Wikipedia talk:Criticism/Archive 1

Uncriticizable

How do you criticize basketball, alphabet Q or color blue? Personally, I think NPOV is more or less a lousy joke. Now you can criticize me. -- Toytoy 07:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Two proposals

I don't understand. #2 seems to contradict #1, and I have a hard time understanding #2. -- Samuel Wantman 07:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These are two contradicting theories. Theory 1: Every article shall criticize itself. Theory 2: Let other articles practice criticism. -- Toytoy 07:46, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Repetition of criticism

• ... criticisms of Christianity do not belong in the article on Christianity, but in the articles of Christian-critical groups and concepts.

OK, there are thousands of groups who do not like Christianity one way or another. Most of them share some similar ideas, such as "There shall be more than one Gods." Are we going to duplicate the same words over and over in multiple articles?

Many groups who thinks otherwise are seeing Christianity their biggest enemy. A geologist may not agree with the Big Flood. However, it seems stupid to say "This guy does not believe in Noah's flood." in each geologist's article. It is a joke to write an article about bicycles and keeps telling readers bad things about cars, ships, airplanes, spacecrafts and feet.

People who are critical to Christianity may also against many other non-related ideas. You don't want to write an article where 95% of the words are used to say "He does not like capitalism, femminism, Christianity, mathematics, Nazism, salty food, Macintosh computers, witch hunting, cats, 1+1=2, paleontology, child abusing, blood transfusion, fossil fuel, antibiotics, farmers, Washington Post, anyone who has more than two vowels in his/her name, his mother's pasta ... ." -- Toytoy 08:00, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. What would be a better wording? You obviously have ideas about where criticism doesn't belong, and the point of all this is to make those possibly common-sense ideas explicit guidelines.

One could argue that NPOV requires any lengthy article on a person or major concept to include a section criticizing that concept or person's efforts or actions, as most neutrally toned articles include mostly positive information. For example, Igor Stravinsky contains all sorts of information about Stravinsky's relatively succesful career, such as his credentials, most inherently positive. Thus balance requires an opposing view or opposing views. Hyacinth 08:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uncriticizable

I don't think either proposals are doing any good here. Why does an NPOV article need a criticism section, when there's nothing or almost nothing to criticise about it? And even when there's someone who has some criticism about a certain topic, do we need to support extreme minority views just because they're the only ones complaining? I also agree with Toytoy, how should "Criticism of Helium" and "Criticism of Tea" look like? They're both featured articles. The second proposal is also not a good idea IMHO, criticism of copyright exists and should stay there. Just my 2 cents. --Conti|✉ 11:08, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, what's the opposite of these two bad policies? Apparently it would make one good one. Hyacinth 23:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Igor Stravinsky

• Change vote to neutral. I've just gone over it again, and have made more changes. I think it reads better now, but someone else should read it again I feel. Also, the more I read it, the more the article reads like a eulogy. I think there must have been (and remain) critics of Stravinsky's work who should be given greater voice for the sake of NPOV. Lupin 12:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think that there is a respectable view that he was a bad composer. (Some people don't like his music, but that's not the same thing as it being bad.) We don't need to mention in every composer's article that some people might not care for his stuff. Markalexander100 02:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

posted here by Hyacinth 23:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC), see Igor_Stravinsky#Criticism. Hyacinth 19:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Additions to proposal

Performed some rewritings of the proposal. Hope it helps. But is still not "final" for the proposal I suppose. --Francis Schonken 15:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I rephrased some of what you wrote to distinguish between descriptions of criticism and criticism itself (Wikipedia articles shouldn't criticise, they should describe criticism). I know your knowledge and practice of proper grammar is better than mine so please correct any errors I have introduced. Hyacinth 10:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Reception

"Reception" is an interesting topic touched by this guideline. Maybe should be somewhat elaborated. Don't know yet how - so, for the time being I just note down some things I'm thinking of:

Tacitus

The Tacitean studies article is presently no more than a "reception history" split-off from the Tacitus article. The basic "summary style" idea has been followed in the Tacitus#Studies and reception history section. See also the talk I had with Mirv at User:Mirv/Tacitus#More_issues, which calls for further improvement of the "Tacitus"/"Tacitean studies" split. --Francis Schonken 13:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Reception history and trivia

"Reception" topics are often very dangerous to become an endless list of Trivia. For recent talks regarding trivia see (just naming a few):

• wikipedia talk:Trivia
• talk:Salome#The Dubliners and talk:Salome#Trivia (note: all these trivia are "reception", but not really "criticism")
• BWV 565 has on some occasions been criticised for being unbalanced towards too many Trivial inclusions in "reception history"/"in popular culture" type of sections. But is (e.g.) its reception history not far more important than whether or not it was written by Bach? And would the sections discussing the authorship of that composition fall under the "criticism" recommendations of the wikipedia:criticism guideline? If they do, the actual description of BWV565 is in its own article simply dwarfed by more than three quarters of criticism/reception history. But then, is that avoidable for compositions with such importance (one would say "part of the collective unconscious"), where so little is known about their history of origin?

--Francis Schonken 13:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This proposal

I read the proposed guideline with interest and at first glance my comment is that ... I am more confused than before I started reading it. A guideline should be written in a manner that helps editors in addressing issues they encounter when editing articles. As it stands now I don't believe that editors will gain a better understanding on how to deal with criticism in articles. Given that this is probably one of the more contentious issues we are facing in WP, I would argue that unless this proposed guideline can be written to actually assist editors with decisions about how to treat criticism in articles, we should be better off relaying on the current content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What is confusing and how so? Hyacinth 17:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The wording is confusing and does not provide any useful or clear information about it. It says you can do this, or that, or this other thing. IMO this is a superfluos guideline. WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT already provides all what wee need to address criticism in articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What would be really useful, is to provide a guideline on how to treat criticism as it pertains to its notability. For example, see WP:LIVING#Opinions_of_critics opponents and detractors where it reads:

Many persons that are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia are likely to have critics. Their views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject's notability, is based on reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate voice to critics as you could be representing a minority view as if it were the majority view, and if the criticism represents a tiny-minority view, it has no place in the article.

Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence from reliable sources regarding the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, or other generalizations.

Articles about ideologies, beliefs, or policies warrant criticism, whereas a section of criticisms of an individual is almost certain to result in contention. For example, to have a criticism section in the article Communism is encyclopedic, but a critique of communism on the article of each individual communist figure is not. The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with advocating criticism in an encyclopedia

Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It's not a newspaper editorial with pro/con columns, nor a discussion forum, nor a political debate with designated pro/con positions. Encyclopedias typically don't have criticism or analysis sections -- that is reserved for other works. Examine almost any article in Britannica, Encarta, World Book, etc, and this is obvious.

The main purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe and explain the topic, not criticize it. That doesn't mean criticism is unwarranted, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Again, how do we know this? Look at any general encyclopedia. The lack of criticism in encyclopedias does not reflect a PRO position, it's simply not an encyclopedia's purpose. Guidelines should certainly not require or even encourage including criticism sections.

A significant problem with this article is blurring two common definitions of criticism. In art, music and literature, the term means study, discussion, evaluation, and interpretation. In other contexts it means hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism. Many editors will misunderstand this. They are already predisposed to criticize topics they feel negatively about. When they read guidelines favoring a criticism section, that only fuels this already incorrect notion. This contributes to articles which consist more of criticism than explanation of the topic. It contributes to edit wars with editors trying to cram in negative statements about topics they dislike under the rubric of "criticism".

Even regarding art, literature and music, criticism should generally be restrained in an encyclopedia. E.g, Re Igor Stravinsky -- the Britannica and Encarta entries have essentially no criticism (Britannica does have a neutral "assessment" section).

Simply documenting the topic without criticism DOES NOT equate to a pro position -- EVEN if that topic is repulsive to many people. E.g, Pedophile activism, or Adolph Hitler. These Wikipedia articles correctly focus on those topics, not having significant criticism sections. Unfortunately many Wikipedia articles are saturated with criticism.

Criticism can create biased and uneven coverage. Some topics people feel strongly about will have prominent criticism, others will not. This detracts from the detached, scholarly impartiality vital to an encyclopedia.

The urge to criticize in Wikipedia articles is so overwhelming that entire articles devoted purely to criticism of the topics have been created. E.g, Encarta has a lengthy article on communism, but there's no criticism section. By contrast Wikipedia has a criticism section pointing to yet another entire article criticizing communism. Often the criticism section (and proponents of it) grow so overwhelming that a separate criticism article is created to give them a platform. At least it avoids total ruination of the main article, but it still illustrates the problem.

In addition to misunderstanding an encyclopedia's main purpose, the propensity to criticize in Wikipedia articles may come from misplaced comparisons with other information sources. E.g, people see "60 Minutes" segments on a topic, or read newspaper pro/con articles, or hear hostile, questioning reporters during a press conference. They may feel not doing likewise is "rolling over" and spouting a "party line" viewpoint. However Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's NOT a web-based news article, or an editorial page which mandates pro/con sections. We are encyclopedia writers, not investigative reporters.

But isn't that itself a matter of opinion? Not really. We must only look at other similar references: Britannica, Encarta, World Book, etc. Is Wikipedia bound by those conventions? No, but if we want Wikipedia to likewise be a credible, unbiased, scholarly source, we should heavily weigh that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

There should be no hard-and-fast rules. Topics differ. But in general this guideline should be repeatedly stressed -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for criticism, whether from editors or outside parties. Britannica, Encarta, World Book, etc. follow this guideline, and so should Wikipedia -- it's an encyclopedia. Whenever WikiCriticism is founded, then you can criticize and analyze to your heart's content. Until then the focus should stay purely encyclopedic, which means documenting the topic, not criticizing or analyzing it.

To do otherwise damages the scholarly impartiality, usefulness and ultimately the very legitimacy of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is already under attack from other encyclopedias, usually regarding accuracy (so far). Once they figure out the magnitude of this problem, I'm sure it will figure prominently in their negative advertising. We don't want to provide them further ammunition by advocating criticism, which generally doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Joema 16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joema, I've read your criticism when you posted it first some weeks ago, and re-read when you updated it recently.

Note that:

1. Wikipedia's content is subject to the Verifiability policy - "criticism" content does not make an exception to that requirement, that's something you'd need to be aware of. In that sense, contributors can't (and shouldn't) make difference whether the source providing the information is "criticising" or not, although differentiation regarding the reliability of the source is advised.
2. Another important point is Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) policy. Representing issues from all sides, would usually be stronger in Wikipedia than in Wikipedia's competitors (at least those encyclopedias that are built in a top-down mode of operation). Whether you favour a top-down "by expertise" way of making an encyclopedia, or wikipedia's open everyone-can-add-his-or-her-two-cents approach, the difference in approach might give also a different result in how content is distributed over pages. Note however that in the end results may be not so far from each other. It's not because Britannica -for instance- doesn't do "criticism" section titles that the end result is all that much of a difference. I compared Franz Mesmers article in Wikipedia and in the printed Britannica not so long ago. Both are about 50% criticism of Mesmer's "animal magnetism", Benjamin Franklin being listed in both as one of the "official" critics. Neither had a "criticism" section, but on the negative for wikipedia there's some "trivia" cruft in a "Trivia" section, while on the positive side for wikipedia, the article mentions Mesmer's involvement regarding Mozart's first opera (a topic not mentioned in Britannica). So, if making the balance (for this single article, which is not much of a base for comparison, but still) wikipedia's "Mesmer" article has slightly more positive characteristics for this person than Britannica. In short, (1) Wikipedia can't avoid critical topics being listed; (2) there's no proof that a more adequate description of how to deal with criticism in article text would attract unmanageable criticism.

Note that in the "see also" section of the guideline proposal I added a link to a current mailing list discussion, which touches on some topics mentioned by you too. Maybe worth while to have a look there, or at least at the quotes I copied from that discussion. --Francis Schonken 18:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis, if Jimbo wants to make criticism part-and-parcel of Wikipedia that's his prerogative. However take my word for it -- even indirectly advocating criticism will hurt the credibility and ultimately the very legitimacy of Wikipedia. It makes no difference whether there's a designated criticism section or whether the criticism is smeared over the article. The problem isn't attracting trolls with a criticism section. Rather the problem is attracting ANYONE with strong feelings against the topic. Look at Usenet or discussion forums. There is no shortage of such people. Everyone feels strongly against something. Wikipedia gives them a near infinite array of topics to protest against. It doesn't require a criticism section to draw those like flies, and it doesn't stay on the talk page -- it contaminates the article. Whether intended or not, criticism "how to" articles encourage this. The urge to criticize is so strong that anything besides a clear anti-criticism guideline simply encourages it. This article as currently written certainly does, whether that's the intention or not.

Britannica, World Book, Encarta, etc. don't shirk criticism because of their "top down" approach. Rather prominent criticism doesn't generally belong in a general encyclopedia. An enyclocopedia describes topics according to mainstream thought -- it doesn't critique, criticize or dissect. The other encyclopedias are perfectly capable of incorporating criticism as a standard feature, but they're smart enough not to.

Obvious exceptions are art, music and literature where the term "criticism" has a different meaning.

Re NPOV, topics such as theory of evolution, big bang theory, efficient market hypothesis, chemical imbalance theory, global warming theory, etc. imply alternate viewpoints. THAT type of topic is probably what the "all viewpoints" wording of NPOV was intended for. By contrast the majority of topics may have associated controversy (e.g, Adolph Hitler, nuclear bomb) but that by itself doesn't justify criticism in an encyclopedia article. In those two cases Wikipedia (so far) has done the right thing -- no criticism. However that is increasingly not the case.

The problem is exactly as you describe: on Wikipedia, everyone can add "their two cents worth." The already ingrained tendency to criticize is only exacerbated by a "how to" article with no other cautionary guidelines.

Allowing or even encouraging everyone adding their "two cents worth" of criticism creates multiple deleterious affects, including piling on (criticism attracting itself) and uneven coverage (some articles are saturated with criticism, others not). Another uneven coverage problem is the heavy-criticism verbiage tends to displace descriptive verbiage. Many articles are devoted primarily to criticizing the topic rather than explaining it. Readers go away knowing little about the topic other than it's controversial. In other words, a total failure of an encyclopedia's justification for existence.

E.g, automobiles have killed over 20 million people and damaged the environment. There are very strong and valid opinions against cars and for mass transit. However such criticism doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The Wikipedia automobiles article doesn't have that -- yet. Other articles are highly critical, i.e. uneven coverage, and typically shaped by the changing winds of current sentiment. Exactly what you don't want in an encyclopedia.

Editorial criticism is a poisonous toxin to the scholarly impartiality and credibility of an encyclopedia and will ultimately prove lethal to the project if not resisted. Joema 23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"There are very strong and valid opinions against cars and for mass transit. However such criticism doesn't belong in an encyclopedia."

If we're to follow WP:NPOV and the criticism is part of a significant viewpoint, then not only does it belong in wikipedia, it's required. Why? Because WP:NPOV explicitely states: "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. ... Debates are described, represented, and characterized, ... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, ... One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

The reasoning in this proposed policy/guideline is flawed; it is in direct conflict with WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between editorial criticism and representing various points of view in an article. A newspaper article will often impartially represent various significant viewpoints on a topic. By contrast editorial criticism is reserved for the editorial page. If you interpret WP:NPOV as criticism sections are required, then a great many (maybe most) WP articles are deficient. E.g, the Evolution article has no major criticism section, despite hundreds of millions of people being opposed to it. Do we want to explicitly advocate or even require criticism sections? It seems totally at odds with the style and purpose of an encyclopedia. Joema 21:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be mandating criticism in any article. We should simply be enforcing WP:NPOV when opinions are included in articles; either criticism or praise. Whatever is most notable should be included. There's no need to tell editors "you must dig up some criticism to include in the ice cream article!" if there isn't really any criticism to speak of in popular opinion. On articles where there is notable criticism, like George W. Bush, it should be included only as much as it is notable. — Omegatron 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy does make it different from other encyclopedias and will sometimes result in different applications. In articles like, say, Evolution or Creationism or Christianity, the NPOV policy requires listing major points of view, some of which say that the whole thing is wrong or a bad idea. Most encyclopeidias wouldn't publish the views of creationists in an article on Evolution or Richard Dawkins' anti-religious views in an article on Christianity. We do. Because we do, we then have an obligation to talk about how to do it in an organized, appropriate way that presents the range of views without obscuring the subject or letting controversy drown exposition. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Topical criticism

How should criticism of a topic be included in sub-articles or related articles of that topic? For instance, the topic of Mediums has "general" criticism (e.g. skeptics say they are either deluded or frauds, using cold/hot reading, etc.) In related or sub-articles for individual mediums (like John Edward), should identical criticism be included in the Edward article (as a sort of disclaimer), or should a link to the controversial topic itself be sufficient for "general criticism,” while criticism that is specific to Edward be put into his own article? (eg, audience padding, show editing, etc...) Dreadlocke 17:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Serious problems with this proposal

This proposed guideline is not coherent in points. A 'criticism of X' article is NOT necessarily a POV fork. The only thing that the existence of a 'criticism of X' article is asserting is that there is enough notable criticism of X to warrant an article discussing it. It is the duty of an encyclopedia to properly inform the reader about what is important to know about a subject, and magically excluding criticism from the sphere of what is 'important to know' is a grave disservice to the reader. If a subject is especially controversial, then not telling the reader about this controversy leaves them woefully uninformed.

Once we agree that criticism should be concluded, it is simply a matter of organizational logic how to structure it. If an article's criticism section becomes large enough, it should be split off into a subarticle by the same logic that any article section is split off when it becomes too large.

Furthermore, 'Criticism of X' articles can easily maintain NPOV, and well-written ones do their utmost to do so. A POV fork article by definition pushes a certain POV. A well-constructed 'Criticism of X' article does NOT push a POV. - Merzbow 03:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking at it more, the central flaw in this proposal is that it assumes that criticism sections or articles will 'only' contain criticism (which is necessarily POV) and not a discussion of that criticism (criticism and responses, which can be NPOV). The former is unencyclopedic, the latter is certainly not. Based on this flawed assumption, criticism sections are disparaged and criticism articles disallowed. - Merzbow 08:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree totally with Merzbow. Are there ways in which a "Criticism of X" article can represent a POV fork? Of course. Does this mean all such articles are POV forks? Absolutely not. And yet, troublingly, that seems to be the assumption that some are making -- if I'm reading correctly, people over at Wikipedia:List of POV forks are even suggesting that bots or Google searches could be used to automatically find all such "POV forks", without considering that -- again -- simply focusing on a particular aspect of a topic about which people will have strong POVs does not make an article a POV fork. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed as well. Reading that some editors discourage criticism sections was one of the worst things i've ever read on wikipedia.
• Denying a criticism or praise section is just as bad as denying a references or history section. wikipedia is a reference, and as such, it should be easy for a user to find information they are looking for. if a user wants to know history of X, the history section will give a list of major events for X. if a user wants to know financials of X, the financials section will organize financial data. and the the user wants to learn about the CRITICISM, then the criticism section well organize that information.
• the PURPOSE of the sections is to organize information into topics that are useful and easily understood by the user. if we are to remove criticism sections and spread the information throughout the article, then we should remove all sections and just have each article become one gigantic paragraph. that way there is no "TROLL MAGNET" for those who have criticsms; no "HISTORY BUFF MAGNET" for those who have historical data, and no "REFERENCE MAGNET" for those who try to ensure that wikipedia is properly referenced.--Yourmanstan (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The problems I've seen in practice

I have found two problems with "Criticism" sections. The first is about data layout. Hypothetical example A: I'm reading the "Cars" article, which has many subsections. One is "Steering wheels", another is "Criticism". If I read the Steering wheels section, do I then have to also read the Criticism section, which could contain criticisms about steering wheels, to ensure that I have read everything there is to read about steering wheels? That's bad data layout since the Criticisms section may contain zero related info, and should surely contain a low percentage at most of related info. Hypothetical example B: I want to contribute a criticism - where do I put it? In the section about that aspect of the topic ("Steering wheels") or in the "Criticism" section?

The second is about the contribution environment they create. I've repeatedly observed that sections titled "Criticism" attract very low quality contributions. I have a theory about why this is: it is easy to put a statement there without having to make that statement fit into the article. This is the case because seperating two related sentences by a few paragraphs hinders WP's two main peer-review procedures. One procedure is that people who are reading the article can correct mistakes, but only a minority read articles from start to finish. The majority are unlikely to read both of the contradicting statements if they are far apart, so the contradiction will not be obvious. The other procedure is that people check edits that appear on their watchlist. Again, this procedure often doesn't catch contradictions at all (since people just verify the change compared to their knowledge), and the "diff" only shows one paragraph above and below for context, so contradictions will often be found acceptable provided that the added sentence looks ok in isolation.

I think these are fundamental problems, and so I recommend that "Criticism" sections be advised against. Gronky 23:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, criticism is messy, which is exactly why it should be quarantined

In my experience, articles without a criticism section end up having poor quality critical edits made all over them. There is also a tendency to escalate arguments according to the following pattern (using an article about cars as an example):

• User A writes "Cars are good".
• User B edits it to say "Some people believe that cars are good, but others recognize they are bad".
• User A edits further: "Most people believe cars are good. Some claim that they are bad, but these people ignore all the evidence provided by several respected think-tanks for the positive benefits of cars."
• User B retaliates: "Certain people believe cars are good. Many others contend that they are bad; the pro-car faction often criticizes these by appealing to a number of controversial allegations made by pro-car think-tanks. However, critics of cars have conclusively demonstrated that, for the following reasons, cars are very bad."

In brief, you end up with a string of sentences where each contradicts the previous one. Side A says this. But side B says this. But side A says that. But side B... ad nauseaum. That is unprofessional and hard to follow.

It is much better to isolate all arguments for and against in their own section - or, if they get too long, in their own article. -- Nikodemos 22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism in separate articles

From Wikipedia:Content forking:

Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.

"Criticism" is a stance, so grouping criticism in a separate article is by definition a POV fork.

If the sub-article contains both "criticism" and the opposite of criticism, the title of the article is badly chosen (at least POV), and should be changed to "Reception of ..." or something in that vein (depends on case).

If such article becomes too long it should never be split along the lines of "criticism" in one sub-article and "praise" in another (that's an archetypal example of POV splitting). Instead, try splitting along "Reception of ... (Middle Ages and Renaissance)" and "Reception of ... (Enlightenment and Modern Era)" or whatever is suitable for the subject being described.

Criticism sections in an article

In fact the current wording of the proposal is still too lenient towards separate criticism sections in an article. That is because most of this proposal was written before the mailing list discussion now quoted in the Wikipedia:Criticism#See also section, Jimbo Wales giving the most forceful argumentation:

[...] 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.

Well, this calls for a rewrite of the Wikipedia:Criticism proposal. I wouldn't dream of making this proposal a guideline before the "troll magnet section" argument is properly included in the body of the proposal text. --Francis Schonken 09:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that criticism sections are troll magnets. But my argument is that, in the absence of such a section, the entire article becomes a troll magnet. Instead of having a section with random criticisms, you'll find random critical paragraphs all over the article.

I also absolutely agree that there should be no separate criticism articles that present only the criticisms. Rather, there should be articles detailing arguments for and against. I have personally worked two achieve NPOV on two large criticism articles by adding anti-criticisms. Finally, there is the problem of criticism articles that are much, much longer than their parent articles. How do you propose to integrate those? -- Nikodemos 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. How do I join this mailing list? -- Nikodemos 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How do I join this mailing list?

See Wikipedia:Mailing lists (note also The WikiEN-l Archives)

in the absence of such a section, the entire article becomes a troll magnet

In addition to all what has been said, note also the importance of Wikipedia:Verifiability. That's my No. 1 strategy in most of the troll-gathering articles: throw out what isn't properly referenced to highly reliable sources. If all the unreferenced stuff is gathered in a criticism section, then the trolls have been nice, throw out the section. But then also you haven't got a criticism section any more.

there should be articles detailing arguments for and against

yeah, but, as said above, if that makes the article viable, it should be re-baptized to something else than "Criticism of ..." and no, article names starting with "Criticism and anti-criticism of ... " doesn't work.

[...] criticism articles that are much, much longer than their parent articles. How do you propose to integrate those?

who said they had to be integrated? I already explained

Instead, try splitting along "Reception of ... (Middle Ages and Renaissance)" and "Reception of ... (Enlightenment and Modern Era)" or whatever is suitable for the subject being described.

Was anything unclear about that? Also, in the Wikipedia:Criticism#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history) section there is some detail about "Making separate "reception history" articles [...]" Please follow these recommendations (not forgetting the *summaries* in the main article, etc). --Francis Schonken 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's my No. 1 strategy in most of the troll-gathering articles - throw out what isn't properly referenced to highly reliable sources. If all the unreferenced stuff is gathered in a criticism section, then the trolls have been nice, throw out the section.

Yeah, right, and be reverted within minutes by inclusionists who insist on a "true until proven false" policy. This guideline of yours would never work unless it explicitly states that any unreferenced criticism (or advocacy) can be deleted out of hand with no explanation, and should not be added back until references are found.

Then there is also the fact that some people (I have a certain user in mind, but I won't mention his name) go out and find tons of references that support their POV, and add a huge volume of (well-referenced) critical material into articles. How do we handle tons and tons of well-referenced criticism that overshadows the main body of the article? It would certainly be possible, for example, for an opponent of Christianity to add every single argument ever made by an atheist to the Christianity article - with references. I utterly dislike the idea that we should just wait until an equally zealous user on the other side takes the time to find an equally large volume of referenced arguments for his POV. -- Nikodemos 20:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"true until proven false" policy

There is no "true until proven false" policy at Wikipedia. On the contrary, the policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability) is clear: Verifiability, not truth. Everything without a decent reference to a published & reliable source can be thrown out. Please, I already pointed you to Wikipedia:Verifiability above, maybe take the time to read it thoroughly. You say "unless it explicitly states that any unreferenced criticism (or advocacy) can be deleted out of hand with no explanation, and should not be added back until references are found": Wikipedia:Verifiability states exactly that (note that it doesn't state that exclusively for criticism and advocacy). As far as I know there is no policy or guideline stating "true until proven false". That would be misleading. Note also that the criteria for the sources to which references can be made are fairly high. So making a reference to an advocacy website, would not comply to wikipedia:reliable sources in most cases, in which case a statement and its reference to an unreliable source can be thrown out on sight again. Further, even tiny minority views with decent references to reliable published sources can be thrown out, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Let the one wanting to add something to Wikipedia gather the "evidence" (that is the reliable sources) that make clear that it is about more than a "tiny minority view".

Christianity

Yeah, that's of course a "high profile" article. I'm involved in some of these too. In such case the "tiny minority view" threshold is higher than for the less general articles. For Metropolitan Church of Art of Jesus the Conductor a handful of people sharing an opinion is a non-negligible view (you're already outnumbering the "adherents" of this Church). For Christianity you'd need several thousands (if not more) to get above the "tiny minority view" threshold. Note that the "Metropolitan Church of Art of Jesus the Conductor" itself holds a tiny minority view on Christianity. But it has a separate article, no need to mention it in the general article. A path connecting these two articles is for example: Christianity → Category:Christianity → Category:Christian mysticism → Category:Esoteric Christianity → Metropolitan Church of Art of Jesus the Conductor.

You get the idea? I mean, there's a network of related articles. Some of these are loaden with criticism on Christianity (take Homosexuality and Christianity as an example - the criticisms go both ways of course). But the point is that "quarantining" or "sectioning off" or "grouping" the criticism (and similarly: trivia) is a stratagem that in the end has proven to be less successful than grouping on lots of interesting topics, each with their viable views included in the article. "Proven" in the sense of: Wikipedians learnt it by experience, I mean, today the answer to this issue is apparently less open than it used to be some time ago, learning from previous mistakes. The "quarantining" of criticism or trivia has lead more often to disaster than the other approach.

Still some guidance I'd like to draw your attention to:

• Wikipedia:summary style (this is something one needs to have in ones fingertips for the top high profile articles)
• Wikipedia:article size: maybe not necessary to study that guideline in detail, just these two points: 30kb is a maximum for ordinary articles. The top high profile articles can maybe go up to 60kb. The other point is: ask yourself the question: what is noteworhty in such top high profile article limiting oneself to 60kb? The rest has to go to a subsidiary article, or a subsidiary of a subsidiary (if noteworthy at all, i.e. not a tiny minority view that even doesn't deserve to be mentioned in an ancillary article). Millions of people are affected by Christianity, so any criticism of Christianity that isn't brought forward by a considerable fraction of the number of people affected by Christianity doesn't belong in the top article. It has to go to its appropriate article (e.g. Laïcité or whatever that represents that type of criticism).
• Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Three revert rule: Above I stressed it is allowed to throw out certain stuff. But best to avoid riding a horse and carriage through articles, especially the high-profile ones. For the high-profile ones step-by-step finetuning is often best. You'll see that that is the best approach to get people start cooperating. --Francis Schonken 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, you seem to misunderstand me. I completely agree with you and I absolutely support all the policies you have quoted. I have read and understood them very well. However, my argument is that most wikipedians don't follow them in practice, and that refusing to acknowledge this fact is a recipe for disaster. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need criticism sections because most people would make edits that are well-cited and respect NPOV, and all POV-pushers and spammers would be immediately reverted. But we don't live in that ideal world. To put my argument in rather crude terms, shit happens, and it's best to keep it all in one place rather than spread it over the entire article.

Take the "true until proven false" attitude that I mentioned. Of course it's not supported by official policy, but most people do it anyway. Here's a recent example: In the social justice article, there was a criticism section that was not only unreferenced, but also POV and criticized the wrong thing (as I explained here). I tried to remove it, [1] but it was immediately added back. [2]

Most people have a knee-jerk reaction to any removal of content and demand that you explain the removal rather than trying to explain why the text should be kept. Hence "true until proven false".

You explained very well what should happen. But I'm saying it doesn't happen, and never will, unless the administration gets some teeth and starts seriously enforcing policy. -- Nikodemos 02:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, giving administrators more "teeth", only leads to wheel wars. Policy and guideline pages give recommendations on what should and what shouldn't happen. That's what they do. Creating "troll magnet sections of random criticisms" is something that better shouldn't happen, so it is probably best to write that down on some policy or guideline page. --Francis Schonken 08:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Nikodemos' analysis of the criticism situation is a sound one. Thus, I agree with him that criticism and anti-criticism must be quarantined, mainly to prevent the prose in the main article from deteriorating due to the chain of events mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Even if there were no trolls to instigate this degradation in article quality, I would still support the segregation of facts and opinions. -- WGee 05:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Inactive

By what justification is this marked "inactive"? — Omegatron 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno: we need to activate it. Sandy 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya, we just discussed this. I'll rm it. Marskell 15:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not inactive, but not a guideline either. This page needs to be tagged either as a proposal, or as an essay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

List of statements to be examined

Per SV's quote of Jimbo, "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," here is a beginning list of statements in this article that need to be examined:

• Nowhere does this page mention due weight, minority and majority views. If criticism of a topic is a significant or majority view, that should be reflected. The article points to Wikipedia:Proportion and emphasis, which in turn points to Space and balance; neither seem to adequately explore the issue of due weight and balance with respect to minority and majority views of criticism.
• The lead of this article says "This guideline gives recommendations on how to write about criticism of a topic, which can be: - written up in separate sections in an article; - incorporated throughout the text." According to Jimbo's quote, it's preferable to be incorporated into the text. Situations where it is preferable to write a separate article should be delineated.
• What does this sentence mean? "The exceptions include concepts, terms, or objects such as a basketball, an alphabet, the letter Q, the color blue, helium, or tea; things about which nothing positive could be said."
• This contradicts Jimbo's statement: "No article should feature criticism about its topic, as those criticisms are always more appropriate at another location."
• "Criticism sections should not violate Article structures which can imply a view. These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are." This needs to be beefed up. When a topic receives significant criticism, which is an equal or majority view, the article should give due weight to criticism; not relegate it to a separate article or separate paragraph.
• "Criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow. For example a section entitled "Early success" should not contain one paragraph describing the success of the topic and three paragraphs qualifying or denying that success. This is often why separate criticism sections are created." This seems to ignore due weight: what if the initial reception of a subject was overwhelmingly negative?
• This article is unclear and contradictory. The statement "Overview: Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own wikipedia article" is contradicted by earlier statements.

That's just a small starter list: the article needs to be tightened up, better explaining when a separate section or separate article is needed, discussing due weight, and emphasizing Jimbo's point that criticism should be woven into the text as appropriate. Sandy 15:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I agree with the essay tag and much of the complaints. This is not "inactive"--people want to talk about it--but this is very far from the page we need and isn't really very good. In fact, I'd almost suggest keeping the title but emptying it and starting again.

Only speaking generally, and thinking about Jossi's bullets, I think we need to approach this structure first with content following from it. That is, we don't need another rambling page unpacking NPOV, but something directly addressing a) what headlines are used, and b) what is appropriate below them. As a first point...

Should we have sections with the title 'criticism(s)'"?

(continued from above, comment as you like) Marskell 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere, the section may be appropriate in certain situations: film, literature, works of art come to mind. Sandy 01:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that literary criticism has a different meaning than general criticism of a topic. Other encyclopedias have sections on literary criticism. They don't generally have sections criticizing non-artistic topics, e.g. automobiles. It is damaging to encourage editorial criticism in an encyclopedia. This isn't the editorial page of a newspaper. Our main task is to simply describe the topic. For some controversial topics, this is handled quite well, e.g, Evolution. Other articles have gigantic criticism sections, often outweighing the article itself. This results in lack of uniformity, which hurts Wikipedia quality and credibility as a reference work. WP:NPOV has been used as carte blanche to justify this. That is not the intent of NPOV. This is a creeping problem like a cancer that will infiltrate and damage Wikipedia unless something is done about it. Joema 14:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But, in general, a more neutral Reception section would be better. — Omegatron 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

We need a proper guideline on criticism

At the moment we have a policy on criticism that is based on little bits of WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. Both of these policies/guidelines clearly outline that putting criticism into a single section/article is a bad thing (I won't go into the reasons why as they are quite self explanatory). Should we try and create a guideline based on those bits with a little more verbose explanation why? As it stands, people are simply ignoring these bits and if you point them here you get ignored even more.-Localzuk^(talk) 09:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with need a guideline, and I know Marskell (talk · contribs) (see above) also agrees. I'm not up to writing it, but they are POV magnets, and Jimbo has discouraged them. Sandy (Talk) 20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I would also say it's very difficult, sometimes, to think of an elegant way to integrate criticism. I suppose we could have sections that simply didn't use the word criticism. Would that help, or is that merely a bandaid solution? IronDuke 04:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Separate articles

The essay says this:

However, 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."

This makes no sense. Articles of criticisms are not "POV forks" (usually). It would only be a POV fork if the criticism article advocated a point of view different from the point of view advocated in the main article. If the criticism article is being created because the criticism section in the main article is too long, that is perfectly acceptable and commonly done. You have a summary section with a main article link - there is no forking of views, the views match up in both articles. I'm not sure why this simple idea causes so many people such concern. When the criticism section of an article becomes too long and out of balance with the rest of the article (ie. the amount of criticism in an article is %50 or more the entire article) than that is a POV problem which can only be fixed by moving it to a separate article. In addition many subjects have multiple articles (company and product etc..) with criticisms spread out over multiple places and the only way to reasonably monitor and track duplication it is to group together in one place. -- Stbalbach 23:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So anyone else care about this "contradiction" here? Are proposed wiki guidelines going to be that for summary style articles, EVERY section can be spun-out, EXCEPT criticism sections? So the only topic that CAN'T be covered in-depth is criticism? --Jason C.K. 16:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion but not new to the issue as I have worked on Criticism of the Catholic Church and, to a much lesser extent, Criticism of Judaism. I agree with Stbalbach and Jason C.K. that articles of criticisms need not be POV forks. Although some articles of criticisms might be POV forks, that is not an inherent characteristic of separate articles on criticisms.

Here's my opinion about the controversy about whether or not to have separate criticism articles).

If an article says "X IS TRUE" and a separate article is created to say "X IS NOT TRUE but Y IS TRUE", then you have the serious risk of a POV fork. What the reader believes now depends on whether she reads the first article or the second article. If neither article mentions the other POV with in an NPOV fashion with appropriate weight, then the reader can only get an approximation of reality by reading both articles with the burden of NPOV and equal weight now being borne by the reader. This is unencyclopedic and unacceptable.

On the other hand, if an article describes a POV, phenomenon or institution called X in an NPOV way and that article acknowledges briefly that there are criticisms with a link to the criticisms article, then the risk of a POV fork is significantly reduced. Done this way, the "Criticisms of ..." article is just an organizational device that takes an article that is too long and factors out the detailed discussion of the Criticisms into a separate article so that the reader is allowed to choose whether or not she wishes to read that level of detail.

In order for this to work, the main article MUST mention all major criticisms and provide a link to the Criticisms article. The criticisms must be mentioned in an NPOV way, giving appropriate weight to them. For example, the article on the Catholic church should not say "The heretical branch of Christianity rejects transubstantiation." However, it can give less weight to ideas like the "Jesus married Mary Magdalene" theory or even decide not to mention it at all.

"The Criticisms of" article must also treat the Criticisms in an NPOV way. It should not say things like "The Catholic Church is wrong because it teaches X." It can and should say things like "Feminists criticize the Catholic Church because it teaches X."

Put another way, every statement in Wikipedia should be inarguably true. If there is controversy, then we should say things like "According to A, X is true" and "According to B, X is NOT true". Whether these statements are dealt in equal detail in the same article is an organizational issue that depends in great part on the amount of information that there is to transmit.

Long articles like Roman Catholic Church cry out for criticisms to be factored out into a separate article precisely so that they can be given adequate treatment without disrupting the flow of the main article. If the main article has subsidiary articles, then those subsidiary articles may or may not incorporate detailed discussion of criticism within the subsidiary article. Or, the criticism of the subsidiary topic could also be factored into yet another criticism article. It depends primarily on whether there is enough information to warrant a separate article.

Everything to be sourced to verifiable and reliable sources, of course.

--Richard 17:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So, no one ever disputed Stbalbach's comments, you are not disputing me...should one of us be bold and edit separate articles, and join the Talk at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_POV_forks? --Jason C.K. 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In order to avoid getting the edit reverted, I think further discussion with other editors is advisable. You might put together a draft of the text that you want to change and post it here to see if anybody objects. I would do it but I don't have time this morning. --Richard 18:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections and NPOV

Hey all. Recently (and yet again) the question has arisen on Talk:Bahá'í Faith on how to handle criticism. The current approach, which was arrived at by consensus has moved criticism into the various topical sections and integrated it in NPOV statements. This also includes praise, if it's relevant. The standards used are standard WP:NPOV, with notability, verifiability and relevance being the keys. Arguments are being presented on this talk page that "Well, Christianity and Islam have criticism sections". Unfortunately, absent explicit policy either for or against criticism sections, or permitting either approach explicitly, it becomes a tedious back-and-forth which is itself a troll-fest. In fact, many POV disputes were resolved on the Baha'i Faith page by integrating criticism into verifiable statements of fact that neither "side" had a problem with, leaving impressions to the reader.

One major concern I have is that such sections seem to be advocated from time to time by people who think a page is too "rosy", but who have no specific criticisms that they can articulate as being somehow insufficiently represented, and that also satisfy WP:NPOV, relevance, verifiability, and notability. But the article "feels too good". I would argue that this is somewhat POV, and sometimes a "chip on the shoulder" kind of attitude, but if it's really the case, then it seems to me that re-writing secitons to conform to NPOV is the solution, not a sloppy addition of criticism which distorts the flow and "encyclopedic style" so to speak.

How can we move this discussion along to the point where we can articulate coherent policy? There are real articles with real disputes that need this discussion to conclude, at least into a guideline if not policy. We have Jimby Wales' statements cited above about his preference for article integration. We have what feels to me like an overall trend away from criticism articles (though it may just be hopefulness. :) Nevertheless, I feel we need to move forward on this point adn come to resolution.--Christian Edward Gruber 08:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statement 100%. I am constantly working on articles where arguments for criticism sections are used such as 'but it used to have one' and 'I can't find the criticism now' (such as Mozilla Firefox and its subpages. We need to work towards a guideline or policy that calls for a consistent method of presenting criticism throughout the site. Until we do this we will continue with the battles we currently have with trolls trying to spilt articles into 'pro vs anti' style.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I blame CNN and Fox News Channel. There are two sides to any story - pro and anti. :) (Just kidding, but it's a serious problem in modern discourse, and over-simplifying into pro/anti statements are unhelpful, and, I believe, not NPOV in the slightest. (Hmm. Maybe I should add that to Criticism secitons on CNN and Fox News pages... Naaaaah.) --Christian Edward Gruber 15:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Christian, this seems to be going nowhere, as far as I can see, and it pains me to say that. The former proposal-converted-to-essay had many flaws, thus far the recent changes imho only amplified those flaws. And added some new:

• the former proposal was too long; you made it even longer...
• the "Rationale" section was no longer in line with the content of the rest of the page, and thus needed rewriting and updating, and preferably compacting. What we got is more "rationale", everywhere, more diffuse, even more inconsistent internally, and even more bordering into philosophy-like descriptions that have few or no bearing on the content of the page. Wikipedia guideline pages should avoid to turn into some sort of philosophy blog, and that's what is starting to happen here.
• since the former proposal was started, the WP:BLP policy came in to being. The only trace of that in the former proposal were the Jimbo quotes in the "See also" section. That's no good solution. On the contrary, the proposal should integrate the current WP:BLP approach, and preferably do away with the unprocessed quotes. Your changes didn't remedy that flaw, only sharpened the inconsistency between this proposal and WP:BLP.
• the former proposal's structure wasn't too clear maybe, but I see an even less clear structure now.
• for criticism integrated throughout an article, the prerequisite is that the criticism shouldn't break the flow of the narrative of an article. That was in the former version, I don't see it in the new version;
• the guy who revived this as a proposal several months ago had a particular liking for the "criticism" section in the Stravinsky article. We must reconsider whether that example still should get such a prominent place, e.g. I don't see why that was kept in the intro of the "Formatting criticism" section.
• I think this page should move to style guide ("MoS") while the content aspect is indeed fully covered by content policies (like NPOV, WP:V,...); the MoS aspect should rather be mentioned in the page intro than the "Notability" aspect.
• Really inappropriate ways of putting things, e.g. "A variant of a Criticism section can be a "reception" section"... No, a "reception" section is not a *variant* of a Criticism section, really, wrong approach.
• etc

So I'm going to revert (again), and would like to ask you to limit yourself to following techniques (you're of course free to do something with these suggestions or not):

1. Use this talk page for change suggestions to the proposal;
2. and/or use a .../Temp or .../Draft page if you want to write a different kind of proposal.

--Francis Schonken 08:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm very unhappy about this, and I have a very different initial impression, but then I'm obviously attached to where I was going. I'll certainly consider all of this and give it a day or two to simmer. A couple of points however:

• Too long? Please help me understand why? Please help me trim it down? Reverting doesn't actually solve the problem, especially when you revert to a dead state that was also going no where. This is (was) a work in progress, and it had a ways to go.
• "not breaking flow" was specifically there, unless I accidentally deleted it. I do however remember explicitly moving that sentence into that section as I re-ordered things. Furthermore, I don't think that's the criteria. It's one of two, the other being that such "integration" neither hide nor overemphasize critical views beyond their due weight, verifiability, etc.
• Perhaps I'm not understanding teh purpose of guidelines. I'll take your advice and examine BLP and others
• I see your point about "philosophy blog", but NPOV and others are essentially statements of principle and philosophy. Perhaps I put too much in, but it wasn't to philosophize, as much as to re-centre the reader on the key guidelines. I'll re-think it.
• Your view is that the rationale needed compacting. I disagree. I thought it had too little meat to be meaningful. Again, I'll re-consider in light of other guidelines and policy documents.
• You could be right about moving this to a style guide. I can totally see that working, but I want to think more about it.
• Of course "reception" is a variant of criticism. It's critical reception. That's just obvious from the languge used in artistic review. It's also structurally a variant of the approach - having a separate section for commentary/POV. It is different, to be sure, but closely related, at least structurally. Please explain why this is "inappropriate", as opposed to something you just don't like.
• I'm fine with ditching examples and re-conceiving them entirely. This was intended to be a work in progress.
• While you have every right to revert the whole thing, I find it extremely offputting that you didn't just start editing. A revert is easy - I would have preferred to see this evolve, rather than bounce around. Your commentary above is helpful, and certainly I would have been ecstatic to have you collaborating on making this worthy. Having said that, I put some effort into this, so I'm ego-bound to it, so take this whole point with the relevant grain of salt. :)
• I think I will use a draft page. That's a good idea. It's just that this page was dead, so it seemed alright to draft right there. My bad.

--Christian Edward Gruber 12:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I also take slight offense when an hour's worth of work goes down the tubes because someone dislikes a few lines. I made a significant amount of improvements, and if you disagree then you should edit over previous editors and reword as you see fit. The page was absolutely terrible when I started editing, and now it's just as bad. The wording is unclear and excessive. The formatting makes it difficult to follow. Discussing every minor edit in detail would be ridiculous, and doesn't follow the guidelines. Cuñado - Talk 05:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to express my disagreement with this proposal. (a) it is too verbose; (b) pertinent aspect are already covered in WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. Many agree, and will be making an alternate proposal (the draft mentioned below) to better address things. However, there is a need for guidance around the handling of criticism specifically, regardless of tone. That's what is being attempted. The current proposal is not to my liking either, but was reverted. Peek back later when the draft has been worked on a bit. --Christian Edward Gruber 17:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My argument, Christian, is that WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies already cover the bases. Additional information is available in the MOF. Do we really need yet-another-guideline? I don't think so. Maybe your new draft would convince me otherwise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the new draft will probably be a style guide thing, rather than a policy or guideline, as several of the things you cite do cover it. However specific arguments about working with Criticism sections vs. integrated criticism have caused several of us to seek some explicit guidance. --Christian Edward Gruber 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to the new style guide draft. As for the specific arguments, I have seen these as well, and all I can say in these situations is "go and re-read WP:NPOV", and if the article is about a living person, "go and re-read WP:BLP". It is all there, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New Draft for discussion

I've moved the reverted text to Wikipedia:Criticism/Draft1 for evaluation, editing, maturation, and general fixing. No changes yet, but I'll be editing it over the next few days or so. --Christian Edward Gruber 16:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• You should keep proposals on a single page, it makes for easier comparison (through diffs) and keeps improvements in the same spot. >Radiant< 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Afaik there's no such rule, nor even advise in that sense. There's only a recommendation to keep *discussions* on guidelines in a single place (hence Wikipedia talk:Criticism/Draft1 is a redirect to this page). Wikipedia:subpages describes as Allowed uses #2: "WikiProject subpages - for project-specific templates, discussion, or guidelines pages" (my bolding). So rejecting the Argumentum ad Radiantem --Francis Schonken 12:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I never said there was any such rule, I was making a request that I believe to be a good idea. >Radiant< 13:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • As I said, Argumentum ad Radiantem. Not something that is recommended in general. --Francis Schonken 13:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        • It is unfortunate you are making personal remarks instead of addressing the issue at hand. I never said it was recommended in general, I said that I believe it is a good idea. Thus your response is both a straw man and an ad hominem, both of which are fallacies. >Radiant< 13:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
          • The creation of the draft page resulted from the discussion above (#Criticism sections and NPOV). I still think it a good idea in this case. --Francis Schonken 13:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I did it, so can we just stop this and actually discuss content please? --Christian Edward Gruber 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There's some editorializing in the Draft that seems a bit much. Also, I think that the point should be made that not every argument has two equal sides. (I'm thinking of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth where he notes that there are no conflicting arguments in peer-reviewed articles on the substance of human-induced climate change; yet slightly more than half of articles in the popular press include criticism of global warming. Let truthiness reign.)

Also, I think that a "Criticism" section is really only warranted if criticism is as notable, and sourceable, as any other section in the article. References to WP:NPOV#Undue weight are appropriate. Too often we see editors shoe-horning in individual commentators under the banner of WP:V. (See Talk:Juan Cole for some examples in both directions.) This should not fly under "Undue weight". MARussellPESE 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian et al, please read the section above entitled "Separate articles". There are people on both sides of the "Criticism of religion X" debate. On the one hand, these articles are periodically nominated for deletion but, on the other hand, they generally seem to survive such nominations (as I think they should). However, the articles remain on the list of POV forks. Both the original proposal and the draft seem to argue that such separate articles should not exist. I cannot support any draft which takes this stance. I would prefer a proposal which makes the case that I laid out in the "Separate articles" section above. --Richard 18:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rationale?

What kind of rationale is one that says: that "all featured articles should contain criticism"? and that "The exceptions include concepts, terms, or objects such as a basketball, an alphabet, the letter Q, the color blue, helium, or tea; things about which nothing positive could be said."?

Beats me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That phrase will not be in the draft if I have anything to say about it, at least not in that form. Possible alternative would be "all featured articles will not exclude any relevant, notable, verifiable criticism, however such criticism is subject to NPOV presentation guidelines," or something like that. I'm not even sure the sentence even belongs, but some people feel that balance is only found through presenting pro and anti position statements. I don't find such presentations particularly Neutral, and prefer a more dispassionate description of what facts can be verified, with description of opinions in less of a "he said, she said" sort of style. --Christian Edward Gruber 17:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia:Criticism/Draft1 and it is most certainly superior to the current version, although still ambiguous and somewhat self-contradicting. The lead speaks of "While this guideline prefers integration of criticism, it should not be construed as prohibiting reasonable uses of Criticism sections or other articles. As always, Wikipedians should use wisdom and engage in healthy article construction to formulate readable, verifiable, encyclopedic content", that is a good formulation, only to later on say "In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged". So which one is it? A guideline needs to help editors with in their editing endeavor, rather than confuse the hell out of them with ambiguous formulations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignore it for now, it was an early version that was pasted into /Draft1 and I haven't done any edits post-commentary from others, so it will change, including getting the whole thing less verbose and smaller. As to the perceived contradiction, the guideline indicates a preference for not using criticism sections, while allowing it in certain situations where it really is the best way to present. The proposal takes the position that criticism sections are inherently non-NPOV-succeptable, and should therefore be used with serious care. Your comment, however, is helpful, as it identifies a place where we need to really clarify the approach. --Christian Edward Gruber 17:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a certain amount of necessary ambiguity, because it's one of those "in most cases no, but occasionally yes under certain circumstances" situations. If we said "never a criticism section" the proposal will never be accepted, as there are editors who vastly prefer this approach. --Christian Edward Gruber 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're going at the draft, Jossi, but I actually think that you're watering it down and making it more ambiguous. This draft definitely advocates for a preference of integrated praise/criticism, rather than "some editors" and "other editors" stuff. The point is that separate sections are inherently more non-NPOV, so they should be generally deprecated. Editors' style preferences are less relevant, because of the implicit NPOV violation of a particular style. --Christian Edward Gruber 17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We cannot police (and should not attempt to do that either) how an article is constructed. Editors' common sense and the framework of NPOV, V, and OR is what needs to be asserted. The rest is just editor's preferences. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is simply not true, Jossi. We all have to police wikipedia - that's why there are comprehensive guidelines and policies like WP:NPOV etc. In such cases, the editor's preferences are irrelevant. We're trying to propose an interpretive framework for applying NPOV, V, OR, and related bits to the specific case of criticism of a topic, as it keeps coming up again and again. If questions (and disputes) of how to handle it didn't keep arising, I would agree that the above listed policies would suffice. But we have edit wars and revert wars and bitching and complaining and POV pushing, so we're trying to find a smoother process. --Christian Edward Gruber 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that, Christian. But we need to be careful not to try to respond to POV warriors with yet-another-guideline. POV warriors will always find ways around these. "Hecha la ley, hecha la trampa", we say in Spanish. ("Make a law, and you have made a way to break it"). Instruction creep, maybe? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section - apparent contradiction

In it's current form, this proposal says simultaneously that in a number of cases criticism shouldn't be in the main article (the example given is Christianity), and also that it shouldn't be in a separate section (on grounds that this would be a troll magnet). One or the other of these statements must hold, they both can't hold at the same time. If a type of criticism should be in a separate article on a major topic where there's enough content and notability for separate articles, then it should be in a separate section of the same article when a minor topic is involved.

I agree with the author of the Christianity example that at least in some cases, including matters of religion, separate sections/articles are often more appropriate, and a separate section may be most appropriate. Parenthetical claims by critics would simply undermine the exposition of the principle views. Since critical organizations often criticize large numbers of topics, the logical method of organizing an article is by topic, not by group. Thus (to continue the Christianity example), in the article on Death and Resurrection of Jesus, the current approach, which lists the traditional Christian doctrine first followed by a "Critical Analysis" section, makes sense. Omiting this criticism from the article, and e.g. listing views of critical scholars on this and every similar topic in articles on those scholars, would only serve to conceal rather than explain the existence of controversy. Likewise, intermingling critical opinion with the exposition of traditional views would only obscure both views from the reader. A similar problem exists in Judaism, where there are numerous articles on individual beliefs, rituals, and innovations whose criticism similarly belongs in the same article as the exposition but shouldn't be intermingled. I beleive separate sections are the right solution for these cases and they shouldn't be discouraged. Suggest care to avoid a single one-size-fits-all solution based on needs of one domain which may not apply to other areas of knowledge. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. We cannot create a one size fit all, and we should not attempt to create "rules and regulations" for criticism and controversial material when we have strong enough framework already in place in WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, please read that section again. The proposal isn't trying to say that both are true, the proposal is saying "these are two extremes", the policy must reside somewhere between them. Also, this proposal is a bit out of date - a newer one (which I still need to get time to work on) is in Wikipedia:Criticism/Draft1 --Christian Edward Gruber 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to label as "rejected"?

This article has been in a proposal state state since March 2006. As it stands it has not managed to gain the support of the community to become a guideline.

• Creation date, March 28, 2005
• Proposed to guideline March 2006

This article should be closed as "rejected", or converted to an essay. No need to flog a dead horse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It was an essay from 14 September 2006 until a week ago. I'm happy with it being an essay. See also the last quote at Wikipedia:Criticism#See also ("The guidelines are perhaps adequate ... " - "Indeed"), which made me stop at the time to rework the proposal enough to make it acceptable as guideline.

On the other hand, I think that if contributors like Christian think it would be worth while to make the effort nonetheless to streamline this into a guideline (which was restarted a week ago), such initiative should be supported, and then the "proposal" tag is adequate, at least as long as there's talk and initiative, and things are advancing in the right direction (which I think is the case). --Francis Schonken 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Francis. I was not aware that it got recently put back as a proposal. I am not holding my breath, but surely look forward to Christian's effort. If the modifications are not substantial to warrant the status of proposal, we can demote it back to essay status. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• What is involved in a proposal process? Is there a vote or discussion of sorts, in the manner of an AFD kind of thing? Certainly looks like an interesting set of guidelines. Smee 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Theres is no formal process, Smee. Someone starts a page, get other editors involved and if there is merit on the material, someone will promote to guideline, and if enough editors get involved and there are no major objections, a community consensus can be assumed. At that point the proposal gets promoted to "guideline". Sometime it happens that it gets put back to proposal stage, or rejected, if enough editors join the fray and express their opposition (demonstrating the fact that the consensus, was not really wide enough.) This proposal was discussed for almost a year and did not reach consensus. It was then "demoted" to an essay, and just a week ago, as Francis explained, got opened again as a proposal, based on some new thinking about how to address this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I think that it could use some work, but could make for a good guideline. Smee 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

The problem, Smee, is that there are too many objections by too many editors about putting this in a guideline, and that is why it has not "made it" to guideline status. Christian, above, is saying that he want to re-write it in a way that may attract the necessary wide consensus needed for guideline status. We shall see. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically, Smee, is that some of us want to avoid instruction creep on Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

However, some people don't want Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep to be a guideline. The funny thing is, they use "jossi" as an argument ([3]). --Francis Schonken 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Very funny indeed. Yes, there are some editors that believe that the the project needs more instructions, guidelines, rules and regulations. My view is that this happens because of what I perceive as these editors' lack of trust that a simple ruleset can sustain the project in the long term. If one is to judge by the results (current version of Wikipedia) I would argue that we are doing pretty well despite the challenges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Time for Wikipedia:Avoid creeping instructions to avoid instruction creep? Ethan Mitchell 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Practical issues with the hypotheticals, citations

I see two problems with this page. First, the casual reader rapidly hits the two hypothetical policies which seem to derail a non-negligible number of people. I would suggest that, at the least, we integrate them into the body of the text. Making them stand out as bulleted points attracts th lazy reader...

Secondly, I think we need a really firm statement to the effect that criticisms must be cited to reliable, prominent sources. The problem pages I am thinking of have to do with marginal movements or concepts that can be easily criticized, but can be just as easily dimsissed or ignored. There is a very widespread notion that if you're on the Theory that gravel is edible page, you can add a criticism suggestion simply by saying "Many people argue that gravel is not edible." And fine, gravel isn't edible. But this leapfrogs the sociological question of whether anyone actually cares enough to refute a point, and if so, how they are doing it. Ethan Mitchell 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)