Including external criticisms are another issue
entirely,
and I think we should avoid this whenever feasible. I am
sure that one could write a long section full of polemics
on why Christians think that Jews and Muslims are wrong,
and why pagans are worse than wrong; similar, one could
write a long section full of polemics on why Muslims think
that Christians and Muslims are wrong, and why pagans are
worse than wrong! Generally, any well-known religion has
been the subject of a vast critical and polemical attack
from many people outside that religion. We need to
extremely careful about this. But the subject of internal
constructive criticism is a different issue altogether.
As long as we make sure that all info is written in an NPOV
fashion, what do you think?
I don't think it's useful to have different policies on "external" and
"internal" criticism. While I understand your point of view, since
the latter is often much better informed, I think as long as the
criticism is balanced and either important or representative of a
wider group (i.e. not random Joe thinks Jews are ugly, but a quote
that represents a section of society, or a famous person whose
criticism is taken seriously) we shouldn't necessarily discriminate on
the basis of whether the critic is or is not a practitioner of the
religion. That said, I can see your fears about, for instance, the
Judaism article becoming overwhelmed by, for instance, Islamic views.
Perhaps that can be best dealt with by including just a brief comment
on it with a link to [[Islamic views of Judaism]].
moink