can get done. (btw, where are the Wikimedia board members?)-- [ Dario D. ]  10:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Wikimedia board doesn't deal with routine content issues (I think they might deal with office actions, but those are very rare). Jimbo has weighed in on this before, so nominally you could take it to his talk page, but it's pretty busy over there.  The standard choice if you want more input is to start a request for comment.  The village pump boards are another place to find people who like to address these things.  I've already stated that I'm strongly opposed to these changes, not much point rehashing the arguments we had back then.   SDY (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Use better example than Tacitean studies?
This essay currently uses Tacitean studies as the key example of if/how to make a dedicated article on "Criticism". I'm not sure that is the best example. Better examples might be any of:
 * Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics
 * Criticism of capitalism
 * Controversies in autism

These are more illustrative of the point of this essay. In addition, if a second example were needed on the "Reception" approach to handling criticism, better examples might be:
 * Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien
 * Reception history of Jane Austen

Does anyone object to me replacing the Tacitean studies example with two examples from the above (one on Controversies, and one on literary reception)? By the way, the impetus for this is that today I cited this essay in an RfC (probably about the 10th time I've cited it), and I figure the essay should be more precise so that new editors can absorb it more readily. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, on a related topic: I'd like to beef up the "Evaluations integrated throughout the article" section.  I think that it should be presented as a desireable alternative that should be considered before resorting to a dedicated "Criticism" section; and a couple of example "integrated" articles could be linked-to.  --Noleander (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Tacitean studies is used as an example because it's so terribly uncontroversial. It's a developed field of scholarship that's essentially "criticism" in the broader "commentary and analysis" sense, not the "omg u suk" sense, and there are very few NPOV concerns with that kind of article.  I for one am extremely displeased with the concept of "criticism" articles, since they make Wikipedia look like a bunch of angry rants on the internet, and I'd like to see them excised entirely, but it's not my goal in life.  The only problem with changing this essay is that the only reason it's at all persuasive is because it's long-standing.  Clarify and improve the prose, sure, but if you start changing the meaning you may be shooting yourself in the foot.  SDY (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was not clear:  I am not proposing to change the meaning of the essay, except perhaps to increase the emphasis on discouraging "Criticism of ..." sections and articles, which is a change in emphasis that you would support, true?   Regarding the examples in the article:   Tacitean studies  is not the best example because literary criticism is not the most prominent issue that this essay is striving to address:  a better example would be something like Criticism of capitalism, which is a more typical kind of maybe-too-POV article that often gets discussed in Talk pages and RfCs.   And, of course, if  Criticism of capitalism were named in this essay, it should be caveated with "If, as a last resort, a dedicated Criticism article is required (e.g. for size reasons) then here is now to do it: blah blah, but such a dedicated Criticism article is discouraged".   My goal is that when editors come to this essay from an RfC or Talk page debate, they get guidance that is more relevant to the debate they are embroiled in.    --Noleander (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's something that honstly should have formal guidance, but this is ultimately just an essay. If you look at the essay on my user page, I have a pretty extreme view about "bashing the subject" criticism articles, which in my opinion should never be split from an article or within an article based because of WP:NPOV, not to mention it makes a supposed encyclopedia article look like yet another pathetic rant on the internet (which we shouldn't do).  Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that there's much interest in writing a formal guideline on criticism (the RfC I initiated a while back had minimal response).  From the standpoint of the essay giving useful guidance, explain away.  The reason for Tacitean Studies as an example is because it's one of the few types of "criticism" articles uncontroversially acceptable in policy.  Stating that it's acceptable to do "bashing the subject" articls isn't really supported in the written rules, though it happens anyway.  I'd be uncomfortable with having the essay say "here's how to do it" because it really shouldn't be done in the first place.  Making it easier to do by providing guidance on how, even if that guidance also says "don't", will only increase the number of these eyesore troll magents.  There isn't a "right way" to write a dedicated "bashing the subject" article.  SDY (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying, and I agree with all of it (well, most of it). My point is a very simple one:  Over and over again, in RfCs and Talk pages, the issue of a "Criticism of ..." section comes up.  I'm getting tired of re-typing the same reply from scratch over and over :-)  I should be able to just link to this essay, and I do.  But the essay is poorly framed, not well written, and does not clearly emphasize the "these are discouraged" guidance.  I just want to make the essay better, that's all.  Deleting this essay may be tempting, but it would just get created again, so we may as well spend some time improving it, no?  --Noleander (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of an extremist when it comes to criticism articles, so I don't really expect anyone to agree with me without at least some reservations. It's part of why I've stayed away from them, they tend to bring out the hardened edit warrior in me and that's not really helpful to anyone.  Honestly, this essay is very much "assembled by committee" and a single author rewriting it from scratch would be worth doing, further monkeying with it may just make it more confusing.  In the past, I've attempted to clean up the language, but honestly I don't trust myself to be objective and really the ideas in the essay do seem to reflect what I've seen as consensus on the subject (i.e. discouraged as bad writing, but not prohibited).  I'd rather see a guideline than an essay, but if it's going to be an essay, it should at least address the common arguments and issues (e.g. NPOV, NOTSOAP, NOTBATTLEGROUND, NOR, SYNTH, UNDUE, POVFORK, he-said/she-said "tortured" writing, hiding criticism in a dedicated article, etc...). This is currently a limp noodle at keeping out criticism articles since it's really more evidence of previous consensus rather than any sort of rule, but it's better than nothing.  Honestly, it might be better to retain this as a "historical document" even if a fresh essay is written.  SDY (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is kind of a mess. But as I read through it, most of the individual sentences do have some sensible guidance (that is, I can see where the author was coming from, and what they were intending to convey to the reader).  I'll take a shot at improving the clarity, and perhaps re-arranging the sequence of the sections so the essay is more logical.  I'll also add more clarity about how/why Criticism articles/sections are discouraged, and what the alternatives are. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Size is a really crappy reason to tempt a POV fork. Criticism should be integrated throughout all of the articles, not in its own dedicated troll magnet. SDY (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got a good point. Note that "size" topic was already in the essay.  I believe the editor that included it was trying to illustrate the scenario where a "Reception" article could come into existence, as follows:  single article; grows larger; includes a sensible/legitimate Reception section;  time comes to do a fork; the Reception section is a candidate to be a subarticle.  I think that was the gist of what was in the essay originally. --Noleander (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Examples needed to illustrate ideal integration
I'd like to provide a few more examples of good WP articles (on controversial topics) that illustrate how, ideally, the negative information should be integrated within the article (rather than in a devoted Criticism section). I've listed Abortion, PETA, and slavery. Can anyone else recommend some good articles for this purpose? --Noleander (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm hesitant to include Mefloquine as an example, but it is controversial and does not have a "criticism" section. There's been some whack-a-mole on some of the more editorialized content, and it's not a great article, but the criticism is in sections on side effects, a broader "History" section, and a section on society and culture for the US military.  Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) used to have his own dedicated criticism article, and now he has a "controversies" section but those aren't all criticism (some of it is him criticizing other people).  The bit on his programs is full of criticism, but the sections are about the programs, not criticism per se.  George W. Bush has a "perception" subsection and article, but it talks about approval ratings and political wrangling and a lot more than just "why he was bad."  SDY (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I put those in. --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

modern critique of old phenomenon
May a modern criticism of a historical custom no longer being practiced be reported as a criticism? An editor objected that a 20th-century criticism is not reportable against a largely 17th-19th-century custom. That would mean only a contemporary criticism is reportable, and I doubt that's Wikipedia's standard. What's your understanding? Nick Levinson (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the time-frame is very relevant. The important thing is what sort of sources are used as the basis for the material:  do the sources conform to WP:RS requirements?  Are the sources secondary (i.e. not the critics themselves, but someone documenting the criticism)?  See WP:SECONDARY SOURCE.  Are the sources neutral?   Modern criticisms of  older practices are fine, as long as the sources are good.  If there is significant dispute between editors on the material, try to resolve it on the article's Talk page, and if that does not work, try the WP:RFC process. --Noleander (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Differentiating criticism from controversy
I just found this essay, and the Footnote from WP:NPOV and see these policies are rarely followed when you have dedicated partisans. But will refer to it more often.

One important thing that I think needs very clear differentiation in this article is the difference between criticism and controversy. Just to use Wiktionary definitions:
 * Criticism: The act of criticising; a critical judgment passed or expressed; a critical observation or detailed examination and review; a critique; animadversion; censure.
 * Controversy: A debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife.

Too often a list of individual criticisms is labeled controversy even it's on different topics and there are few opposing opinions or strife - and no WP:RS even is calling it a controversy. So I think it has to be emphasized that controversy is a higher standard. Also, it would be helpful to say that articles should not have a section called both "Criticism and controversy" like RT (TV network) currently does. (One of reasons I searched around til came here.) Any ideas on best way to do that. Otherwise I'll be bold and see what the response is. CarolMooreDC 19:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose this essay could more clearly distinguish between the two. But if you (or anyone) wanted to spend time improving this essay, maybe the effort would be better spent trying to get it up to a Guideline status?   Right now it is a mere essay, and carries very little weight.  Maybe if it were cleaned up it could get promoted to a guideline and then be more effective in promoting neutrality within WP. --Noleander (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a paragraph into this essay about distinguishing Criticisms from Controversies. Feel free to wordsmith as necessary. --Noleander (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I've found "controversy" is sometimes misused in the sense more or less of "undesirable", "scandal", or the like. For example, the early 2013 discovery that many foods in Europe contained undeclared horsemeat was described as a controversy in its introduction. There's no controversy over that and similar things—everybody thinks it's terrible, nobody defends it. If there were people seriously defending the practice it would be a controversy. It's not that controversy is a higher standard, it's when there are (at least) two opposing viewpoints, contrary versions. The desirability of permitting abortion is controversial; the acceptability of selling horsemeat as beef is not. Of course, criticism if it provokes a vigorous defence may cause controversy. Pol098 (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a specific change you want to make to the essay, could you post it here in the talk page so other editors can look at it? --Noleander (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I had used the text "There are at least two different viewpoints to a controversy: abortion is controversial; the undesirability of passing off horsemeat as beef is not controversial, there is virtual unanimity against the practice." I'm not particularly concerned about the wording, but it's become a lazy habit to use "controversy" for anything undesirable, even though there is virtually no dissension, and a guideline might help to reduce this. Pol098 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The essay already defines controversy as "controversies are protracted public disputes". I think that is pretty accurate, and would clearly cover the abortion & horsemeat situations.   I'm sure you're right that people occasionally misuse words ... but in that could be said about 50% of the words in this essay :-)   We cannot give examples of appropriate usage for every single word.  Do you have a specific example where someone misused "controversy" in WP and it caused problems?  --Noleander (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Do you have a specific example where someone misused "controversy" in WP and it caused problems?" It's Wikipedia, problems as such are unlikely unless someone sues. Replacing "hippopotamus" globally by "parsnip" throughout Wikipedia is unlikely to cause "problems". "Controversy" has quite often been used in a way which implies a difference of opinion where none exists. A real example I consider relevant: in the article on the incapacitating gas fentanyl a while ago there was a "Controversies" section which started "A number of fatal fentanyl overdoses have been directly tied to the drug over a period of years." It's clearly the wrong word, and used as a heading rather than embedded in text, as is common; I would say misleadingly wrong. Coming to the article I would note in the index the existence of a Controversies section and expect to find a dispute. (In the actual case of fentanyl there was genuine controversy about its use by the Russian government to end a serious hostage crisis, killing 15% of the hostages; but the Controversies section was a list of facts about people dying from recreational overdoses.) Pol098 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Religion
Hi Machine Elf, I've reverted the inclusion of atheism as a religion, or related to religion. There's no need to add it there; equating it with religion, even indirectly, is viewed as offensive by atheists, so it's best just to leave the two examples of religion as Islam and Christianity. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I had misread it as "religious (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) topics" which I've hopefully clarified with "topics related to religion..." That certainly wasn't my intention but it's certainly a viewpoint about religion that attracts a great deal of critical attention... As clarified, I don't see why it shouldn't be included, given that it had been. After all, it's actually about separating that criticism into a different article for some breathing room. I've also swapped Naturalism for Materialism as it's been suffocated by a miasma of polemic obscurantism.—Machine Elf 1735  22:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You've reverted three times today against two editors to include atheism. Why not stick to examples that are uncontroversial? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you've altered it substantially in the interim. There's no reason for you to consider a previous edit as supporting your change, considering that I've already politely explained that I had misread it. Furthermore, you've reverted my other change with no attempt at explanation whatsoever.—Machine Elf 1735  23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If your reverting wasn't about atheism, do you agree with the removal of it? As Arc de Ciel said, it's best to stick to uncontroversial examples following the mention of religion. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I do not agree with you, nor do I don't think it's controversial in the way you're professing, as not even so much as relating to a religious topic! Furthermore, examples that aren't somehow controversial wouldn't be examples at all, now would they?—Machine Elf 1735  23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)