With this approach, the article contains a section dedicated to positive and negative assessments of the topic. The section should not use a negative title like "Criticism" or "Controversies" but instead should use a more neutral term such as "Reception", "Assessment", "Reviews", "Influence", or "Response". This approach is often found in articles on books or other works of art.
For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources. The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title (when there are distinct groups of controversies, the section title can be "Controversies", with subsection titles indicating what these are about).
In this approach, the article contains a section which focuses only on negative criticisms. This approach is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics. Great care should be taken that the section is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of complaints.
This approach employs a separate article that includes both positive and negative viewpoints. This approach is often taken when the primary article on a literary topic grows too large and is subject to a content fork.
use the term "controversy" in an article title only when this is part of the common name of the topic of that article, and the controversy is notable in its own right (as opposed to being part of a larger topic)
This approach is generally discouraged, but it is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics to avoid confusion that may result if negative viewpoints were interwoven with the description of the primary viewpoint. Some organizations and corporations also have controversy or criticism sub-articles, but in those situations, the sources must support such a dedicated sub-article. 喺任何情況，篇文都要寫得中立，絕唔可以有觀點分叉。
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: 「招待」、「評論」、「回應」同「反應」. 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. 抗生素#濫用, 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).
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 珍寶威 weighed in on the question: "In many cases they [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."