This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts WP:CRIT WP:NOCRIT

This page in a nutshell: Articles should include significant criticisms of the subject while avoiding undue weight and POV forking.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must adhere to neutral point of view (NPOV). This means representing all significant views in reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias. If these include criticism of the article's subject, they should be incorporated into the article content in an appropriate and neutral way. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources, whether positive or negative.

In most cases, editors should avoid devoting a section to criticisms or controversies, as this violates neutral point of view. These sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints by giving them their own header; are not balanced, because they exclude positive information about the topic; create the appearance of a controversy, even if there isn't one; and often devolve into "laundry lists" of complaints, without regard for their notability or validity.

Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons requires special care in presenting negative viewpoints about living persons.

Most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way. When including negative material in an article, some things to check for include:

• Ensure that the material is supported by reliable sources
• Do not present the material in a way that emphasizes beyond the emphasis given in reliable sources.
• The prominence and proportion of coverage on negative or positive materials should reflect those of what is published in reliable sources. Prominence among Wikipedia editors or the general public are irrelevant.
• Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance in proportion to reliable sources without giving undue weight to one viewpoint.
• When presenting negative material, it is often best to name the source of the criticism within the paragraph or sentence, so that the criticism is not presented in the encyclopedia's voice.
• Integrate negative material into sections that cover all viewpoints of the event, product, or policy that is being criticized, rather than in a dedicated "criticism" section.

Negative material about living persons may violate privacy policies or damage the person's reputation; therefore, strict rules are in place to govern such information. See Biographies of living persons for details.

No undue weight should be given to criticism. Some policies and guidelines that help determine the amount and presentation (or: weight) of criticism in an article:

• WP:BALASPS: the weight a Wikipedia article gives to criticism of its subject should be proportionate to the overall weight of such criticisms in reliable sources on the subject of the article.
• WP:POVFORK: don't split off articles with the purpose of purging a Wikipedia article of its legitimate criticism.
• WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY: 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.
• Specific guidelines like WP:FRINGE may instruct how to handle criticism in certain areas.

The list of suggestions above is not comprehensive, it shows a few directions where additional guidance may be found.

This section is the subject of a current discussion. Please feel free to join in. This doesn't mean that you may not be bold in editing this section, but that it would be a good idea to check the discussion first.

An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic, as well as one dedicated to accolades and praises is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy.

Likewise, the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public image, create a section entitled "Public image" or "Public profile", and include all related information—positive and negative—within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section.

Articles on artists and works by artists often include material describing the opinions of critics, peers, and reviewers. Although the term "criticism" can, in that context, include both positive and negative assessment, the word "Criticism" or "Accolades" should be avoided in section titles because it may convey a biased connotation to many readers. Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments".

In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material.

Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title.

Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled. Criticisms are specific appraisals or assessments, whereas controversies are protracted public disputes, with opposing opinions rather than universal disapproval. Thus, sections such as "Criticisms and controversies" are generally inappropriate.

The best approach to including negative criticism is to integrate it into the primary article on the topic. Sometimes that will cause the article to get too large, in which case the article should be split using the WP splitting guidelines. The preferred way to split an article is as a content fork into subarticles, using a "main" template to link to the new subarticles (related guidance: WP:SPINOFF). Generally, new subarticles should not be devoted to criticism, controversies, or other specific viewpoints but should instead focus on topical themes.

Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then sections and subarticles about them may be justified, but only within the limitations of WP:BLPGROUPS.

Example: the sources that discuss the 2008 Summer Olympics often describe its controversies in detail, as an independent topic. As the main article is very long and it was deemed unpractical to integrate all the controversy material into the main article: the summary style guideline was used to create a subarticle Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics, while a summary overview of the controversies is retained in the main article.

For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets.

Approaches to incorporating controversy and criticism are as follows:

Often the best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. However, for example, when the structure of an article is timeline-based "criticism" can't precede the genesis history of the subject (except possibly for a mentioning in the lede).

An acceptable approach to including criticisms in Wikipedia articles is to separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. Suitable section titles, depending on case, include: "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" and "Reactions". These sections include both negative and positive assessments. This approach usually conforms to the WP neutrality policy, because it avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic.

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 a 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 a section is of the "mixed bag" kind, the section should be handled as a trivia section (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections).

As of October 2022 about 33,000 articles have controversy sections.^[1]

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. However, sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section. In 2006, Jimbo Wales weighed in on the question: "In many cases [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."^[2]

Many criticism sections found in articles are present because editors collected negative material, but have not had the time to properly integrate the negative material into the other sections of the article. Such negative sections should be tagged with a {{POV-section}} or {{criticism-section}} to notify other editors that more work is needed to integrate the material.

Sometimes a section is created to describe a significant criticism made by a notable critic. In these situations, the section title should be something like "View of Maria Smith" or "Reaction of the NY Times", and should avoid the word "criticism" in the section title.

Similarly, sections dedicated to positive material may violate the NPOV policy by causing a distortion, albeit in the opposite direction and maybe a promotional editing and public relations editing magnet especially in articles on people, products, businesses and organizations.

A dedicated "Reception history" or "History of criticism" article may be acceptable for certain literary, historical, or artistic topics, if the sources justify it. Such articles should describe the historical progression of the criticism, as well as documenting both the positive and negative criticisms. The "main" article should have a summary style type of section summarizing the "reception history", and properly linking to the subsidiary article (for the Tacitean studies example this is the "Studies and reception history" section in the Tacitus article).

Articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged, for many of the same reasons discussed for criticism-related material. Articles dedicated to a controversy may be appropriate if the reliable sources on the topic discuss the controversies as an independent topic. Examples of articles devoted to a controversy include Global warming controversy, 2008 Olympics controversies, Chiropractic controversy and criticism, and Scientology controversies.

Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic is generally considered a POV fork. Wikipedia:Content forking states that "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." For example, the "Criticism" section of Al Gore should not be moved to a separate article such as "Criticism of Al Gore". Dedicated "Criticism of ..." articles are sometimes appropriate for organizations, businesses, philosophies, religions, or political outlooks, provided the sources justify it; see the "Philosophy, religion, or politics" section above for details.

• Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode
• Wikipedia:Be neutral in form
• Wikipedia:Controversial articles
• Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections
• Wikipedia:Don't "teach the controversy" (the phrase doesn't mean what you think it does)
• Wikipedia:Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability
• Wikipedia:Pro and con lists

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Article structure
• Category:Criticisms
• Special:PrefixIndex/Criticism of

• intitle:"criticism of" site:en.wikipedia.org – Google search for "Criticism of ..." within Wikipedia