yes that was an rpj rant but criticism articles really are required sometimes here's a great example and often they create clutter if all the separate objections to an idea are left in place the general rule is that the minority views can be collected as a subarticle so long as care is taken to treat them as a subarticle by somehow summarizing them in the main article this does not have to be exhaustive and vice versa which probably we should be careful to do in the main jfk assassination article and so long as rebuttal on both sides is a part of both articles which i hope we've accomplished here by having a good section on the one shooter wc view in the jfk assassination theories article and mentioning that other views than the wc's exist in the main article in line with wikipedia's semi policy of assuming good faith the creator of the new article is probably sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article there is no consensus whether a criticism of article is always a pov fork at least the criticism of article should contain rebuttals if available and the original article should contain a summary of the criticism of article i know i'm going to get flack for pushing so heavily for the wc view even in light of the fact that supposedly it's not the most popular view among the general public unfortunately the general public's view is not informed and is warped by the slick oliver stone jfk which no movie producer is going to spend as much money to rebutt with a movie which is true to facts as we know them plus the hsca shocker with the dictabelt which got way more airtime than its rebuttal later all of this being symptomatic of one of the problems which drives wp v toward untruthfullness which is that truth is quite often dull and not very entertaining and sometimes it's hard to find spokespeople for it jimbo wales thinks that if something is true it should have plenty of citable supporters but sometimes that's just not the case if posner's book had been called lee harvey oswald did it which was a fairer title it wouldn't have sold