Wikipedia talk:Criticism

message: 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 approaches section, would we only want to suggest that negative criticism be integrated into sections, or should positive critical response also be integrated?
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 like: Wikipedia talk:Criticism/Criticism workpage hgilbert (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 negative 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 somewhat undermine that primary purpose of the essay.   You are correct that the essay could 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.  --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism vs. critical reception 

message: This page says (in WP:CRITICISM#Living persons) that there are strict rules governing the inclusion of negative material on living persons, and we should consult WP:BLP 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 "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? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP 

message: The introduction says:
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.
Further in the article section on "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies":
Renaming section titles is only going to make valuable criticism hard to find in long articles.
Is there a place to discuss this and suggest another policy?
--Rougieux (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Basileias (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Seconded. Filtering out negativity is something someone can do for him/herself, not necessarily something Wikipedia should accomodate in general. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the "criticism" label makes valuable content harder to find 

message: The article for Igor Stravinsky no longer includes a Criticism section (but rather a Reception section). Should this example be changed? ~Mable (chat) 13:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dated example 

message: The following changes have been proposed, and disputed.
=== Amount of criticism ===
What is the problem with 
? I don't see a particular discussion about its merits above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed: "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. Antibiotics#Misuse, Rick Ross (consultant)#Jason Scott deprogramming). 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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections)."
*I oppose 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 Wikipedia editors. The advice given on what to do if a section title is in fact a mixed bag is also not clear. What does 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. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: What is the problem with 
? I don't see a particular discussion about its merits above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of criticism 

message: (in the list section describing different approaches to controversies and criticism, not the table version that precedes it)
:Proposed: "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. Antibiotics#Misuse, Rick Ross (consultant)#Jason Scott deprogramming). 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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections)."
*I oppose 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 Wikipedia editors. The advice given on what to do if a section title is in fact a mixed bag is also not clear. What does 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. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed bag 

message: concerning NPOV of :de:Daniele Ganser,
under editwar siege since several years and
questioned again by fiedler, speer and jebsen :
pls. reconsider his strange contacts, presented by another oppressed scientist in
http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/08/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-ii-aspo.html
http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/08/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-i-anti.html
http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/11/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-iii.html
thx so much.
93.205.103.79 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP neutrality and reliability 

message: While I agree with the sentiment in WP:CRITS, 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. Behavior is most appropriate for describing specimens under observation, such as animals or other non-human subjects. A better suggestion for biographies would be the  recommended here. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the suggested example from  to  in Special:Diff/985636056. — Newslinger talk 01:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Newslinger, "public comments" is limiting. When it comes to Donald Trump, 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 Scarlett Johansson article, we use "Public image." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

text: No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   is definitely a better example, since "Public behavior" and "Public comments" don't appear to be in common use. I see that the Donald Trump article is currently using , which is similarly broad. I've adjusted the essay to recommend  and .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 employee. In particular, "good behavior" is a term that is used to describe children and pets. The previous version of this essay said:  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". — Newslinger talk 07:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate you making the latest change. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem! — Newslinger talk 08:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Public behavior" 

message: Given recent events at CNN and the discussion at The New York Times, I think it's worth discussing whether media companies require a unique approach to criticism sections.  Put briefly, 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 CNN(easily navigable) rather than Fox News or The Guardian(criticisms scattered throughout the article, causing oversize issues).   There's definitely a consistency issue with these types of articles.  Thoughts?  SmolBrane (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and media companies 

message: In reading Westminster lockdown parties controversy, otherwise known as partygate, I was wondering why it is controversy and not scandal. And some are conspiracy, when they could be scandal or controversy.  Is there a WP:MOS to decide between them? Gah4 (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy, scandal, conspiracy 

message: 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 Wikipedia article on company which mostly receive negative coverage should reflect that, and same with positive. Graywalls (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  positive materials 

message: 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 - PETA has a "Controversies" section, George Soros has a "Conspiracy theories and threats" section and doesn't really discuss other criticism at all, Bill O'Reilly has a "Disputed claims" section, Abortion puts all the stuff about morality into a separate Abortion debate article, and Slavery doesn't even address the morality of its topic at all. Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The articles which are claimed to have integrated criticism have not done so at all