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