Often in the creation of pages, one receives negative opinion about its content, up to including the fact that the page should exist at all. The Wiki way of doing things is to make your statement, realizing that detractors and opponents exist for every opinion or view. What do you do with the negative opinion, do you just avoid and pretend like it isn't there? Seems much cleaner to just quietly delete the detraction and respond on the detractors home page, instead of cluttering up the page with justifications. That is if the detraction is signed so you can do so. If you wish to make the page into a positive directed statement, you cannot clutter it up with the chaff of confusing argument and flameage. There are lots of people reading the thread who might contribute direction and light instead of negation and heat. So it is not wise to confuse the issue. If you are confident and competent, then that will carry the point more that any justification you might make.
----
'''Example of call for justification:'''
 ''What makes an opinion "negative"?''
 
Someone else chimes in: 
You read it and think to yourself, "damn, that opinion is negative".  Pretty simple test really.
-----
'''Second call for justification by way of requiring restatement:'''

''No, I genuinely don't know what you mean by negative. Do you mean rude? Confrontational? Simply disagreeing with what you're saying?'' 

Negative mean non-constructive and tangential to the theme of the page. Such as to whether it should exist or not. Also the use of the page to state the direct opposite. The opposite view should stand on its own. Not (for example) using a page on the virtues of Emacs to state the virtues of Vi. 

----
The point is you let the creation stand and delete the calls for justification, or create (not recommended) a new page call WhatIsaNegativeOpinion or reference ConversationalChaff.  Don't be tempted to contend and debate, that weakens your point and supplies platform for the detractor.

----
'''Clarification called for by an honest inquirer'''

So I ask you questions about what you're saying, because I honestly don't understand it and I would appreciate it if you could explain it in another way, and you consider that ConversationalChaff? 

''No it is not conversationalChaff to request clarification of the page's point, independent of whether or not you "Truly understand", clarification is part of the process of dialogue. and is not divergent should always receive recognition and response. 
-----
If the point opposing is strong, it should have its own page and the response one reader makes is instructive:.

Addition of Reference Pages provides a valid way of making statements which support or oppose the page content. Precisely because the views on these pages stand on their own.

See also CriticalSpirit, DeleteInsults, DontDeleteFlamebait, WikiContentGenerationProcess