Knowledge talk:Criticism

1476:, widely considered one of the great films of all time, and simply counting sources you could find a lot of people who say that broccoli and cilantro are yucky, along with many French cheeses, though people's dislike of these things is of only minor relevance to their notability; and (c) the "mixed bag" commentary is confusing and possibly incorrect: for some subjects like film or schools of philosophy, critical reception is quite germane, it may be all over the map, and is nothing like trivia. "Germane" may not be a common way to put it, but the meaning of the word is quite clear. It is a combination of both relevance and weight, standard inclusion criteria on Knowledge. - 2053:

identifying the nature of multiple controversies in the section title or subsection titles have to do with there being a mixed bag? The reference to the "trivia sections" article is obscure, I have no idea what it means to handle a controversy section as a trivia section. Controversies are not trivia. It might be a good idea to make sure the prose-ified list items here match the table version above — in which case, one wonders why we follow a table with a redundant list that in some cases says the same thing as the table, and in other cases as here says something completely different. Either way, whatever we choose to advise editors to do should be clear and on topic. -

569:. The debate is whether it should be described as bodywork, manual therapy or manipulative therapy, or massage. Presently the article uses the term massage, however practitioners of Rolfing say that it is not massage. This disagreement comes about because a number of secondary sources call it a type of massage, while a number of other secondary sources avoid using the word massage and some even bother to clarify that it's often mistaken for massage. The word massage is sometimes used by the general population as a synonym for bodywork, yet bodywork practitioners often understand that the term "bodywork" is more inclusive; see 1927:. This is a very influential essay, so making that suggestion here provides fuel for editors who would shoehorn criticism into all sorts of subjects where extensive criticism is not relevant to the subject matter and therefore inappropriate, a very real problem on Knowledge. Once it is established that criticism is in fact appropriate, sound editorial discretion is required to consider who is making the criticism, their standing, what any third party sources may say about the significance of that criticism, and so on, not just counting noses as they may appear in newspaper editorials and other sources. - 1669:

thinking about, and exercising discretion when sourcing content, whether it's criticism or anything else. We write by assembling, not counting. We can't teach editors on a single essay page how to do that, so we shouldn't try. Best to just mention that deciding on which criticism and how much of it if any to include is, like everything else, a matter of interpreting sources. I think you're the only editor opposing my proposed wording, so either we have a consensus for it, or else no consensus, in which case per BRD we default to leaving that portion of the essay in its pre-May 23 state. -

2737:. That name has to pass WP:AT (which is of course considerably more than the often misunderstood COMMONNAME). The criticism essay proposes to at least check whether the less "common" name is at least "commonly accepted" as a name to indicate the incident, which I think will be OK until another Super Bowl will have an incident leading to a controversy of comparable magnitude (while the Roman numeral beats recognizability which is one of the WP:AT criteria – as long as there is no other significant halftime controversy the numeral does however not diminish recognizability). -- 3232: 1037:.", as if that was the point. The point of me linking to MOS:MED was to show what headings are usually used for those types of articles, just like I pointed to MOS:TV and MOS:FILM for the "Reception" and "Reviews" matters. I'd looked in the edit history of this essay before I started making changes to it, so I knew that there was a high chance that Francis Schonken would revert me on something. But to revert me on all of that? Considering that this essay is 718:. Nor is this talk page, probably only monitored by those who are interested in the content of the actual essay, something that will attract much attention for multiple views on how to write (the lede of) the Rolfing article. If you find something useful in the essay, by all means use it. If you would like the essay to have more content on how to treat criticism in a lead section, by all means propose it. But questions on how to apply content that 182: 2097:? I was always taught that WP:CRITICISM says "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article", but now that I'm reading the essay in its entirety, I see that it can support just about any argument, depending on which part of the essay is cited. It even has a radically different attitude towards BLPs versus companies, whereas I'm not sure why they would be any different: 1389:". Questioning, the use of one word is a radically different thing from an imposition of specific wording. Also policy and guidance are regularly applied to wider contents which is something that is regularly seen in locations such as WP:RM. If a principle works in one Knowledge context there is arguably a strong possibility that it can apply to another Knowledge context. Maybe I shouldn't have responded to the ping. 22: 2566:), and improves the argument to create a separate article, or just a sentence or paragraph in the article, depending on the volume of source material and significance. Something occurring over an extended time period that is a significant part of what the organization is known for is more likely to warrant either a dedicated section, spreading it into the article's narrative/chronology, or some of both." – 2402:), and improves the argument to create a separate article, or just a sentence or paragraph in the article, depending on the volume of source material and significance. Something occurring over an extended time period that is a significant part of what the organization is known for is more likely to warrant either a dedicated section, spreading it into the article's narrative/chronology, or some of both." 81: 3102:, I believe that media companies' criticisms are fairly normative, rather than problematic, due to the nature of reporting. And I believe that they are typically too specific to be integrated into the articles generally, and that any non-general criticisms should be promptly moved to a spinoff article(with a link compliant with Summary Style to avoid POV forks). This will produce something like 53: 3363:

relevant section organized by topic, not a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section. A book's "Reception" section should still be titled "Reception", not "Criticism" let alone "Controversy", even if the reviews are mostly negative. As for the last paragraph, it strikes me as out of place; the "CSECTION" part of the essay is more about how to organize content than about assessing due weight. —

145: 2944:, for example, it's not just his public comments that are criticized; it's also his overall public behavior. The comments are just an aspect of the behavior. I also don't see that "Public behavior" necessarily has a negative connotation. That stated, I haven't seen either of these headings -- "Public behavior" or "Public comments" -- before. In various celebrity articles, such as the 909:, then the lede should have a comparable ratio of criticism. The lede has four paragraphs, the criticism being described in about a third of its last paragraph. Which is about 1/12th of the text of the lede, so approximately the same ratio as for the body. So in a first quantitative approach this seems OK (if IRL, roughly, 1/12th of the reliable sources are devoted to criticism). 67: 1961:

issue, not the amount). The third is about which sources may be used, and points to policy/guideline pages on sourcing, not quantity. The fifth is about fringe material, not how much space to devote to it. While these may all be useful principles to keep in mind, only the first bullet point says anything (and incorrectly so) about how to decide how much criticism to include. -

1192:. Criticism is also at a different part of the article; other criticism is in the "Legal admissibility" section, which should perhaps be combined with the "Ethics and legality" subsection of the "Views" section. Either way, my point is that your suggested headings led an editor to add headings that don't fit and your essay should be less of a "one size fits all" prescription. 2255:: obviously that is still generally the preferred way to do it (work the criticisms in the historical account on the company rather than sectioning it off, especially as the company has a very broad history apart from such controversies). And the approach was sanctioned by the GA process. I don't say writing a separate article on the controversies is impossible: compare 2299:, or may be the subject of significant criticisms" could be followed with something like "In most cases these can be incorporated into the narrative of the article, such as in History, Products, or Operations sections based on the subject of the controversy." I suggest adding "legal disputes" because this is the most common controversy on most company articles. 2626:, and, as recently linked from the essay, the BLP section that says something about companies. Don't see the selectiveness you claim. There are some rules regarding companies outside this page, like BLP has a more extended body of rules outside this page. A short summary should suffise. If that summary would be "selective" please explain, I don't see it. -- 578:

rather has its own history, teachers, schools, etc. One cannot attend massage school to learn Rolfing. Is there a WP policy on how to handle this sort of problem? I welcome suggestions, and also if an experienced editor would be interested in collaborating with me to put together a draft of changes to propose to the page's editors, I would appreciate it! -

1561:), but in the context I still don't think it very helpful. The essay tries to help people understand how due weight is applied to "criticism": when one starts out with using the concept before it is explained, all one gets is tautologies like: "in order to give due weight to criticism apply it with due weight", which really says nothing. -- 2726:"Commonly accepted name" can mean: find a reliable source that calls it so. It can also mean, challenge it by WP:RM, it is commonly accepted when it passes, until consensus changes on a next RM. So finding the sources that show it is a name that should pass WP:RM would always be a good approach to prevent consensus from changing. 2675:, then what is this essay suggesting about use of the word "controversy" in the article title? What if the article subject is widely characterized in reliable sources as a "controversy" but that word is not part of the common name? Clarifying these matters in this essay would make the essay much more useful. Thanks. 781:"Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias." 1620:

discussion isn't very useful because you really need to look at the specific subject areas and articles to know whether criticism, wether positive or negative, is appropriate. It is quite relevant to discussion of artistic and popular entertainment works, not so relevant when discussing species of birds. The

2039:). Avoid mixed bag section titles like "Controversies" without it being clear in the section title (or in the titles of the subsections of such section) what these controversies are about. If the content of such section is of the "mixed bag" kind, the section should be handled as a trivia section (see 2718:

is a section) is policy. This guidance page is an essay. Whether or not the essay is at a certain point referring to a policy, the policy supersedes the essay. So that part of the question is moot to all extents and purposes. If the essay is no help in better understanding the policy, then follow the

1819:

Okay, I've removed this particular new section as discussed. If you wish to include it, please consider gaining consensus for it here — it would be helpful in my case if you would actually explain what you are proposing instead of simply telling me that I am wrong — or conducting an RfC on the topic.

1619:

Pertinence — or weight and relevance — is how articles are written here, not counting words or counting sources. I don't know where you got the idea that personally liking the subject of the article has anything to do with whether criticism is relevant. As I said way up there somewhere, having a meta

1228:

A meta-discussion like this isn't terribly useful. It all depends on the context and subject matter of the article. "Criticism" and "reception" mean very different things in different realms of knowledge. A top-down approach of trying to prescribe a rule for all articles from an essay page is hard. -

951:

Changing the "Criticism" heading to a "Reception", "Response" or "Reviews" heading does not work for every type of article. Furthermore, when a section is only a criticism matter, and especially when that's all sources have to offer on the subject, the heading is better off titled "Criticism," not by

564:

I have a unusual case that isn't covered by this article or the above talk points. When there is disagreement (from sourced material) on how to categorize a topic, how shall this be handled? It certainly doesn't need a section discussing the disagreement, nor is it clear how to mention it in the text

3007:

The reason I see "Public behavior" as negative is that, in my opinion, to discuss a person's "behavior" in a non-scientific context would be to talk down on that person. The word "behavior" is used when a parent is judging a child, when a teacher is judging a student, or when a manager is judging an

1918:

this change, discussed at length above, is the first bullet point, which incorrectly suggests that the amount of space devoted to criticism in a Knowledge reflects the amount of space devoted to criticism in reliable sources. Writing articles, and sourcing them, cannot be reduced to mechanistic word

753:

is exactly what I was looking for. Sometimes it's hard to find what you need until you know what term WP uses for it. I suppose at this point, this entire section could get archived if you wish to clean up the talk page to keep it more tightly constrained to the article. However, I do think it could

243:

having a guideline. I would propose that the guideline cover situations when dedicated criticism sections or articles are appropriate and guidelines for use of potentially biased secondary sources. Much of the current content can be retained as an essay, since it is mostly suggestions rather than

2654:

I was recently involved in a move discussion that was just closed, and was also involved in some others that have not been closed. The issue was whether the word "controversy" belongs in the article title. I want to comment now about this section of this essay, while it's still fresh in my mind.

2511:

removal: current wording explains "third party" without needing to recur to the more difficult to grasp concepts. Also, it is clear from the guidance as currently written there need to be three parties (criticised party, critics AND a reliable, independent source covering it as "controversy", which

2052:

this particular wording, and we have not been able to agree on a compromise version. It is not clear what "mixed bag" section titles are, and that phrase is not generally used by Knowledge editors. The advice given on what to do if a section title is in fact a mixed bag is also not clear. What does

1786:

If the implication is that there should not be more than one criticism or controversy within a section or subsection, and that instead each criticism or controversy should have its own section title, that is also incorrect. I'm still not clear (which if I'm not being dense suggests that the wording

1668:

The approach you advocate in that talk page link is nonstandard and, in my opinion, not ideal. Editors who don't know or can't figure out what's germane to a topic shouldn't be trying to make that decision based on counting words and citations. There's no substitute for actually reading, critically

1580:

has an incomplete explanation of part of the concept, which is fairly subtle. We don't include criticism about a thing just because sources contain it any more than we report the temperature and wind direction just because the sources say it. A key take-away from this essay is that criticism is not

577:

for instance) and it has a connotation of kneading the muscles. Hands-on approaches that are more sophisticated than kneading will sometimes avoid the term massage. Another factor: there is a massage tradition that has developed over time, and Rolfing does not have a place within that tradition but

359:

In a number of articles on Wikpedia, there is a section labeled "criticisms" but no section for the opposite viewpoint. I believe in order to remove this subtle bias from articles and to keep Knowledge neutral a different approach should be followed. Either there should be an opposing and opposite

275:

We're getting far too much instruction creep at this point, and I prefer the "exceptional cases make bad law" concept -- we should not create a guideline because a controversy has erupted over a single article, nor should a guideline be written while criticism and controversy rage on Knowledge over

1739:

A part of this dispute is that the essay includes the following: "Avoid mixed bag section titles like 'Controversies' without it being clear in the section title what these controversies are about. If the content of such section is of the 'mixed bag' kind, the section should be handled as a trivia

1653:

Pertinence, relevance, etc. are no inherent qualities of an article or its topic. They are all inspired by what one knows about a topic. What one knows about a topic always comes from sources, including from the primary source. So its about a discernement of what to do with which source. The essay

1469:

swamping articles with criticism — even if positive and negative are in balance — is not a good idea, because some editors think that all you have to do to make an article neutral is to balance things out, when in fact it turns an article that should be about a thing into an article about people's

462:

I am wondering how the article would read if "negative criticism" were to be replaced by "critical reception" wherever possible. There would still be places where negative criticism is being exclusively addressed, of course, and those should remain as is. I've tried to explore what this might look

3362:

I don't really think this is needed, and I disagree with parts of it. The comments about lede paragraphs seem like a red herring to me. Avoiding undue weight in the lead doesn't require organizing the rest of the article poorly. In cases where the lead has too much criticism, it can be moved to a

3164:

Many companies, products and people articles are full of accolades, accomplishments and such sections. In maintaining NPOV, the coverage on negative and positive materials should roughly reflect the main stream coverage. A Knowledge article on company which mostly receive negative coverage should

2607:

You argued that we should not make changes, because they introduce redundancies with other areas of the article, which is true, but unlike BLP, there are no special rules for companies. ALL of the content in this section is redundant with the rest of the document, because there is nothing special

2067:

Controversies treated in separate sections should only appear under section titles that give an indication of what the controversy/ies is/are about. This works best to the best of my experience. I'd be happy to see examples of how it works better without bringing this advice in practice – are any

1542:

here. You've made this particular reversion four times, five if you count your original edit to add the "mixed bag" commentary. Not all of your edits are going to gain consensus. Unless you care to explain yourself, regarding anything you dispute we'll restore the version that does appear to have

1253:

portion of it that states, "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." And if that portion is changed to make it seem

1147:

issues etc). For instance, none of the criticism seems to be directed at use of the device as part of an erectile dysfunction treatment. The tiff over the name and position of the section that groups the criticism seems to me quite irrelevant in that perspective. In other words, in this example a

669:

My question is quite pertinent to this subject of how to deal with controversy on WP, I think, and it's not addressed in this article which I think is an opportunity. The question of a disagreement about how to categorize something has to an issue that has been found in many other areas, not just

2182:

about pages where my potential COI was very remote. The BLP page had a minor problem and it was fixed in one day. The dedicated controversy section was removed. The problem on the company page was much more severe, but nobody responded, some edits were made two weeks later, and the Controversies

1060:

I understand your position here and I agree that in some cases "Reception" is indeed not quite fitting. But "Response" or "Reviews" should be more fitting in those cases. I am against criticism even in cases when a reaction section only has criticism to offer per the available sources because it

635:

quality journal, so that's that, til better quality studies emerge. Again, the question is about whether "massage" is used in the first sentence of the article as part of the basic description (and currently it is used in 4 other places). And again, the secondary sources are split, with several

1960:

Having taken a look at the proposal more closely, it appears the whole thing is fairly muddled. It purports to instruct editors about the quantity of criticism to appear in an article, but only the first bullet point is on that subject. The second discusses POV forks (which is an all-or-nothing

1630:

It's just not very relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of peacocks. Once you establish that criticism may be relevant, establishing weight among various statements of opinion is very subtle because it depends a lot on context. It's not always the case that you can get reliable third party

519:

for details. On consulting WP:BLP I noticed that that page basically says of this issue "don't create attack pages on private figures; don't add negative material on public figures unless you can find multiple reliable sources". Virtually every instance of the word "negative" is in the context

1575:

I argue the opposite. Being germane to the article is the only reason to include criticism, and that means it has to be relevant to the subject matter and of due weight. Pertinence is a similar concept. What do those mean? That's the core of understanding how to edit articles, and an essay on

485:

critical material. The purpose of the essay, in those common situations, is to educate the offending editor: "Look, if you want to include negative material, fine, but it has to be done as follows....". Changing the title or emphasis of the essay to "critical reception" in general would

228:

This has been an essay for quite some time, and there has recently been at least one controversy about a criticism article which has even left the wiki into the (sort of) real world. Many people have strong opinions on how the project should handle criticism, particularly dedicated criticism

905:("...treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject..."). As for the body of the article: it has currently six main sections (content sections), with criticism afaics about half of such a section. If that corresponds to 1346:

All attempted changes were made in accordance to arguments that Francis Schonken had personally supported in the talk page and, in the last case, constituted changes that Francis Schonken had personally proposed. Regardless of this s/he has continually reverted changes typically citing "no

973:, and when "Reception" is not quite fitting in those cases. In my opinion, "Reception" is more fitting for a work of art (whether it be a book, a play, a television show or television episode, a film, etc.) or some other concept where "Reception" does not look out of place. Recently, 3346:

I have personally experienced the underlying issue multiple times. Typically when I tried moving minor and themselves problematic criticisms from the first paragraph of some article to a latter portion where it could be adequately contextualized and is no longer given undue weight.

654:

is a better venue for your question. Your question is in no way unusual there, see intro of that noticeboard's page: it's about helping you to put together the content of any fringe-theory related page (as much as drawing the fringe / no fringe line which is no concern here I see).

1001:

as an alternative heading because it is always an appropriate heading for representing the public's thoughts on a subject. And because of some editors thinking that "Reception," "Response" or "Reviews" headings can be fitting in any case, I added the following text to the essay:

2872:, and avoid adding "Controversies" sections when possible, the suggested "Public behavior" section title is not an improvement over "Controversies". The presence of a "Public behavior" section has a negative connotation, since it implies that the subject has behavioral issues. 1470:

irrelevant opinions about it; (b) it is incorrect to say that the amount of space devoted to criticism of a subject should reflect the proportion of criticism in the sources, as neither word count nor ghits are reliable sources — for example, most people do not like the film

1184:: The penile plethysmograph is not solely or even mostly used for erectile dysfunction matters; so that the criticism in that article is not "directed at use of the device as part of an erectile dysfunction treatment" is not surprising to me. Before your response above, I'd 885:

article. Should the lede be about neutral themes, characterizing the theme, and both positive and negative reception/critique be placed in the body? Or should some reception be included in the lede? I'd like some neutral parties (I am not one!) to give advice here, please.

2531:: the first because sectioning off the criticism almost by definition increases the WP:UNDUE liability, and the second because that guidance is only about article size, not size of sections in an article (splitting criticism/controversy in separate articles is treated in 1707:

is fully covered by policy, and it can be seen from the reaction of the person asking about a practical issue that the approach was helpful. There also, no, I'm not going to agree to a rewrite of the essay that takes it in the opposite direction from core content policy.

793:"the word "Criticism" should be avoided in section titles because it may convey a negative connotation to many readers. Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments"." 1604:

that determines how much of the surface of a Knowledge article is devoted to criticism, and how that criticism is presented in that article. That's "due weight" in Knowledge context. What it means outside that context has no bearing on how Knowledge guidance is written.

1699:

doesn't have to explain it all (nobody said so), it's just one of the stepstones. Yes, it should incite critical thinking, illustrate how discretion is exercised in practical circumstances, not override that with vaguish container words like "germane" or one of its

1771:

I'll change "...section title..." to "...section title(s)..." as the current guidance may be read as applying to the main "Controversies" section title only, while subsection titles can make it perfectly clear what the controversies are about, as in the West case.

454:

I am sure that there are very good historical reasons why this article focuses on negative criticism, as this is likely to be controversial. It seems to me, however, that much of what it says applies to positive critical reception, as well. For example, in the

1248:

I was going to start a WP:RfC on what I stated above, but I no longer see the need to; if someone changes an appropriately titled heading away from "Criticism" because of this essay, then not only will I point out this is merely an essay, I will point to the

360:

section, or the criticisms section should be changed to something with a bias-neutral title like "opposing viewpoints", and criticisms as well as accolades for disputable entries should always include both sides for a balanced view when reasonably possible.

1887:: even if third-party reliable sources are generally negative about a topic this shouldn't impede devoting sufficient space to a fair description of the topic, for instance (partially) based on primary or self-published sources, within the limits of policy. 3405:

Maybe, but I'm not excited about this wording. Article structure should be made by independent summaries of the subject, and if being criticized is given weight, then a criticism section (better worded as something else) is the best route. In other words,

2734: 2393:

I would also suggest something like "Whether the controversy or criticisms is a single event versus a business practice or dispute that took place over an extended period should be considered. A single event is more likely to create UNDUE issues (see

2364:. The reason I struck "other than the critics themselves" is because it assumes a one-sided "criticism" rather than a two-sided controversy or dispute and in most cases it is more two-sided. Just saying a secondary source is more appropriate I think. 2557:

Re. adding something like "Whether the controversy or criticisms is a single event versus a business practice or dispute that took place over an extended period should be considered. A single event is more likely to create UNDUE issues (see

1599:

to include too much criticism in the article, alternatively, "I don't like the subject" so all criticism is germane to include. Of course it is the sources and the balance of criticism versus non-criticism as it is in the reliable sources

2500:, explaining the concept, is difficult to grasp for many Knowledge contributors, so wouldn't use it when not necessary (besides the correct qualifier would be "third party" sources, not "secondary" sources: when e.g. the NYT, generally a 2228:

isn't concerned with the workings of noticeboards (there is no dedicated "criticism" noticeboard), maybe best to direct your suggestions in that context to the talk pages of the policy pages that govern the area of the noticeboard

785:

As a reader I frequently look for a "criticism" section title in an article. A clearly labeled "criticism' section makes it easy to find positive and negative viewpoints. Such paragraphs often link to very interesting documents.

593:

The core of the difference in opinion appears to be whether or not this is medicine (therapy). This is something that should be explained in the article, all relevant views based on sources (that is sources directly relating to

3016:

However, I'm not sure how an adult's "good behavior" would be significant enough to receive widespread coverage, and as a result, the "Public behavior" section title ends up looking like a weak euphemism for "bad behavior".

1347:

consensus" yet offering no actual criticism of the actual change made. My experience is that this behaviour is very disheartening. Efforts are made for, I think, constructive change which are then undone with a click.

1581:

always pertinent to the subject of the article. If we, instead, emphasize that if sources contain criticism, it must be in the article, we encourage a form of cherry-picking of sources to serve a content preference. -

2608:

about how company pages are treated versus any other subject. Therefore, I can see deleting the section in its entirety, but I don't see a good reason to include selective redundancies that have such an uneven tone.

2156:

section and each has plenty of media coverage devoted just to that lawsuit. It seems like this guideline would support making dedicated sections or articles for each one, which would just be silly. I would think that

2466:

expanding the scope of the guidance in the essay in this sense: not every legal dispute is a controversy or a criticism. The guidance in the section is on controversies & criticisms, not on legal disputes in

968:

It depends on how/why editors are changing these titles. A few times I've seen editors change a perfectly valid "Criticism" heading to "Reception" while citing this WP:Essay (or something similar), as if it is a

1975:

Spinning out a sizable portion of criticism to a sub-article reduces the amount of criticism in the main article, and shouldn't be done when the subsidiary article is a POV FORK. That is what is explained. See

490:

be written symmetrically, applying equally to positive & negative criticism. The risk is that changing the emphasis would dilute the message – and editors sent to this essay may miss the primary point.

3014:"For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled 'Public behavior' and include all information – positive and negative – within that section." 1537:

begs to differ. Although simpler, we could instead say "relevant and of due weight to". Since you're watching this page I'll spare you an edit-warring caution on your talk page, but you seem to have a case of

412:

to a guideline. It's been standard practice to avoid criticism sections and articles for years, but they still pop up in places they shouldn't. Having a guideline would make the existing consensus clearer.

2175: 2031:"For a specific controversy regarding the topic, when such topic takes a prominent place in the reliable sources on the topic. "Controversy" is not necessarily part of the name of such section (e.g. 2470:

Re. adding something like "In most cases these can be incorporated into the narrative of the article, such as in History, Products, or Operations sections based on the subject of the controversy" –

2482:

reiterate every other section in each section, but I oppose it – the idea is to describe each approach in its dedicated subsection, not to mish-mash it until every section describes all approaches.

2489:, sort of doubles "substantial coverage": the guidance applies when the coverage is substantial (which could be from a single, but very reputable source, not necessary to request multiple sources) 602:). whether or not the medicine / no medicine controversy should be in a separate section is not the first concern. The first concern is to describe it properly, based on sources, in the article. 2068:

available? I have no problem with the concept that is named "mixed bag", seems quite intuitive to me. Also Trivia guidance seems easy enough to apply (which in some cases is: do nothing...) --

2134:

Anyhow, the approach of the essay is "defer to policy" for those areas where policy contains relevant guidance. Do you suggest any updates to the essay text that may make that clearer? --

520:"whether positive or negative". Since the relevant policy page has so little to say on the subject, shouldn't we just include it on this page and link to the relevant policy page anyway? 2431:

I realize it's annoying when editors suggest changes to a document like this after not getting their way on a particular article. Figure I'll just abandon the discussion on that page.

3459:

Yeah, of course. But I've nonetheless seen multiple situations that are almost impossible to resolve in the last few weeks. There, an explicit policy/essay along such lines is still a

2671:? If it is not, then what is meant by "commonly accepted name"? If the article subject is widely characterized in reliable sources as a "controversy", but the article subject has no 1543:

consensus, which I think would be more productive than simply rolling back all of your recent edits while waiting for a more full discussion of which have approval and which do not. -

3493: 1045:

on this matter, and alert the relevant WikiProjects to this discussion; I don't feel like thoroughly debating this topic, especially since I don't see why my additions need debating.

481:

That's a good question. I suppose the essay focuses on negative criticism because 99% of the time the essay is invoked to address a situation where an editor erroneously emphasized

158: 125: 2104:

Whereas Organizations and corporations starts with: "Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism."

1631:

secondary sourcing as to what people's opinions are on a subject. When you are using authors' own statements of opinion as primary sources you have to apply a lot of discretion. -

2179: 1624:

article, for example, does not mention at all that the birds are widely praised as beautiful, though this is mentioned in nearly 1/3 of the sources (including many reliable ones)

815:

This is the place, however convincing long time editors is going to be hard. Generally I find many, not all, criticism sections becoming a toilet. It is just how it has rolled.

2101:

Living persons starts off with: "Negative material about living persons may violate privacy policies or damage the person's reputation; therefore, strict rules are in place..."

2755:

then why not say so here in this essay? If it means something different, then why not say so here in this essay? This seems like a straightforward line of questioning to me.

598:) should be in the article. Don't bother about the "dough" translation (for instance) if that is not in sources directly relating to rolfing (otherwise drawing it in would be 3294:

In similar contexts, a book's "Reception" section should also be designated a "Critical reception" or even just "Criticism" section if the reviews included are found to be

1860:

Generally it is not a good idea to have articles swamped by criticism. Some policies and guidelines that help determine the amount of criticism an article should hold:

2161:

would be the primary emphasis, creating separate articles or sections when the content is too long to fit into the narrative and its length is supported by sources.

1264:, is something else I might start a WP:RfC on, since debating absent one will not help a thing; my feelings on Wikidemon's edits in that regard are made clear with 236:

or will it cause more problems than it solves? If there is a guideline, what should it cover? Just for simplicity, I'll include my response to the question here:

706:

for a similar question being treated there. I would be wrong not to point you in the right direction on your question. This talk page is about the content of the

2659:

The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as

1307:

An acceptable approach to including criticisms in Knowledge articles is to separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received.

3391:

situations. There, it really is still much better to move (e.g. particularly partisan) criticism into a section of its own than to just force it into the lede.

2504:

source, would report on its dispute with whoever, that doesn't make the coverage we would need in the context of this guidance), which is really the case here.

1297:. An RfC, which ideally might not be necessary, would certainly be of benefit here. I don't know what you think but it occurs to me that the opening text of 1212:

If a section contains a content that is best defined by the terms "criticism" or "criticisms" then the terms "criticism" or "criticisms" should be used as per

2876:

is most appropriate for describing specimens under observation, such as animals or other non-human subjects. A better suggestion for biographies would be the

2735:

something I can't remember with Super Bowl and a Roman numeral in it as well as the word "controversy" but obviously not the most common name for the incident

1079:"Reviews" is similar to "Reception." I don't see either as fitting in the cases of the Penile plethysmograph and Reproductive rights articles, for example. I 364:

Consensus seems to be that any valid and notable criticism should be worked into the article where it applies rather than concentrated in a special section.--

2759: 2108:

It seems to make the assumption that criticisms of BLPs are usually not valid, whereas criticisms of companies are. Neither assumption being true of course.

3503: 3114:(criticisms scattered throughout the article, causing oversize issues). There's definitely a consistency issue with these types of articles. Thoughts? 1367:

Well, the WP:EDITORIAL and bias links are to guidelines. Those guidelines are for article space; they are not for dictating how an editor writes an essay.

1061:

might be non-neutral and can open Pandora's box and unnecessarily disputes. If you still insist on your position it might be a good idea to initiate RfC.--

464: 3184:

This is a fairly serious blow to the entire concept of the essay. Of the five articles listed as examples of integrating criticism, none actually do it -

1320:

frequently reverts editor input with no conceivable justification other than that consensus had not been achieved. For instance, I attempted changes to

2040: 1741: 1557:

Dictionaries don't say whether words are useful in a certain context. "Relevant" has the same problem of vagueness. "Due weight" is a useful concept (

459:

section, would we only want to suggest that negative criticism be integrated into sections, or should positive critical response also be integrated?

3134: 1310: 831:

Seconded. Filtering out negativity is something someone can do for him/herself, not necessarily something Knowledge should accomodate in general. --

1686:? Really? Instead of counting reliable sources, you'd be counting edits of Wikipedians? BRD is an almost deprecated essay, not a way to determine 135: 952:

the less specific titles of "Reception," "Response," "Reviews" or "Reactions." Not to mention that changing the heading in such a way can be non-

3193: 2655:

My purpose here is simply to point out ambiguity in this essay, without advocating any particular sort of change to the essay. This essay says:

305:: There's definitely a way to cover criticism of a topic in a neutral way, but in many cases we fail. A few sentences on this would be helpful. 1020:), for example. If a reaction section only has criticism to offer per the available sources, it might be best to title the section "Criticism." 431: 88: 2148:

One of the things that caught my eye was the recurring theme of "if sources treat it as an independent topic". If you look at an article like

703: 699: 651: 606: 2576:

example of a separate "controversy" article that got re-integrated in the main article because the separate article was a WP:UNDUE liability

2213:

Yes, there is a bit of a sensitivity difference between living people and (large) companies. That difference is explained on a policy page (

878:

Question: to what extent should the reception of a topic generally, or controversies about the topic specifically, be included in the lede?

714:(see notice at the top of the page), not a guideline or a policy, so anything written there is superseded by, for instance, the guidance at 1576:

criticism is hardly the place to give readers a crash course on content — something that has defied every attempt to agree on a guideline.

754:

be useful to for the essay to say a bit about how to handle controversies around categorization. Especially when sources disagree on it. --

1628: 3287:

In particular, if it cannot be removed due to an ongoing dispute about an objectively controversial figure, event or concept, appeals to

3141:, I was wondering why it is controversy and not scandal. And some are conspiracy, when they could be scandal or controversy. Is there a 2850: 1625: 2660: 1117:

In the context of a content titled WP:Criticisms the edit that Jeraphine Gryphon saved seems to me to have a high level of relevance.

3498: 1008:

However, headings should be accurate. While "Reception" and "Reviews" are headings commonly seen in television and film articles (see

521: 199: 195: 3291:

should never be used as an excuse for inserting expansive criticism (otherwise absent from the text) into the article lede instead.

3450: 3374: 2224:

Noticeboards work more or less efficient to tackle concrete issues, sometimes a bit more efficient, sometimes a bit less efficient.

97: 2174:

The contrast between the BLP and ORG sections just smacks of extreme disparity. The other day I made nearly identical posts to BLPN

929:

Thanks. This is helpful. (Other than the choice of noticeboard; Waldorf is regarded by educationalists as a mainstream approach.)

1627:, and mentions only tangentially that they are criticized for their vanity or pride, which appears in about 1/50 of the sources. 2985:

is definitely a better example, since "Public behavior" and "Public comments" don't appear to be in common use. I see that the

2832: 2780:

The short answer to your question is "no". I tried to explain the nuance in that answer. Part of that involves explaining that

2693: 1745: 1386: 570: 2837: 1805:

isn't clear, that's not the problem of this essay. (BTW, a rewrite of that guidance is discussed on its talk page, by RfC). --

1381:

I do not see how, even if it were considered that guidelines fully applied to all contents, that there would be any sense of

636:

sources acknowledging the confusion and explaining why massage is the incorrect term. Comments from others, please? Thanks!--

2023:(in the list section describing different approaches to controversies and criticism, not the table version that precedes it) 3301:

Trying to re-introduce sources known to be critical of the article's subject that had previously been deleted in line with

2842: 1465:

seem mostly helpful, but I don't think consensus exists for their exact version. In particular: (a) it is important to say

993:. It does not make sense to me to use "Reception" in those cases, as if we are gauging the popularity of a book. But I did 2563: 2399: 970: 66: 3245:

Feel free to add new ideas; improve, clarify and classify the ideas already here; and discuss the merits of these ideas.

1472: 58: 33: 3298:

negative. This is still a better formatting option than feigning balance when it is clearly lacking from the article.

2623: 2571: 1066: 1188:

after combining two of the sections; this is similar to a Society and culture section, which is an option listed at

515:) that there are strict rules governing the inclusion of negative material on living persons, and we should consult 2793: 2742: 2631: 2583: 2280: 2139: 2073: 2005: 1985: 1949: 1904: 1810: 1777: 1713: 1659: 1610: 1566: 1524: 1313:

when, in various circumstances, a direct presentation of a "Criticism"/"Criticisms" section may even be preferable.

1168: 920: 836: 731: 660: 618: 2244:– your concern (inadequate sourcing of the section) seems rather something that would get an adequate response at 1654:

tries to help editors with such choices, not assume that everybody "already knows best" what is germane or not. --

2771: 2701: 2680: 1534: 710:

page. I'm not sure what you would like to see improved to that page? Then even if the page is improved, it is an

565:

or how to deal with it in relation to related topics. The case I have in mind is an alternative health modality,

101: 208: 3468: 3396: 3352: 3045: 2973: 2953: 1422: 750: 688: 249: 3279: 2854: 2719:

policy (note that that part of the policy is often misunderstood, but this is not the place for that: ask at

3095: 1695:

Be assured, whether someone knows how to deal with things or not, I'd always try to write helpful guidance.

369: 154: 3274: 3434: 3388: 3098:, I think it's worth discussing whether media companies require a unique approach to criticism sections. 3009: 2994: 2912: 2036: 1867:: space devoted to criticism in a Knowledge article should reflect the overall proportion of criticism in 1092: 1062: 855:

no longer includes a Criticism section (but rather a Reception section). Should this example be changed? ~

525: 2210:

It's not clear to me what your question exactly is w.r.t. the guidance contained in the Criticism essay?

1801:

I think the current wording is quite clear that it doesn't imply what you wildly surmise. When you think

964:

asserting that changing the heading to those other titles is usually neutral. This is why, in the essay,

789:

Further in the article section on "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies":

3444: 3368: 2789: 2738: 2627: 2602: 2579: 2276: 2135: 2069: 2001: 1981: 1945: 1900: 1806: 1773: 1709: 1655: 1606: 1562: 1520: 1317: 1164: 1136: 1026: 978: 916: 832: 727: 656: 614: 39: 1877:: don't split off articles with the purpose of purging a Knowledge article of its legitimate criticism. 3064: 3027: 2925: 2890: 2785: 2767: 2763: 2752: 2715: 2697: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2613: 2436: 2201: 2113: 957: 862: 759: 675: 641: 583: 552: 418: 347: 2751:

I don't see what's peculiar about my question. If "the commonly accepted name" in this essay means

627:

Nope, I think you've misunderstood. This is not at all a debate about whether it's medicine and the

3464: 3417: 3392: 3348: 3311: 3305:

by now artificially pairing them with other reception (i.e. e.g.: "X disagrees though.</ref: -->

3213: 3192:

has a "Conspiracy theories and threats" section and doesn't really discuss other criticism at all,

3170: 3119: 3041: 3008:

employee. In particular, "good behavior" is a term that is used to describe children and pets. The

2969: 2949: 2536: 2532: 2497: 2475: 2272: 2268: 2225: 2218: 2214: 2126: 2091: 2058: 1966: 1932: 1880: 1825: 1792: 1696: 1687: 1674: 1636: 1586: 1548: 1498: 1481: 1302: 1298: 1234: 1160: 1156: 1149: 1140: 982: 820: 707: 512: 496: 456: 439: 409: 394: 386: 379: 336: 310: 245: 726:

venue for such questions) will probably not attract so many answers. Just some friendly advise. --

3307: 3302: 3288: 3267: 2945: 1393: 1351: 1220: 1121: 974: 934: 891: 805: 631:

status isn't being contested – the studies that have been done weren't published in a mainstream

471: 365: 292: 214: 1787:

is not clear) on what it means to handle a controversy section like a trivia section, or why. -

797:

Renaming section titles is only going to make valuable criticism hard to find in long articles.

3256: 2720: 1977: 1884: 1874: 1864: 1761: 1430: 1372: 1281: 1197: 1108: 1050: 953: 947:

Changing the "Criticism" heading to a "Reception," "Response" or "Reviews" heading in articles

906: 902: 882: 1704: 1646: 3440: 3364: 3231: 2833:

http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/08/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-ii-aspo.html

2547: 2528: 2516: 2458:

I'm sorry to say, but nah, don't see the benefit of expanding the crticism essay with this:

2359: 2351: 2158: 1924: 1891: 1802: 1558: 1144: 715: 695: 628: 324: 210: 181: 93: 2838:

http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/08/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-i-anti.html

2176:

Knowledge:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive224#Affair and blackmail section

901:

There is no general answer to your question, except perhaps the general recommendations of

3201: 3057: 3020: 2937: 2918: 2883: 2869: 2624:

Knowledge:FAQ/Organizations#The article on me/my organization is an attack. What can I do?

2609: 2524: 2432: 2241: 2197: 2109: 1920: 1577: 961: 856: 852: 755: 671: 637: 632: 579: 548: 414: 343: 233: 96:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 2762:

is an article title that follows the suggestions in this essay, is that because it's the

3439:. The linked policy specifically advises against treating Knowledge as a battleground. — 2843:

http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/11/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-iii.html

915:

seems an appropriate place for more input if that answer doesn't cover your concerns. --

3411: 3260: 3209: 3166: 3150: 3115: 2054: 1962: 1928: 1821: 1788: 1749: 1670: 1632: 1582: 1544: 1494: 1477: 1261: 1230: 816: 492: 486:

somewhat undermine that primary purpose of the essay. You are correct that the essay

435: 390: 306: 301: 3339:

Some version of the {{POV section}} template should also be introduced in those cases.

2546:

Re. adding "...A separate article can be made if the content would create an undue or

3487: 3407: 3239: 3142: 2817: 2252: 2245: 2234: 2230: 2153: 2149: 1944:– anyway, I think it useful to point to other guidance at this point in the essay. -- 1683: 1539: 1390: 1348: 1269: 1254:

like a "Criticism" heading is never appropriate, then I will start a WP:RfC on that.

1217: 1118: 1042: 930: 912: 887: 801: 599: 516: 467: 286: 277: 3189: 3180:

The articles which are claimed to have integrated criticism have not done so at all

3111: 2986: 2941: 2904: 2781: 2711: 2094: 1868: 1757: 1426: 1368: 1321: 1294: 1277: 1213: 1193: 1104: 1046: 263: 2829:

pls. reconsider his strange contacts, presented by another oppressed scientist in

3263:, there are also cases where it is best to keep a section so designated intact. 3013: 3002: 2998: 2990: 2982: 2908: 2877: 2032: 2248:

imho, so maybe it was the choice of noticeboard that explains lack of response?

1645:

Re. counting words and sources: but we do, in order to solve issues, see above

212: 3472: 3454: 3422: 3400: 3378: 3356: 3217: 3174: 3154: 3123: 3071: 3049: 3034: 2977: 2957: 2932: 2897: 2858: 2797: 2775: 2746: 2730: 2705: 2684: 2635: 2617: 2587: 2440: 2284: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2205: 2143: 2117: 2077: 2062: 2009: 1989: 1970: 1953: 1936: 1908: 1829: 1814: 1796: 1781: 1765: 1753: 1717: 1678: 1663: 1640: 1614: 1590: 1570: 1552: 1528: 1502: 1485: 1434: 1396: 1382: 1376: 1354: 1285: 1238: 1223: 1201: 1172: 1152:, a symptom that doesn't go away by renaming and/or repositioning the section. 1148:

separate section seems to me to be a "symptom of bad writing" as explained in

1124: 1112: 1070: 1054: 938: 924: 895: 868: 840: 824: 809: 763: 735: 679: 664: 645: 622: 587: 573:

for a brief review of this. The word "massage" comes from the word for dough (

556: 529: 500: 475: 443: 422: 398: 373: 351: 314: 294: 267: 253: 144: 80: 52: 2152:, which I brought up to GA, there are a lot of lawsuits/controversies in the 1016:), they might be less appropriate for a biological and/or medical topic (see 327:

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

3146: 3138: 1462:

which seem to have a consensus of three here. Francis Schonken's new edits

995:

change the Penile plethysmograph's criticism heading to "Views" afterward.

276:

the concept. Let things continue to be handled on a case-by-case basis at

3197: 3107: 3091: 1705:#When should critical reception or controversies be included in the lede? 1647:#When should critical reception or controversies be included in the lede? 1159:: would recommend renaming the section "Criticism" (losing the "s"), per 1013: 874:

When should critical reception or controversies be included in the lede?

3205: 2559: 2395: 2358:

A separate article can be made if the content would create an undue or

2259:: no "controversy" section, although a controversy is mentioned in its 1621: 1189: 1034: 1017: 670:

alternative health. Can anyone else chime in on this, please? Thanks!--

566: 2692:

P.S. The move discussion that I referred to (and that just closed) is

1421:

to GregKaye. WP:EDITORIAL is not a Knowledge essay matter; nothing at

2180:

Knowledge:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 86#Internet Brands

1009: 609:

if you need further help on this (you'll see the case isn't all that

773:

Removing the "criticism" label makes valuable content harder to find

722:

in the essay to an encyclopedia article (when there is an excellent

2512:

is one party more than what the new proposal considers sufficient).

1595:

Well, err, no. This resumes to "I like the subject", so it is not

694:

How to qualify a topic in the lede of an article that falls under

2295:"Many corporations are involved in well-documented controversies 3185: 2554:, same problem as second point and parethesis in previous point. 1899:? I don't see a particular discussion about its merits above. -- 574: 284:, we should only then consider formalizing it into a guideline. 2271:. Where do you see possible improvement of the guidance in the 800:

Is there a place to discuss this and suggest another policy? --

92:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of 3383:

I understand. To be honest, this is a heuristic that would be

3226: 3103: 2183:

section (cited to press releases and primary sources) remains.

1941:

Tried to address this by staying closer to the policy wording

215: 175: 15: 650:

If calling it a fringe theory isn't the problem, then surely

385:

Is that essay adequate, or should we promote that essay to a

2237:, etc.) or to the talk pages of the noticeboards themselves. 143: 3427:

I don't really understand the statement that this proposal

2519:

issue when incorporated into a more general section..." –

1103:, do you have anything you want to state in this section? 542:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

3330:

later in the article should be kept to a minimum as well.

2478:: "Often the best approach ... is to integrate ..."; We 3326:

Naturally, themselves unsourced summaries of criticism

3208:

doesn't even address the morality of its topic at all.

3099: 2575: 2537:

WP:CRITICISM#Separate articles devoted to controversies

2130: 1997: 1942: 1847: 1846:

The following changes have been proposed, and disputed.

1491: 1463: 1460: 1418: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1333: 1330: 1327: 1324: 1273: 1265: 1257: 1185: 1181: 1100: 1096: 1080: 1038: 1033:, stating, "the word 'criticism' not mentioned once in 1030: 998: 994: 990: 986: 965: 2340:

provide substantial coverage devoted to the controvers

2263:. That controversy has a separate article (follow the 1894:

may instruct how to handle criticism in certain areas.

1186:

changed the "Criticism" heading into a "Views" heading

1041:(including me), maybe I should just jump right into a 2476:

Knowledge:Criticism#Integrated throughout the article

2267:

redirect). All covered by the approaches proposed by

1744:)." That is not good advice. That's like calling the 1141:

Knowledge:Criticism#Integrated throughout the article

2125:

I suppose that part of the essay was written before

232:

As a first question, is a guideline about criticism

2533:

WP:CRITICISM#Separate articles devoted to criticism

2507:Re. removing "other than the critics themselves" – 2356:, a separate section or article can be considered. 2354:

issue when incorporated into a more general section

342:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 280:and other fora, and if a consensus opinion emerges 3200:puts all the stuff about morality into a separate 2940:, "public comments" is limiting. When it comes to 1143:would be preferable here (along with sorting its 985:articles to "Reception," and I reverted, as seen 3255:While excessive criticism may violate policy on 2826:questioned again by fiedler, speer and jebsen : 2037:Rick Ross (consultant)#Jason Scott deprogramming 1919:counts for reasons explored in other context in 2543:mishmash of all sections in all other sections) 1858: 791: 779: 3494:High-impact WikiProject Knowledge essays pages 3306:"), is to be considered bad form in line with 2758:Likewise for the other questions I posed. If 2515:Re adding "...the content creates an undue or 704:Knowledge:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#5:2 diet 687:can have a specific meaning in Knowledge, see 3253: 2539:... and we're back at my second point above: 2523:, starts from a questionable reading of both 1387:Knowledge does not employ hard-and-fast rules 8: 2823:under editwar siege since several years and 2760:Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy 2129:existed. Added a link to the policy section 1519:I don't think "germane" is a useful word. -- 1099:Francis Schonken, and then Francis Schonken 378:I agree, and so do the authors of the essay 3251:It may read something like the following: 3223:Suggest new subsection to amend WP:CSECTION 3040:I appreciate you making the latest change. 465:Knowledge talk:Criticism/Criticism workpage 161:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links. 1309:" It seems to me that this is laced with 538: 47: 2041:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Trivia sections 1742:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Trivia sections 1459:I've gone ahead and restored the changes, 960:and its subsections), as opposed to this 691:, but I assume that's not what you meant. 32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 3135:Westminster lockdown parties controversy 2903:I've changed the suggested example from 2462:Re. adding "...and legal disputes..." – 1260:by Francis Schonken, of an edit made by 3319: 1161:Knowledge:Criticism#"Criticism" section 1150:Knowledge:Criticism#"Criticism" section 49: 3428: 3165:reflect that, and same with positive. 2574:, not suitable for an essay. Besides, 2570:, unnecessary micromanagement, a.k.a. 2562:for example and it's treatment of the 2398:for example and it's treatment of the 1306: 977:changed the criticism headings at the 535:Controversy on how to classify a topic 2338:- other than the critics themselves - 1385:. For a start, according to WP:PG, " 1322:WP:AT#Use commonly recognizable names 1299:WP:Criticism#"Reception" type section 700:Knowledge:Fringe theories/Noticeboard 652:Knowledge:Fringe theories/Noticeboard 607:Knowledge:Fringe theories/Noticeboard 7: 2868:While I agree with the sentiment in 2221:doesn't want to alter such guidance. 335:Relisted with discussion moved from 21: 19: 2253:Credit Suisse#Post financial crisis 1039:currently only watched by 85 people 881:The example I am looking at is the 38:It is of interest to the following 3504:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages 966:I changed "usually" to "commonly." 116:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages 100:. For a listing of essays see the 14: 3196:has a "Disputed claims" section, 2993:, which is similarly broad. I've 2968:No need to ping me if you reply. 1083:the Penile plethysmograph matter. 86:This page is within the scope of 3230: 3129:controversy, scandal, conspiracy 2948:article, we use "Public image." 2350:the content creates an undue or 450:Criticism vs. critical reception 180: 79: 65: 51: 20: 3188:has a "Controversies" section, 3106:(easily navigable) rather than 2710:What a peculiar way of asking. 2550:issue on the entire page..." – 2086:Dedicated section for a lawsuit 999:also added "Views" to the essay 571:bodywork (alternative medicine) 3010:previous version of this essay 2878:"Topical or thematic sections" 2661:Creation–evolution controversy 1871:on the subject of the article. 1157:Reproductive rights#Criticisms 841:15:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 825:05:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 810:13:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 605:All in all I rather recommend 374:08:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 1: 3473:08:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3455:21:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3423:19:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3401:14:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3379:14:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3357:12:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3218:22:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) 3124:01:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC) 3086:Criticism and media companies 2812:WP neutrality and reliability 2564:1996 Odwalla E. coli outbreak 2474:, doubles content already in 2400:1996 Odwalla E. coli outbreak 2242:Internet Brands#Controversies 1493:which was quite redundant. - 1490:I also tightened up the lede, 869:13:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 698:is an excellent question for 261:only if it discourages them. 3155:16:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC) 3072:08:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC) 3050:01:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC) 3035:07:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC) 2978:22:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC) 2958:22:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC) 2933:01:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC) 2898:01:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC) 2859:21:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC) 1031:reverted all of my additions 444:06:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 130:This page has been rated as 110:Knowledge:WikiProject Essays 89:WikiProject Knowledge essays 3175:23:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC) 2989:article is currently using 513:WP:CRITICISM#Living persons 113:Template:WikiProject Essays 3520: 3265: 2196:Sorry if I am soapboxing! 939:10:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 925:06:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 896:00:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 557:21:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC) 501:15:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 476:11:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 423:21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC) 352:21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC) 315:20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 295:14:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 268:08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 254:01:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 3499:NA-Class Knowledge essays 2798:17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 2776:19:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 2747:19:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 2706:14:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 2685:14:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 2636:17:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 2618:16:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 2588:20:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC) 2492:Re. adding "secondary" – 2441:18:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC) 2285:07:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC) 2206:19:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC) 2144:10:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC) 2118:09:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC) 1890:Specific guidelines like 1856:What is the problem with 1535:Oxford English Dictionary 1316:It also seems to me that 1274:offered his opinion on it 399:16:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC) 151: 129: 74: 46: 3145:to decide between them? 2485:Re. adding "multiple" – 2362:issue on the entire page 2078:11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 2063:11:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 2010:12:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1990:11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1971:11:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1954:11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1937:11:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1909:10:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1830:10:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1815:05:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1797:00:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1782:16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC) 1766:16:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC) 1718:05:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1679:23:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC) 1664:14:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC) 1641:00:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC) 1615:23:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1591:19:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1571:19:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1553:19:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1529:18:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1503:18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1486:18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1435:17:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1397:15:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1377:09:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1355:08:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1286:05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1239:01:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC) 1224:18:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC) 1202:05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1173:13:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 1125:19:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC) 1113:12:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 1071:12:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 1055:11:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 764:18:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC) 751:Knowledge:Categorization 736:20:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC) 689:Knowledge:Categorization 680:17:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC) 665:04:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 646:04:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 623:03:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 588:03:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 530:00:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 3090:Given recent events at 2261:"Entertainment" section 777:The introduction says: 3316: 3094:and the discussion at 2913:Special:Diff/985636056 2665: 1897: 1022: 971:WP:Policy or guideline 795: 783: 155:automatically assessed 148: 136:project's impact scale 3137:, otherwise known as 2667:Is this referring to 2657: 2154:Post Financial Crisis 1746:Controversies section 1301:presents unnecessary 1137:Penile plethysmograph 1006: 979:Penile plethysmograph 153:The above rating was 147: 3238:This idea is in the 2880:recommended here. — 2784:can't be reduced to 2572:WP:INSTRUCTION CREEP 1703:BTW, my approach in 380:Knowledge: Criticism 224:Criticism guideline? 3433:useful in de facto 3387:useful in de facto 3257:appropriate balance 2816:concerning NPOV of 2090:Did I misinterpret 1852:Amount of criticism 1417:Noting here that I 1251:"Criticism" section 983:Reproductive rights 708:Knowledge:Criticism 702:. See for instance 613:as you thought). -- 511:This page says (in 3410:takes care of it. 3261:overall neutrality 3160:positive materials 3096:The New York Times 2995:adjusted the essay 2946:Scarlett Johansson 2297:and legal disputes 2033:Antibiotics#Misuse 333:Relisting comment: 300:Support, or amend 291: 149: 34:content assessment 3249: 3248: 3069: 3032: 2930: 2909:"Public comments" 2905:"Public behavior" 2895: 2864:"Public behavior" 2818:de:Daniele Ganser 1998:here's an example 1423:WP:Words to watch 1093:Jeraphine Gryphon 1063:Antidiskriminator 883:Waldorf education 770: 769: 749:Thanks, actually 600:original research 354: 285: 221: 220: 174: 173: 170: 169: 166: 165: 162: 3511: 3420: 3340: 3337: 3331: 3324: 3280:WP:NOTNOCSECTION 3234: 3227: 3067: 3063: 3060: 3030: 3026: 3023: 3015: 3004: 3003:"Public profile" 3000: 2992: 2991:"Public profile" 2984: 2928: 2924: 2921: 2910: 2906: 2893: 2889: 2886: 2879: 2790:Francis Schonken 2739:Francis Schonken 2628:Francis Schonken 2606: 2603:Francis Schonken 2580:Francis Schonken 2277:Francis Schonken 2136:Francis Schonken 2070:Francis Schonken 2002:Francis Schonken 1982:Francis Schonken 1946:Francis Schonken 1901:Francis Schonken 1869:reliable sources 1842:Proposed changes 1807:Francis Schonken 1774:Francis Schonken 1710:Francis Schonken 1656:Francis Schonken 1607:Francis Schonken 1563:Francis Schonken 1521:Francis Schonken 1318:Francis Schonken 1190:MOS:MED#Sections 1165:Francis Schonken 1027:Francis Schonken 917:Francis Schonken 865: 859: 851:The article for 833:Francis Schonken 728:Francis Schonken 657:Francis Schonken 615:Francis Schonken 539: 341: 329: 289: 216: 184: 176: 152: 118: 117: 114: 111: 108: 94:Knowledge essays 83: 76: 75: 70: 69: 68: 63: 55: 48: 25: 24: 23: 16: 3519: 3518: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3484: 3483: 3435:WP:BATTLEGROUND 3418: 3389:WP:BATTLEGROUND 3344: 3343: 3338: 3334: 3325: 3321: 3285: 3284: 3270: 3225: 3202:Abortion debate 3182: 3162: 3131: 3088: 3065: 3058: 3028: 3021: 2926: 2919: 2891: 2884: 2866: 2814: 2768:Anythingyouwant 2698:Anythingyouwant 2677:Anythingyouwant 2652: 2600: 2088: 2020: 1980:for details. -- 1854: 1844: 1419:already replied 1081:further tweaked 1029:came along and 949: 876: 863: 857: 853:Igor Stravinsky 849: 775: 537: 509: 452: 430:As I explained 322: 287: 244:expectations. 226: 217: 211: 189: 115: 112: 109: 106: 105: 102:essay directory 64: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3517: 3515: 3507: 3506: 3501: 3496: 3486: 3485: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3465:Biohistorian15 3425: 3393:Biohistorian15 3349:Biohistorian15 3342: 3341: 3332: 3318: 3317: 3283: 3282: 3277: 3275:WP:YESCSECTION 3271: 3266: 3247: 3246: 3244: 3235: 3224: 3221: 3181: 3178: 3161: 3158: 3130: 3127: 3087: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3054:No problem! — 3042:Flyer22 Frozen 2999:"Public image" 2983:"Public image" 2970:Flyer22 Frozen 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2950:Flyer22 Frozen 2865: 2862: 2813: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2756: 2727: 2724: 2651: 2650:Clarity needed 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2591: 2590: 2555: 2544: 2513: 2505: 2490: 2483: 2468: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2288: 2287: 2249: 2238: 2222: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2132: 2106: 2105: 2102: 2087: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2045: 2044: 2019: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 1993: 1992: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1896: 1895: 1888: 1878: 1872: 1853: 1850: 1843: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1701: 1692: 1691: 1650: 1649: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1488: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1314: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1176: 1175: 1153: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1074: 1073: 1024: 1023: 948: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 910: 875: 872: 848: 845: 844: 843: 828: 827: 774: 771: 768: 767: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 692: 603: 560: 559: 544: 543: 536: 533: 508: 505: 504: 503: 451: 448: 447: 446: 425: 402: 401: 383: 376: 357: 356: 355: 339: 330: 319: 318: 317: 297: 270: 256: 225: 222: 219: 218: 213: 209: 207: 204: 203: 191: 190: 185: 179: 172: 171: 168: 167: 164: 163: 150: 140: 139: 128: 122: 121: 119: 84: 72: 71: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3516: 3505: 3502: 3500: 3497: 3495: 3492: 3491: 3489: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3463:improvement. 3462: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3452: 3449: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3436: 3432: 3426: 3424: 3421: 3415: 3414: 3409: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3376: 3373: 3370: 3366: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3336: 3333: 3329: 3323: 3320: 3315: 3313: 3309: 3304: 3299: 3297: 3292: 3290: 3281: 3278: 3276: 3273: 3272: 3269: 3264: 3262: 3258: 3252: 3243: 3241: 3240:brainstorming 3236: 3233: 3229: 3228: 3222: 3220: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3204:article, and 3203: 3199: 3195: 3194:Bill O'Reilly 3191: 3187: 3179: 3177: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3159: 3157: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3128: 3126: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3085: 3073: 3070: 3068: 3062: 3061: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3033: 3031: 3025: 3024: 3011: 2997:to recommend 2996: 2988: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2931: 2929: 2923: 2922: 2914: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2896: 2894: 2888: 2887: 2875: 2871: 2863: 2861: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2851:93.205.103.79 2848: 2847:thx so much. 2845: 2844: 2840: 2839: 2835: 2834: 2830: 2827: 2824: 2821: 2819: 2811: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2786:WP:COMMONNAME 2783: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2754: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2733:redirects to 2732: 2728: 2725: 2722: 2717: 2716:WP:COMMONNAME 2713: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2673:WP:COMMONNAME 2670: 2669:WP:COMMONNAME 2664: 2662: 2656: 2649: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2604: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2556: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2488: 2484: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2401: 2397: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2363: 2361: 2355: 2353: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2236: 2232: 2227: 2223: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2211: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2160: 2155: 2151: 2150:Credit Suisse 2147: 2146: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2131: 2128: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2103: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2096: 2093: 2085: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2051: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2017: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1994: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1917: 1914:The reason I 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1893: 1889: 1886: 1882: 1879: 1876: 1873: 1870: 1866: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1851: 1849: 1848: 1841: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1740:section (see 1719: 1715: 1711: 1706: 1702: 1700:alternatives. 1698: 1694: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1652: 1651: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1629: 1626: 1623: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1603: 1598: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1541: 1536: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1489: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1474: 1468: 1464: 1461: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1398: 1395: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1356: 1353: 1350: 1345: 1341: 1338: 1335: 1332: 1329: 1326: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1252: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1222: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1151: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1126: 1123: 1120: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1082: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1021: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 980: 976: 975:Waters.Justin 972: 967: 963: 959: 958:WP:Due weight 955: 946: 940: 936: 932: 928: 927: 926: 922: 918: 914: 911: 908: 904: 900: 899: 898: 897: 893: 889: 884: 879: 873: 871: 870: 866: 860: 854: 847:Dated example 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 829: 826: 822: 818: 814: 813: 812: 811: 807: 803: 798: 794: 790: 787: 782: 778: 772: 766: 765: 761: 757: 752: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 690: 686: 683: 682: 681: 677: 673: 668: 667: 666: 662: 658: 653: 649: 648: 647: 643: 639: 634: 630: 626: 625: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 604: 601: 597: 592: 591: 590: 589: 585: 581: 576: 572: 568: 562: 561: 558: 554: 550: 546: 545: 541: 540: 534: 532: 531: 527: 523: 518: 514: 506: 502: 498: 494: 489: 484: 480: 479: 478: 477: 473: 469: 466: 460: 458: 449: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 426: 424: 420: 416: 411: 407: 404: 403: 400: 396: 392: 388: 384: 381: 377: 375: 371: 367: 363: 362: 361: 353: 349: 345: 340: 338: 334: 331: 328: 326: 321: 320: 316: 312: 308: 304: 303: 298: 296: 293: 290: 283: 279: 274: 271: 269: 266: 265: 260: 257: 255: 251: 247: 242: 239: 238: 237: 235: 230: 223: 206: 205: 202: 201: 197: 193: 192: 188: 183: 178: 177: 160: 156: 146: 142: 141: 137: 133: 127: 124: 123: 120: 103: 99: 95: 91: 90: 85: 82: 78: 77: 73: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 31: 27: 18: 17: 3460: 3447: 3430: 3412: 3384: 3371: 3345: 3335: 3327: 3322: 3312:WP:EDITORIAL 3300: 3296:particularly 3295: 3293: 3286: 3254: 3250: 3237: 3190:George Soros 3183: 3163: 3132: 3112:The Guardian 3089: 3056: 3055: 3019: 3018: 3006: 2987:Donald Trump 2942:Donald Trump 2917: 2916: 2882: 2881: 2873: 2867: 2849: 2846: 2841: 2836: 2831: 2828: 2825: 2822: 2815: 2666: 2658: 2653: 2567: 2551: 2540: 2520: 2508: 2501: 2498:WP:SECONDARY 2493: 2486: 2479: 2471: 2463: 2457: 2357: 2349: 2345: 2344:or criticism 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2296: 2273:WP:CRITICISM 2269:WP:CRITICISM 2226:WP:CRITICISM 2219:WP:CRITICISM 2215:WP:BLPGROUPS 2127:WP:BLPGROUPS 2107: 2092:WP:CRITICISM 2089: 2049: 2028: 2022: 2021: 1915: 1898: 1881:WP:ABOUTSELF 1859: 1855: 1845: 1738: 1697:WP:CRITICISM 1688:WP:CONSENSUS 1601: 1596: 1471: 1466: 1303:WP:EDITORIAL 1256: 1250: 1247: 1214:MOS:HEADINGS 1139:: I suppose 1101:reverted you 1097:you reverted 1025: 1007: 950: 880: 877: 850: 799: 796: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 748: 723: 719: 711: 684: 610: 595: 563: 522:126.0.96.220 510: 487: 482: 461: 453: 427: 410:WP:CRITICISM 405: 387:WP:GUIDELINE 358: 337:WP:RFC/BOARD 332: 323: 299: 281: 272: 262: 258: 240: 234:worth having 231: 227: 194: 186: 131: 87: 40:WikiProjects 30:project page 29: 3441:Mx. Granger 3365:Mx. Granger 3308:WP:BACKWARD 3303:WP:CSECTION 3289:WP:CSECTION 3133:In reading 3100:Put briefly 2764:common name 2753:common name 1305:in saying " 1258:This revert 132:High-impact 62:High‑impact 3488:Categories 3437:situations 3059:Newslinger 3022:Newslinger 2938:Newslinger 2920:Newslinger 2885:Newslinger 2731:Nipplegate 2714:(of which 2610:CorporateM 2433:CorporateM 2332:reliable, 2265:Nipplegate 2257:Super Bowl 2198:CorporateM 2110:CorporateM 1978:WP:POVFORK 1885:WP:PRIMARY 1875:WP:POVFORK 1865:WP:BALASPS 1820:Thanks, - 1756:"trivia." 1754:Kanye West 1602:on average 1533:Fine, but 1182:Late reply 954:WP:Neutral 907:WP:BALASPS 903:WP:BALASPS 756:Karinpower 685:categorize 672:Karinpower 638:Karinpower 580:Karinpower 549:G. C. Hood 547:Closed by 457:approaches 415:G. C. Hood 408:promoting 344:G. C. Hood 229:articles. 98:discussion 3429:would be 3268:Shortcuts 3210:Eldomtom2 3167:Graywalls 3139:partygate 3116:SmolBrane 2729:Example: 2622:There is 2548:WP:LENGTH 2529:WP:LENGTH 2517:WP:LENGTH 2502:secondary 2360:WP:LENGTH 2352:WP:LENGTH 2334:secondary 2330:multiple, 2328:Then "If 2275:essay? -- 2159:WP:LENGTH 2055:Wikidemon 2029:Proposed: 2018:Mixed bag 1963:Wikidemon 1929:Wikidemon 1925:WP:GOOGLE 1892:WP:FRINGE 1822:Wikidemon 1803:WP:TRIVIA 1789:Wikidemon 1671:Wikidemon 1633:Wikidemon 1583:Wikidemon 1559:WP:WEIGHT 1545:Wikidemon 1495:Wikidemon 1478:Wikidemon 1383:dictation 1266:this link 1262:Wikidemon 1231:Wikidemon 1145:WP:WEASEL 817:Basileias 716:WP:FRINGE 696:WP:FRINGE 629:WP:FRINGE 493:Noleander 436:Mhhossein 391:DavidCary 307:Randomran 3451:contribs 3375:contribs 3198:Abortion 3108:Fox News 2874:Behavior 2870:WP:CRITS 2525:WP:UNDUE 2467:general. 2336:sources 2178:and COIN 1921:WP:GHITS 1752:article 1578:WP:UNDUE 1270:GregKaye 1095:, since 1014:MOS:FILM 962:WP:Essay 931:HGilbert 888:HGilbert 802:Rougieux 633:WP:MEDRS 483:negative 468:hgilbert 325:Relisted 282:de facto 187:Archives 3461:serious 3328:present 3310:and/or 3206:Slavery 2560:Odwalla 2396:Odwalla 1758:Flyer22 1750:WP:Good 1748:of the 1622:peacock 1597:germane 1427:Flyer22 1369:Flyer22 1295:Flyer22 1278:Flyer22 1194:Flyer22 1105:Flyer22 1047:Flyer22 1035:MOS:MED 1018:MOS:MED 611:unusual 596:rolfing 567:Rolfing 428:Support 406:Support 366:Charles 302:WP:NPOV 264:Sceptre 259:Support 241:Support 134:on the 3413:Cuñado 3408:WP:DUE 3242:stage. 3143:WP:MOS 3012:said: 2568:oppose 2552:oppose 2541:oppose 2521:oppose 2509:oppose 2494:oppose 2487:oppose 2472:oppose 2464:oppose 2246:WP:RSN 2235:WP:BLP 2231:WP:COI 2050:oppose 1916:oppose 1684:WP:BRD 1540:WP:OWN 1043:WP:RfC 1010:MOS:TV 913:WP:FTN 517:WP:BLP 463:like: 278:WP:AfD 273:Oppose 157:using 107:Essays 59:Essays 36:scale. 2782:WP:AT 2721:WT:AT 2712:WP:AT 2480:could 1344:here. 1337:here, 1334:here, 1331:here, 1328:here, 1325:here, 1272:also 956:(see 858:Mable 724:other 720:isn't 712:essay 488:could 28:This 3469:talk 3445:talk 3431:very 3419:Talk 3416:☼ - 3397:talk 3385:very 3369:talk 3353:talk 3314:. 3259:and 3214:talk 3186:PETA 3171:talk 3151:talk 3147:Gah4 3120:talk 3066:talk 3046:talk 3029:talk 3001:and 2974:talk 2954:talk 2927:talk 2915:. — 2892:talk 2855:talk 2794:talk 2788:. -- 2772:talk 2743:talk 2702:talk 2694:here 2681:talk 2632:talk 2614:Talk 2584:talk 2535:and 2527:and 2437:Talk 2348:and 2281:talk 2251:Re. 2240:Re. 2202:Talk 2140:talk 2114:Talk 2095:here 2074:talk 2059:talk 2006:talk 1986:talk 1967:talk 1950:talk 1933:talk 1923:and 1905:talk 1883:and 1826:talk 1811:talk 1793:talk 1778:talk 1762:talk 1714:talk 1675:talk 1660:talk 1637:talk 1611:talk 1587:talk 1567:talk 1549:talk 1525:talk 1499:talk 1482:talk 1473:2001 1431:talk 1425:is. 1394:Kaye 1391:Greg 1373:talk 1352:Kaye 1349:Greg 1342:and 1340:here 1311:bias 1282:talk 1235:talk 1221:Kaye 1218:Greg 1198:talk 1169:talk 1163:. -- 1155:Re. 1135:Re. 1122:Kaye 1119:Greg 1109:talk 1067:talk 1051:talk 1012:and 991:here 989:and 987:here 981:and 935:talk 921:talk 892:talk 864:chat 837:talk 821:talk 806:talk 760:talk 732:talk 676:talk 661:talk 642:talk 619:talk 584:talk 575:masa 553:talk 526:talk 497:talk 472:talk 440:talk 432:here 419:talk 395:talk 389:? -- 370:talk 348:talk 311:talk 250:talk 159:data 126:High 3110:or 3104:CNN 3092:CNN 2911:in 2907:to 2217:). 2043:)." 1467:why 1293:TY 1216:. 507:BLP 288:Ray 246:SDY 3490:: 3471:) 3453:) 3399:) 3377:) 3355:) 3216:) 3173:) 3153:) 3122:) 3048:) 3017:— 2976:) 2956:) 2857:) 2820:, 2796:) 2774:) 2745:) 2723:). 2704:) 2683:) 2634:) 2616:) 2586:) 2578:-- 2496:, 2439:) 2283:) 2233:, 2204:) 2142:) 2116:) 2076:) 2061:) 2048:I 2035:, 2008:) 2000:-- 1996:→ 1988:) 1969:) 1952:) 1935:) 1907:) 1828:) 1813:) 1795:) 1780:) 1772:-- 1764:) 1716:) 1708:-- 1677:) 1662:) 1639:) 1613:) 1605:-- 1589:) 1569:) 1551:) 1527:) 1501:) 1484:) 1433:) 1375:) 1284:) 1276:. 1268:. 1237:) 1200:) 1171:) 1111:) 1069:) 1053:) 997:I 937:) 923:) 894:) 867:) 839:) 823:) 808:) 762:) 734:) 678:) 663:) 655:-- 644:) 621:) 586:) 555:) 528:) 499:) 491:-- 474:) 442:) 434:. 421:) 397:) 372:) 350:) 313:) 252:) 198:, 3467:( 3448:· 3443:( 3395:( 3372:· 3367:( 3351:( 3212:( 3169:( 3149:( 3118:( 3044:( 3005:. 2972:( 2952:( 2853:( 2792:( 2770:( 2766:? 2741:( 2700:( 2696:. 2679:( 2663:. 2630:( 2612:( 2605:: 2601:@ 2582:( 2435:( 2346:s 2342:y 2279:( 2229:( 2200:( 2138:( 2112:( 2072:( 2057:( 2004:( 1984:( 1965:( 1948:( 1931:( 1903:( 1824:( 1809:( 1791:( 1776:( 1760:( 1712:( 1690:. 1673:( 1658:( 1635:( 1609:( 1585:( 1565:( 1547:( 1523:( 1497:( 1480:( 1429:( 1371:( 1280:( 1233:( 1196:( 1167:( 1107:( 1065:( 1049:( 933:( 919:( 890:( 861:( 835:( 819:( 804:( 758:( 730:( 674:( 659:( 640:( 617:( 582:( 551:( 524:( 495:( 470:( 438:( 417:( 393:( 382:. 368:( 346:( 309:( 248:( 200:2 196:1 138:. 104:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Criticism - Knowledge

Index