Jump to content

Talk:Controversial Reddit communities/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Merger proposal

I propose that Michael Brutsch be merged into Controversial Reddit communities. I think that the content in the Michael Brutsch article can easily be explained in the context of Controversial Reddit Communities.

From the latest Michael Brutsch AFD discussion: "Keep and rename. This should be so obvious, as the article is about an incident, not a person. The incident is notable, and that's what this article is about."

Another said that "I would not be adverse to a separate conversation to rework the page to describe the event that led to the notoriety." One user noted that he is notable for "the controversy about him being doxxed by Gawker, the offensive subreddits he created (especially "jailbait", which got media attention even before he was doxxed), etc - and once he did a voluntary in-depth interview with CNN." All these things are relevant to this article and have been included.

Two others recommended a possible merge, though one specified a merge to the main Gawker and Reddit articles and the other did not specify where.

The main argument I saw against merging is that this article will focus more on the negative aspects of Michael Brutsch. If anything it has less emphasis on Brutsch outside of the circumstances of his outing. Narrowing down the discussion of the controversy surrounding controversial subreddits to the discussion of just one person doesn't make much sense, when you consider that dozens of moderators and tens of thousands of users contributed to the maintenance and content of these communities, and Brutsch hasn't been active in their maintenance for at least six months. Breadblade (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This is just a typical WP:POVFORK and BLP coatrack as most of it is just negative information about Brutsch taken from the original article, cleansed of most of the material that would put him in a more favorable light.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Many in the AfD argued for the notability of these controversial communities, and suggested a merge to an article about these communities, or the surrounding controversy. This is following through with that suggestion. Material that was removed in the move was generally non-notable, such as mundane information regarding Brutsch's career history and details about how he found the website. If bias is an issue, WP:COATRACK states that it is inappropriate to "even out the percentage of bias" by adding fluff, such as minute details of a subject's life. I don't see where this article is giving him an editorialized or unfair treatment, but if you see poorly-sourced contentious information about anyone on here or anywhere else it's your right to remove it. Breadblade (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:BLP does not apply solely to unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious information. It is a policy that demands an overall stricter interpretation of our other content policies. You actually removed plenty more than what you mention and generally all of it being material that puts him in a less negative light.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • See WP:WINAC, this person's claim to notability comes directly from involvement in controversial subreddits. I would contend that most of the removed content was fluff, redundant or not particularly notable, the source article is quite long considering the subject matter. If you think there are glaring omissions, they can of course be added back in. Breadblade (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You didn't remove anything that wouldn't be completely suitable in a bio. What you have done is created an article that is basically a pseduo-biography and focuses solely on the negative aspects of the living subject. It is ostensibly about controversial subreddits, but is basically all about him.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
After perusing Controversial Reddit communities, I would not be opposed to a merger with that page. That may actually be a good compromise. HillbillyGoat (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Creating an article that is ostensibly about something else but is really about Brutsch is just abusing BLP1E, which is not even a valid objection in this case, in order to violate BLP by excising any humanizing or positive material about the actual subject. Brutsch is notable in his own right and to diminish him to "jailbait guy" is far worse than having an article about him where we can at least treat him like a human being and not some object in a controversy.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In the event that we can't reach a consensus about what to do, then the status quo should obtain: Brutsch has an article under his own name. Ideally I'd prefer a consensus that saves face all round---but if the Devil's Advocate remains adamantly opposed to any kind of merger, then I would support the the Devil's Advocate's position and endorse the continued existence of the Brutsch article with its current content. For the reasons I stated during the AfD, I think that Brutsch fully deserves his Wikipedia article and I'm not minded to protect him by removing or merging it unless there's a genuine consensus in favour of that.—S Marshall T/C 19:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a link to this article from Reddit. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Linked by Reddit

There was a recent influx of new/IP editors to the "Misogyny" section of this page following a post on reddit's /r/mensrights subforum. This page may attract similar bursts of activity over short periods of time if users from mentioned communities feel the need to weigh in on their portrayal on Wikipedia. Although we shouldn't WP:BITE the newcomers, they should be aware of their own biases, avoid WP:OR and ensure that their additions are properly cited. As such I'm not surprised that a lot of these recent changes were reverted, but it's possible that these influxes might lead to good edits in the future. Breadblade (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

We should also be wary not to over-diagnose OR, as often happens when people are simply reflecting what is written in the references and people misinterpret that as personal opinion. Ranze (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It does beg the question - why do you always show up when wiki pages are linked to that sub? Countered (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Men's Rights Subforum" subsection

This section needs some changes to remain on topic and neutral. It received a flurry of edits after being posted on the forum it is critical of. Many of these edits misunderstand critical distinctions.

The websites are not called "Misogyny: The Sites" but rather the Southern Poverty Law Center report has that title.

This page and subsection should detail controversy. General information about the unrelated beliefs of the subforum, like what it thinks about child custody, is off topic unless there was a controversy about those beliefs. Additionally, the child custody mention was followed by two references that had no mention of the topic, and links to another that does not mention the subreddit.

It is incorrect to suggest the SPLC retracted its statements about the group. Rather, they clarified that they were not designating it a 'hate group', but did not retract any part of their earlier statements. Perhaps more context about this distinction is warranted, but that does not make the misogyny "previously" alleged, nor does it refute the descriptions in this subsection. This clarification was only to distinguish their misogyny watch list report from their official "hate group" list, the latter of which does not include the subreddit.

Finally, it is absurd and original to pretend that any place where there are examples of misogyny must also be a hate group.

Emarkcd (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was quite right. The material you removed was utterly ridiculous, off-topic, intended to promote the subreddit, and also included prohibited original analysis of reliable sources (clue phrases "without referencing why," "no citation," "there is a contradiction" etc.) Unrelatedly, but also in this section, I'm not sure Manboobz is considered a reliable source and we should perhaps wait until the information gets picked up elsewhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The fact that you acknowledge in your post about your edits that this page "Is critical of" /r/mensrights is in fact confirmation of a non-neutral POV in the section regarding this subreddit (which was, previously, titled "misogyny", even though the subsection does not describe incidents of misogyny, but rather describes one specific sub-forum of Reddit.
The purpose of this page is, ostensibly at least, to describe controversies on Reddit. Not to make the argument that a certain subreddit is or is not misogynistic by nature. So I have cleaned up the language to make it more factually descriptive of the events/incidents being described, using more non-POV language.
While the section describing a doxing incident might have a place, the only source given is neither authoritative nor reliable, and so for the time being I've removed that section until a more factual and lexicographically inoffensive entry on the subject can replace it. Ironlion45 (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, it is the SPLC analysis (and not this page, which should merely report the controversy around their analysis) that I mean "is critical of" the forum.
Another reason the doxxing event should be removed: that is a controversy for the MensRights subreddit, but was apparently not much of a site-wide controversy, which makes it off topic topic of this page. A list of MensRights controversies would warrant its own page because (like manboobz) that is a more specific topic. Emarkcd (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed on that doxxing incident, then. Ironlion45 (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The name of the page is "controversial Reddit communities", not "site wide controversy based on reddit communities". By your very definition - this page exists to fill the role of documenting any controversy around specific communities on reddit. The information that has been provided is sourced by multiple sources. I'm fine with the manboobz sources being removed - but I added them because the SPLC sources specifically referenced them. I don't think anyone has an issue with the daily dot being used so far, and they are also used. Countered (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't suppose we could include rebuttals from any of the other web sites on this page about reddit? I'm sure referencing reddit posts itself would not fly, though perhaps we could make an exception if any posts by kloo2yoo were made, since he's actually referenced in the article. The 12th (and last) site on the list published a April 24 2012 rebuttal entitled "SPLC linked to anti men’s rights subreddit" by Robert O'Hara in response to the list, linking the SPLC to efforts made by another subreddit called "ShitRedditSays". Normally we would not consider AVFM's opinion's on the SPLC's treatment of Reddit relevant, save for that they were mutually targetted alongside the subreddit in the same report, making them just as notable as Manboobz. I can't actually LINK to the report, of course, due to the censorship-based blacklisting Wikipedia does. Ranze (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we would want to cite anyone's reddit activity on Wikipedia. Even if he weren't labeled as a conspiracy theorist by the SPLC, his online postings are self-published primary sources, which aren't good for much. See WP:PRIMARY. Breadblade (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Rosc regarding some accusations about some content...
The material you removed was utterly ridiculous, off-topic, intended to promote the subreddit
Which material are you saying was intended to promote it? Specifying which subreddit the SPLC was talking about is not off-topic. Seeing as how the report specified that one of the admins "kloo2yoo" had feminist conspiracy theories, and he is the founder of /r/MensRights, that is clearly the one they are talking about. If we are going to talk about controversial communities in this articles, we should defintiely specify which one it is. Otherwise what should we do, give generalized descriptions that could refer to anything? How do we very that controversial communities even exist without knowing their names?
included prohibited original analysis of reliable sources (clue phrases "without referencing why," "no citation," "there is a contradiction" etc.)
Sometimes I think this whole 'original analysis' concern thing deviates from its core purpose, which is unfounded claims. The report itself is original analysis and not a scholarly work. Are the SPLC scholars now? The report didn't even list an author, an intern could've written it. All we know is that their report produced controversy. We should definitely not present their claims as fact, so wording it neutrally and making a note of the lack of citation (they do not actually link kloo2yoo's 'conspiracy theory' posts) doesn't seem like it's violating the intent of the no OR rule. Ranze (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
'Unrelatedly, but also in this section, I'm not sure Manboobz is considered a reliable source
Agree with you completely about Manboobz not being a reliable source but since the report says:
Another resource is the Man Boobz website (manboobz.com), a humorous pro-feminist blog (its tagline is “Misogyny: I Mock It”) that keeps a close eye on these and many other woman-hating sites.
What I take from that is even though Wikipedia itself should not view Manboobz as reliable, it is noteworthy that whoever wrote this SPLC report claims that it is a resource, as it at least establishes (like the dozen "misogyny sites") a level of notability and infamy by their referencing via the SPLC. Ranze (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
What this comment tells me is that you either don't understand core WP policies like reliable sourcing and no original research or you don't care. Either should result in your holding off editing for at least a while. Please consult those policies so that you understand. (One hint to start you off: the nature of the original research policy is that users can't do research. To suggest that it means no research at all is allowed ever is ludicrous.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what this specific line of conversation has to do with OR concerns, it is about sourcing. My point was that if "SPLC mentions ManBoobz" is reason to cite Manboobz, then "SPLC mentions sites 1-12" would be similar reasoning to cite those of them which also commented on the M:TS report and the reddit targetting in particular, and at least one (AVFM) did so. Ranze (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Emark I'm not sure what you mean about misunderstanding. When I added the "Misogyny: The Sites" title, it was referring to a title of the section of the report, not some kind of collective name adopted by those sites. It is a name collectively used to refer to those sites though, since that is what the report was about. The information you removed WAS detailing the controversy, it was just doing so more thoroughly and in an accurate way that removed misunderstanding that the previous version promoted. As for the 'child custody' info, I restored that info (I believe an IP added it) because it wasn't deleted with an adequate edit summary explaining why. If a little bad info gets deleted alongside a lot of good info (which is the case) with a mocking summary, the whole thing tends to get restored. As for whether or not we need it, it does sorta tie into the whole "the place is multifaceted" observation of Potok.
It is incorrect to suggest the SPLC retracted its statements about the group. Rather, they clarified that they were not designating it a 'hate group', but did not retract any part of their earlier statements.
They redacted part of it, the critical part, in that they are claiming they did not call it a hate group. This conflicts with their earlier summary which, though it did not use the exact phrase "hate group", expressed exactly that. If you call a group's site woman-hating, you are calling that group a hate group, that is inescapable. The confusing detail (to some) about this redaction is they are not making it clear that it is a redaction. Potok is clearly avoiding the issue and pretending this was never insinuated, when it was actually directly declared.
This clarification was only to distinguish their misogyny watch list report from their official "hate group" list
Feel free to point out that it did not make their "official" list, but that doesn't mean they didn't list it as a hate site. If you call a group a hate group and then don't list it as one of your "official" hate groups, you have still called it a hate group.
it is absurd and original to pretend that any place where there are examples of misogyny must also be a hate group.
You can tell that to the SPLC then, because that is specifically where the idea originates, and what spawned the controversy. Misogyny means woman-hating, so if you call something a misogyny site, you're calling it a woman-hating-site, and thus a woman-hating-group. Other phrasing in the report:
  1. The so-called “manosphere” is peopled with hundreds of websites .. dedicated to savaging .. women .. in general
  2. they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express
  3. these .. woman-hating sites
The third comment is strikeable via the "almost all" phrasing which could be said to referring perhaps to the other 11 sites and not the reddit community. But the other 3 are worded to specify that the community is dedicated to savaging women in general, calling them woman-hating sites thick with gutteral hateful misogny. No conclusions were leapt to at all in how they were reacted to or summarized, the language is clear, the reddit community was being called a hate group, in spite of what Potok came back with. Ranze (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Uh, they didn't list it as a hate group. They have a list of hate groups and the site was not on it. No one cares about your etymological observations or your original analysis of the source. Give it a rest. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
They publish multiple lists of hate groups, yes, and I haven't seen it on any of those other reports. But "Misogyny: The Sites" is itself a list of alleged hate groups. It's not their big "end of year" professional-looking one, no, but the wording makes it very clear that it is describing groups listed as hateful. This is not an etymological observation, it really goes beyond the whole "misogyny = hate" thing, because as the above quotes show, they literally say it they are "woman-hating sites". It's not an original analysis, I'm showing directly that the word hate is applied to those 12 web sites. It is arguable that not all 12 of the sites are "groups" (RooshV sounds like 1 guy's blog) but a subreddit certainly is a group of people as well as a site, and it was called "dedicated" to savaging, expressing of "gutteral hatred" and "woman-hating". Though Potok claims that he didn't see these as the 'core purpose', listing them in a group described this way says otherwise. That is why it is a proven redact and not a "clarification". If the truth is going to be kept out of the article about his back-pedaling, the wording should at least be neutral and not suggestive of pure fabrication (that there is no contradition between the report and Potok's statement) because "hate" for "hate", there is a blatent contradiction. Ranze (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
By 'this page' I assume this means the section of the page about the MensRights subreddit and not the page in general (or is /r/niggers also on probation?). I'm kinda wondering how this 1RR stuff applies, there's already been a sequence with a 9-hour gap between first and second. I think things might go more smoothly if there was more co-operation and discussion about details pertaining to content (especially when making accusations like OR) to help clarify to editors why reversions are being repeatedly made. To those who are simply trying to add content from the original references used for this section that was initially omitted, it's frustrating to have to guess at what might be interpreted that way by blanket reverts which remove clearly non-OR things like quoting and section headings. Ranze (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I have blocked Ranze for violating WP:1RR (actually, they did three reverts). Next time someone wants clarification, ask before reverting. However, for everyone's edification, the probation sanctions apply to the MRM section of the article (and any subsections) and this talk page when discussing the MRM.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The "third revert" I am being told was this edit, where I added entirely new content I had never added before and which had never been removed, thus I was not undoing any editor's work in making it... Ranze (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the last edit made by Ranze was not a revert and have struck that part of comment above.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Suicide Lawsuit Hoax

Someone added a description of this to the "Men's Rights Subforum" subsection. Since this incident has no clear connection to that topic, I'm going to assume this was done in error, and was intended to be a part of another subheading or a new subheading entirely. For now, I've removed that information, until someone with the ambition to do so (i.e. whoever added that bit in the first place) gets around to properly adding it wherever it should go. Ironlion45 (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"Since this incident has no clear connection to that topic" according to who? Did you even bother to read the sources? Countered (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly either way right now about removing or keeping it, but I think that this is somewhat less notable than the other two in the section. It was a hoax that took place on the forum, but I'm not sure if it had much of a broad impact based on the limited source material available on the topic. Breadblade (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not all. Aside from that the only notable correlation between the hoaxer and the Men's Rights Subforum is that 'she' called herself a "mensrights sister" once (her topics were not from the subreddit at all), it's also hardly controversial at all (the sources all come from the same one site, and the articles' own ever-handy social media indicator prove they're not hot stuff), and the important line "implicating 2 regular users who gave out the information, and a moderator by the username "quanan"" isn't even in the sources! Either the paragraph is just horribly written and it actually is a major and well-reported issue, or it's simply not notable enough to begin with. Either way, I'm removing what we have now. 86.40.226.93 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You're right, that's my mistake about the moderator. I'm not sure where I read that now. As such, I've removed that part. Countered (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The sources are one thing, but the article does not really explain the connection. It seems a stretch to stick it with the men's rights forum topic. I am not familiar with the incident and after reading the section on it, I am still not informed about it as well. Ironlion45 (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, not my best writing. I'll see if I can make it a bit better. Countered (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I think I agree with this viewpoint. Although the hoax has some connection with the forum since it happened there, I'm not sure what that event really says about the community as a whole besides that they took troll bait. Breadblade (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Rosc removed it here with the requested explanation for why it was removed, which I can see this section relates to. I admit I was a bit confused reading that bit and trying to figure out how it related to the Men's Rights section. Countered's probably right about reading the sources, I haven't read the sources related to the suicide yet, but I guess the point remains that if this is linked to the Men's Rights subsection, the actual expression of those sources should explain why it is there. Perhaps if it does get added back it could be made a subsection much like Creepshots has the "Ethics of outing" subsection? We could potentially do this for the SPLC issues as well. So far in the MR section the SPLC / suicide / doxxing feminist bloggers issues seem 3 pretty distinct ones which are minimally related to one another. Ranze (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that it probably needed its own section, perhaps one about highly effective incidents of trolling or hoaxing that occur on Reddit, and produce sufficient controversy that they warrant mention on this page. The caveat here, however, is if we start an inclusive list of high-profile scams/"trolling"/hoaxes that have occurred on Reddit, this page would become ...significantly longer. Ironlion45 (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It could be minimized by only allowing it for sections which already exist due to being otherwise noteworthy for other events and coverage. That way new sections would not be added solely for scams, but already-controversial communities' newsworthy scams could be discussed. Ranze (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Headers

I've standardized the headers that have to do with specific subreddits by naming them after the subreddits in question, clearing up a mess of dissimilar titles. As I noted in my edit summary, this does place a racist slur in the table of contents and in a header. Other standardization options might be naming the issue in each one rather than naming the subreddit, eg. "child pornography," "racism," "misogyny" (not sure how we would concisely describe some of the others but it's a start). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a wide gap between labelling /r/niggers as "racism" and labelling /r/MensRights as "misogyny". The former is clearly a widely-acknowledged racial slur (of a banned subreddit) while the latter is an unbanned subreddit chastized by (so far as we have listed here) a single web site. I personally would rather stick with your naming scheme of using the actual names. Topic headings could be useful later on if we are grouping discussions of multiple subreddits, but I think if issues are centered around a single named community we might as well use that title. Ranze (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OR specifications

With a lot of continual reverting going on about "original research" I would like to request that anyone who is going to do this to multi-faceted edits please provide more detail about what is being declared OR, and why. It would also be helpful that if there are things done in an edit which you do not consider OR, to leave that stuff be and only remove or alter the material which is object to.

Furthermore, we do have Template:OR or Template:Fact which could be used to tag particular words or sentences, which would not only be a more specific response, but would allow contributors to alter the content or to supply the reference you desire. Removing statements (especially when done amidst the removal of an amount of other content, which confuses the issue and cause) doesn't create that opportunity.

Lacking specific information, I looked at my edits and made this change which I hope is satisfactory. If I am wrong and overlooking some other aspect being called OR, I would like to request discussion of what specifically that is, such as quoting the statement, or tagging it with a template, so that we can be co-operatively constructive and not simply mass-revert edits. This is a blatent baby/bathwater issue, and if's something other than the "based on" part, I would like an explanation for why it's being considered OR which deviates from the evidence within the initial report. Ranze (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The removal of the original research about why people thought the subreddit was a hate group is a step forward, but you're still carrying on this crusade to pretend that Potok might somehow have been unaware that it was indeed secretly named a hate group. I've explained all these issues to you repeatedly, so quit the hand-wringing about how someone could have just tagged the material which violated policy. You already knew that you should not have added it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The supplement the replies I made on my talk page about this:
The removal of the original research about why people thought the subreddit was a hate group is a step forward
One that would have been made easier had you simply removed that content alone and specified why, instead of reverting a bunch of other content along with it and calling the entire thing OR, which was false.
you're still carrying on this crusade to pretend that Potok might somehow have been unaware that it was indeed secretly named a hate group
No, I'm not. People can make up their own minds about that. I just want our language to be neutral here. Your use of "clarify" is not neutral. It's your own point of view that he was engaged in clarification, and not a matter of fact supported by the references. You seem to be engaged in some strange speculation about some message you think I'm trying to send, and it's just not true. The introduction of "claim" or other verbs is not "original research", it is neutralization of language, and NPOV. How is using neutral language a crusade? If it is, I think it's one that falls within Wikipedia policies. Analyzing statements and calling them 'clarification' (or oppositely, 'obfuscation') is not something we should be doing here. We should be neither affirming nor denying statements. Ranze (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, "claim" is not at all considered neutral (WP:CLAIM). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Apparently claim means something different to me than it does to most people do. To me it means something neutral. I guess it's similar to how I use "use" neutrally but it means something suggestive to others. I'll concede that point then, I'm not particularly attached to it and was merely using it because of the catchy C/C alliteration for discussing the issue. Suggestions for neutral language there include said, stated which would fit well here. Clarify was not among those I read which were "almost always neutral and accurate". Clarify is a loaded term, much like "explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed" just as "noted, observed" are also loaded. Clarify is a much more loaded term IMO than claim. Claim may have socialized implications, but clarify has inherent implications. Can we settle on said/stated then? Ranze (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Quote dichotomy

Currently there is something amiss with how we are presenting quotes about the SPLC debackle. Aug 22 I added direct quotes from the original report. I believe I properly abided by WP:Quote because they were set off by quotation marks as well as the additional formatting element of italics. What was added:

It collectively described the twelve "Misogyny" (hatred or dislike of women or girls) groups listed as "woman-hating sites" which were "dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women, very typically American women, in general" and that almost all were "thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express".

Is there anything inaccurate about these quotes or how I presented them? Any injections to my restoring them to the section? I want to know if someone is disputing the veracity.

I did end up paraphrasing these a bit later on, in something which I removed in agreement with Rosc's unspecified OR objections:

(based on the it being described as "woman-hating", expressing "guttural hatred" and "dedicated to savaging feminists and women")

The reason I think that was wrong isn't so much due to the shortening, but more-so due to the 'based on'. Although it's a simple assumption that the hatred-based accusations in the original report are what led to people saying it was labeling hate-sites, I suppose we can never truly know what led to rumors. Maybe it came out of thin air, maybe it was people trying to lie.

Regardless of what founded the rumors though, these are very critical quotes from the report to include. Right now, all we have in the section is saying:

"the subreddit propagates conspiracy theories about feminism and demonstrates anger towards programs that help women"

This statement is first, misrepresenting one point. The report never claimed the 'subreddit' "propagated" conspiracies, rather it claimed it "trafficked" in them, which is different. Propagating something is creating and nurturing it, while trafficking something is merely transporting it. It went on to clarify that Kloo2yoo wrote about a conspiracy, so (since he's a founder and moderator) the subreddit merely 'trafficked' his idea by him communicating that idea. To upgrade 'traffick' into 'propogate' is not a neutral representation of the SPLC's claims.

This statement is also only emphasizing a comparatively minor point. The statement about programs (actually "any" programs is what the report said) is almost inconsequential. Focusing on that is implying that THIS is the reason people were accusing the SPLC of being hateful.

A much more critical thing to describe, rather than the accusation of hating woman-focused programs, is the above quotes, where it calls all the sites (including the subreddit) woman-hating, misogynistic (same thing), and expressing hatred. Why are we omitting these details and presenting a lesser accusation? It is a biased way to represent the report, painting it as less inflammatory than it really is by focusing on lesser elements. By not representing their "these .. woman-hating sites" statement, we are omitting something with a clear connection to the rumors of hate-site classification.

We quote Potok's "we did not list it as a hate group" as gospel and not the actual report itself. The report which caused the controversy is more important to present than the RESPONSE to the controversy. Potok's rebuttal and the almost inconsequential May "provoked a tremendous response" statement from the SPLC are second-tier observations. We're supposed to be writing about the controversy itself primarily here. I don't suggest omitting Potok's March rebuttal or the SPLC's May overview, but if we're going to be listing them, if we're going to be listing minor 'they're angry about programs that benefit women' type stuff, we should also be listing how the introduction of the report alleged the site was a "woman-hating" one. Ranze (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I simply included the material that related specifically to the subreddit. I have no problem including some of the material from the opening of the article as long as it is clear that the quotes do not refer specifically to the subreddit. Re "propagate," your idiolect evidently uses it differently than mine, in which it means "spread." Let's get the input of other users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, I don't see anything wrong with "said" or "stated," but there's also no problem with "clarify" since the statement is verifiably true. I'm tired of your conspiracy theory about the article secretly being a hate group list. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point. It might be fair to put in a blurb that gives the SPLC's position on the sites listed in general, since that might better clarify what it means to be on that list. Breadblade (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
"clarify" is not verifiably true, so I will replace it with 'said' which we have agreed upon is neutral. This is not a 'conspiracy theory'. There is no secret here. The language of the report makes it clear it is talking about hatred, to say 'clarify' is lying. It's concession enough that I'm not pointing this out. I will include a reference from the Huffington Post showing how media sources concluded that it was hate-categorizing. Ranze (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The first quotes seemed problematic to me because they pull rhetorical language from the original article, which (to my understanding) can be a backdoor method of introducing a non-neutral treatment of the subject. It also seemed unnecessary to include a definition of misogyny. I don't agree that "propagate" and "traffic" have entirely different meanings, but it wouldn't bother me too much if we changed "propagates" to "traffics in" in the article. About half of the short "Reddit: Mens Rights" section from the article talks abut the conspiracy theories. so I'm not convinced that we are giving it undue weight by mentioning it in passing. I don't have any strong attachment to the Potok quote, in fact I removed it in the past for being over-long when it was included in its entirety. However, based on the widely varying interpretations people seem to have of this statement, it might not be a bad idea to have it there. Breadblade (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
How is the language rhetorical? I'm glad we concur about there being no harm in using the original "traffic" terminology. I am not opposed to the mention of conspiracy theories, my problem is that we can be more specific (the report names a person they accuse of making the theorizes, the reddit co-founder). If we're going to present Potok's quote, we should present the original language he is making denials about, so I'm adding it back. Ranze (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I kept quotes like "thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express" intact in my previous edit in an attempt to compromise, but they are not written in the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. It's also not necessary (or appropriate, probably) to spell out conspiracy theories in detail in a Wikipedia article (see WP:Fringe). The user mentioned in the article is not a reddit co-founder, the addition of the material about Manboobz seems irrelevant and the introductory segment needs work, as it's bare bones and doesn't have any reliable secondary sources. Also be sure not to continue to violate this article's WP:1RR probation, since it appears that you have been blocked for violating them in the past. Breadblade (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Spacedicks section

Not particularly attached to it, but I found the removal slightly... accelerated. Posting contents here for review:

The subreddit /r/Spacedicks features images of physical deformities, unusual pornography, and mutilated or dead bodies. Its images are often used to troll unsuspecting people. In its comment section, users write in capital letters and frequently use variations of the word "faggot". Writing in Vice, Drew Millard describes the subreddit as "an objectively disgusting space".(ref)Drew Millard (August 2012). "REDDIT'S SPACEDICKS SECTION IS THE INTERNET'S ACTUAL ASSHOLE". Vice. Retrieved 28 August 2013.(/ref)

It did have a source (Vice magazine) so if the sourcing was sparse, if notability seemed dubious, rather than deleting it, should we not have tagged it appropriately asking for further sourcing? Ranze (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Several communities on reddit contain objectionable content due to the nature of the platform, so that by itself probably isn't particularly notable. The one source didn't seem to detail any controversies involving that place either. Breadblade (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Frivolous

This is a rather frivolous article. I propose we delete it. Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Dramatica. The stuff about Anderson Cooper and /r/jailbait can just go on the main article for reddit.com 99.90.64.88 (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree since much of this material is well sourced, seems to meet notability guidelines and/or has already passed previous deletion discussions, but you could peruse WP:DEL-REASON if you want to make an argument for deleting the entire article on policy grounds. However if you think there are subsections of this article that should be removed or pared down I might agree, this article should avoid becoming a catch-all for any and all controversies involving reddit. Breadblade (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


I totally agree, since most of the materially is actually terribly sourced and as far as I can see does not meet notability guidelines.

Gawker, "manboobs," possibly other bad sources

How exactly is an article about Gawker's unethical reporting on a website sourced to Gawker? Does Gawker qualify as a valid news source at all? A metal shard (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Out of the 60 citations in this article, Gawker comprises three of them, and there cases are backed up by at least one additional source. Breadblade (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Influx of new/IP editors

This page has been linked to on the subreddit /r/mensrights: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/20hlzk/wikipedia_controversial_reddit_communities/

This is likely the cause of the numerous edits and additions to this page recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.121.177 (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of the SPLC

SPLC Never designated /r/mensrights as a hate group, they have even stated this themselves.

Frankly, this repeated dogmatic reversion after amending the wiki to be more factual is disturbing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversial_Reddit_communities&diff=599863607&oldid=599847232

I'm going to put back the edits I made previously, and if anyone thinks they are out of order please bring it up here before reverting yet again. There is no reason to not clarify that the SPLC did not designate the mens rights movement as a hate group. 92.237.240.175 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the existing text was unclear; we didn't state that SPLC called them a hate group and we also stated already that they were not. I'd be fine with removing the "Outlets such as HuffPo" sentence, but these additions is protesting too much. By the way, you are way over the bright-line for edit warring; I haven't bothered to report these people because I've been hoping the page will be protected, but if you keep on your agenda-motivated edit warring and no one shows up to protect the page, you bet I will.
The part I'm more concerned with is the cherry-picked quote from the SPLC's other article. Looking at how we discuss it, you'd think it was all about the SPLC making sure no one thought the sites were that bad, right? But that's completely wrong; the article reaffirms the misogyny of the sites! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I personally am happy with the suggestion to simply remove the HuffPo sentence. That was the main cause of my grievance. Good compromise. For the record, the SPLC only points out incidents of what they interpret as misogyny from some individuals in the group. This is an extremely unfair leap of logic to say that the group is misogynist when all that has been reported is that some members might have said some things that to someone somewhere sounded misogynistic. The fact remains that SPLC never called it a hate group. I'll remove the line about HuffPo's interpretation. 92.237.240.175 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that the previous version of this article (the one that was around before /r/mensrights flooded the page with IP editors) was being unfair in how it laid out the facts. From my understanding, the SPLC report was pretty critical of /r/mensrights, and news outlets latched onto the story thinking mensrights had been labeled a hate group. Later the Daily Dot asked them about it, and they said it fell short of inclusion as a hate group. This is not an endorsement from the SPLC, or a retraction of their earlier criticism of the site. Nowhere did the article say "The SPLC designated /r/mensrights as a hate group," I'm seeing a big knee-jerk reaction from members of the subreddit trying to defend the place's reputation on wikipedia. That said, I'm going to see if I can put in a compromise edit that will (neutrally) note that HuffPo was later proven wrong without pretending this controversy never happened. Breadblade (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the first thing I attempted to do. I thought it was succint and factual but it was still reverted within minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversial_Reddit_communities&diff=599758765&oldid=599757715 92.237.240.175 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The Huffington Post was not actually proven wrong, though. The SPLC saying they never labelled a site a hate group doesn't mean they actually didn't. To conclude that HuffPo was wrong is OR. If another source voices an objection to HuffPo and that source is notable, we can cite their counter-analysis, of course. Ranze (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I already elaborated on why I reverted that edit...which seems to have been ignored. However, I reverted it due to its non-neutral language according to WP:NPOV. If you want to blame me for reverting the edit, you'd be right in doing so, as it indeed was me. "This flawed interpretation" signifies that the sentence preceding it is totally wrong, which is a contradiction and has no place for an encylopedia. However, seeing as someone with an IP address edited the full quote in which tends to make the next few sentences redundant, do you consider that reasonable in terms of your original complaint? Ging287 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
There was no contradiction - the first sentence described an interpretation made and the next clarified that the previous interpretation was incorrect. In terms of the wiki, there was no contradiction. Both the fact that the Huffington Post interpreted it in that way and the fact that their interpretation was incorrect are both valid and factual statements. The next few sentences were not redundant - they went into further detail on the issue, but the previous sentence left as it was gave the impression that HuffPo's interpretation was correct. Also I did not realise that having an IP rendered an edit invalid - a special kind of ad hominem perhaps? 92.237.240.175 (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Wrong 92.327, your claim that HuffPo's interpretation was incorrect is NOT "factual", it's OR, and not appropriate here. HuffPo and similar 'hate group' conclusions is clearly what sparked SPLC's denial of the accusations without actually addressing their choice of language in the report. Ranze (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply or indicate that the specific IP user's edits are not constructive. But as to refer to the user that made the edit, and not have to snipe their IP address and type it out here. (Plus I'm on a mobile device atm.) Nonetheless, I think you're misunderstanding me. The text that you added "This flawed interpretation turned out to be incorrect" negates the preceding sentence. That was my overall complaint. The quote I'm referring to is, "We wrote about the subreddit Mens Rights, but we did not list it as a hate group" and expressed doubt that the SPLC would ever designate the community as a hate group, noting that "it's a diverse group, which certainly does include some misogynists—but I don't think that's [its basic] purpose." My question was intending to ask you whether you consider that specific quote which was an addendum as a means of sating your original complaint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ging287 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Well look, I don't really feel like spending hours on this, but you should realise that on a page detailing controversy there may be contradictions in interpretation and simply stating both doesn't render either pointless. If anything it is more important to include flawed interpretation in the media and also to include the real intent behind it. 92.237.240.175 (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I cannot express enough how much I disagree with that statement. Wikipedia is not "the media". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are not tabloids, which is how you are treating it. And also, you speak of "there may be contradications in interpretations", but that's a moot point if those contradicting interpretations are not all represented. There is no "contradicting interpretation" if this interpretation isn't displayed to the public.Koen23468 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the Huffington post when I said "media". There was no contradiction in terms of the wiki page, nor was it a moot point. Drawing attention to a contradiction away from the wiki itself is still valuable to the wiki. And by the way, having noted your other discussion here, please refrain from using me as a tool to show that you are neutral. 92.237.240.175 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
92.237, unless you can supply some sort of proof that the SPLC did not describe these communities as hate groups, I don't see why we should include such a claim here. Good luck with proving a negative here. We already acknowledge that the SPLC deny calling it a hate group. Denial is not evidence that something wasn't done though. If anything, it serves as evidence that whatever was said, some parties reading the report somehow got the impression that 'hate group' was being communicated by the report. Or, if someone did not get that impression and was merely making up the accusation to start an argument, they at least found the report to be grey enough that they could make a convincing attempt with the idea.
While it is true that the exact phrase "hate group" did not appear in the report, it appeared in a "Hate and Extremism" report, and says "these... women-hating sites". In this case a "site" is effectively as group (composed of the people who contribute to and possibly read the site) so it's effectively saying a "women-hating group". You don't have to use the actual phrase "hate group" to call someone a hate group any more than I need to say "liar!" to call someone a liar (I could call them a fibber, dishonest, etc). We live in a word of synonyms or, in this case, conjugated verbs.
As it is, the article doesn't really go far enough in pointing out that Potok was clearly lying in the denial, as the report explicitly calls all the sites on the list "women-hating" and therefore hate groups. It's currently "neutral" (ie standoffish) enough that it states the language used in the report, the denial, and lets people make up their own minds. Ranze (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Detail on the doxxing section of the r/mensrights subsection

I had previously edited the section on the doxxing event. The way was written then (and is again now, due to the revert) made it seem as if the gathering and making public of this person's private information was the doing of member of the subreddit only, which is not the case.

For those not aware, Reddit is a site where you link to existing webpages to gather attention for them. Reddit does not have publications, it links to existing publications. As is the case with this post. Claiming members of this subreddit "published" this information is not correct. The wording should be changed to reflect the fact that this was information they found elsewhere. It cannot be proven that members of the subreddit gathered and published this information and therefor, phrasing it in such a way that one could be lead to believe that they did, is a form of choosing sides. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias do not take sides.

If you read the source articles, the threat from the admin was due to the fact that the moderators from the subreddit did not remove the link. Not because they believed members of the subreddit gathered it. Reddit has a policy against posting personal information and the moderators were berated for leaving the link up.

This is also the case for the line describing that the wrong woman had been identified. Saying "They" had been harassing her, while previously only speaking of "members of the subreddit", makes it sound, once again, like only those people were responsible, which cannot be proven.

I suggest changing these lines, in order to make the description less biased:

"In April 2013, the subreddit was threatened with a shutdown by the Reddit admins when members of the subreddit released information"

To

"In April 2013, the subreddit was threatened with a shutdown by the Reddit admins when the subreddit did not remove a link to personal information"

And

"Later on it was discovered that they had identified the wrong woman"

To

"Later on it was discovered that the wrong woman had been identified" Koen23468 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The way this source described it, users were digging for and sharing that user's personal information within the subreddit's comment thread, and the subreddit nearly got banned because the moderators were instructing users on how to skirt the 'no-doxing' rule. It is possible that other websites were attempting to 'dox' this person at the same time, but this article is centered on reddit communities. Breadblade (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Breadblade took the words out of my mouth - I was just going by what the sources said and have no personal knowledge of the incident, but I would also have suggested the possibility that this information was posted in comments, where people can write things - and looking at the Reddit thread, this does appear to be the case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Reading the sources and the reddit threads linked within, there is a single screenshot of a mod having removed a comment and one of the links leads to deleted content. So, it can be said there were people on the subreddit releasing the information, but it was removed by the mods. The shutdown threat came after mods were giving people hints on how to bypass those rules, as written in reference 43. So, the first line should actually be: "In April 2013, the subreddit was threatened with a shutdown by the Reddit admins when the subreddit moderators were giving people hints on how to by-pass the rules against doxxing.". The second line is still incorrect, as the identification linked was a copy-pasted several times and no clear source can be determined, especially after the mods removed comments containing it. Side note: reference 42 and 44 are exactly the same link. Shouldn't that be one reference to 42?Koen23468 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've attempted to update the 'doxxing incident' segment to reflect that the admin threat was in response to the moderator's attempt to skirt the site's rules about personal information, in addition to the behavior the mods were responding to. Also, I got rid of the duplicate source. Breadblade (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Section Blanking after Article is linked by r/mensrights

Yesterday, a link to this article was posted on r/mensrights and later in the day the entire section on r/mensrights was section blanked without reasoning WP:BLANK

This article may need protecting again if the subreddit makes further attempts to vandalise this page --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you already request semi protection? Want me to be the one that does it? Ging287 (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to wait and see if they made any further attempts first, but a week or so of semi-protection would save me the headache of policing the article, thank you --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Generally, semi protected requests are usually denied unless there is persistent vandalism. After a few more vandalistic edits, I'm sure the reviewing admin would grant it. For one? I'd doubt it. I'm gonna hold off. But indeed, if you see a barrage of vandalistic edits, go ahead and request semi protection. Ging287 (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought as much. I have the page on my Watchlist anyway so I'll wait and see if further vandalism occurs and then report it myself --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I dispute DIL's conclusion that simply because a link to the article was posted on the site that it necessarily means "the subreddit" is the one making the attempts. People subscribed to /r/MensRights (or who advocate for it) are not necessarily the only people who read the reddit. Those who oppose the reddit (such as some members of SRSsucks or /r/feminism) also monitor it and might vandalize the page to (1) combat it from becoming notable (2) make it seem like someone from the community did the vandalism to make them look bad. Ranze (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
While that is possible, I do think the tone of the post in question did encourage canvassing --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Fairly certain after reading the source provided and looking into what is discussed that this was posted to prove a point. Closing as this as it is [[WP:NOTFORUM|off topic. If you want to discuss r/shitredditsays further please use an actual forum. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)}}

You spend nearly all of your time arguing over r/mensrights without spending any energy whatsoever on r/srs or the various subreddits that post pictures of gruesome deaths and dead children? As if extremist claims over supposed misogyny are somehow so important that anything else simply isn't controversial enough to be worth mentioning? Have you thought about getting over your fucking agenda and actually doing a neutral article, or better yet, deleting this article altogether? 50.186.0.86 11:00, 12 May 2014‎

If the press write stories on the mensrights subreddit (such as in the case of the doxing and fake rape report spam) and the Southern Poverty Law Center feels the need to list them as a hate website then they are notable to be included in this article as long as it exists. This article isn't bad subreddits, it's controversial ones. There are other controversial subreddits on here also. Would you really suggest deleting the whole article or is that just to get rid of the bits you WP:JDL? Are the jailbait and creepshots subreddits not extreme enough for you either? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not necessary that we're omitting them. We're not. However, reliable sources state that the men's rights subreddit is controversial. That's the deciding factor. If you were to bring forth reliable sources stating that /srs is controversial, it'll be considered per its weight in sources. We can't commit original research, so even if the vast majority of people consider the gore subreddits or something other to be controversial, unless it's covered in a reliable source, we can't include it. I'd be happy to hear of any possible additions that you might add. Or you could be bold and attempt to add it yourself. Tutelary (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Uh, what? The article has several sections besides the one on /r/mensrights. If you think something needs to be added to the article, make an edit. Breadblade (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
We could also discuss potential references here and whether or not a section is warranted prior to actually doing so. I noticed in a cursory search this petition, but I'm not sure if petitions alone are notable or if a paper has to report on them for it to count. SRS is mentioned in 2012 in a March and October article but I'm not sure how DailyDot stacks up in terms of notable media references. Ranze (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think an online petition is considered a reliable source, unless it is covered elsewhere. The Daily Dot is probably fine though. Coverage of the place seems pretty limited either way, those sources seem to indicate that it was controversial within reddit but not really well-known beyond the site itself. Breadblade (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

SRS notability

Using Template:Find sources I found some thing worth discussing...

As long as it is a reliable source, which it appears just at first glance, whether it was 'published' or not is not of relevance. Tutelary (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It's neither published nor subject to any sort of editorial control, at best it is a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. Breadblade (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It would be lucky to be considered WP:QUESTIONABLE, I read it and applying it to say that the subreddit is controversial would be WP:SYNTH as it pretty much just celebrates them as being anti-sexism and anti-racism. Either way, I looked into it and it seems r/mensrights don't like r/shitredditsays very much as they tend to go through the subreddit and post sexist and racist comments from it. I'm fairly sure this is part of an online rivalry of some sort and probably inappropriate for the talk page --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't have too much experience with the reddit community but isn't SRS (shitredditsays) a meta-subreddit that discusses content on the website rather than one that hopes to have greater cultural influence like the mensrights subreddit? I really can't imagine them being controversial outside of the website and not enough to warrant a section in the article unless they contributed towards a notable doxing incident. I don't think we should include them for the sake of tokenism (which I believe is what the editor was discussing). That said, we could discuss their role in revealing these controversies and preventing the distribution of child pornography on the website --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
We're not going to interpret or commit original research by attempting to decipher the differences between the two. (Though I acknowledge it doesn't apply to talk pages.) The ultimate indicator on whether to include something in this list (from what I've seen) is for reliable sources to describe the subreddit as controversial, and include an event that that subreddit has done. I will be the first to say that we shall stick to what the sources say. Drowninginlimbo, this article is about controversial subreddit communities, for whatever reasoning. Nonetheless, if you do provide the reliable sources that say such, it will be considered given its due weight. Tutelary (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Well yeah, but it's difficult to discuss changes without contextualising the subject, and the policies are mostly just guidelines for the construction of articles. What I'm saying is, there probably won't be many sources concerning SRS being controversial because it doesn't have the outreach to be so. Maybe the article is a reliable source, but even so, I read through it, and it doesn't call SRS controversial, it just discusses its role on the website, and explains that the subreddit discusses sexist and racist content on the website --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ranze:, given the fact that the source that you stated actually gave praise to them, do you have any other sources as to dictate this subreddit as controversial, and give its due weight into the article? Tutelary (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
TBH I did not thoroughly read what the paper said about the community, rather just that it was being discussed. I suppose even if mention in a paper established notability of a community, it might not establish the notability of any controversiality. Ranze (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
So then, of course, we can't include srs in this list due to the lack of reliable sources documenting them. Tutelary (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't close the discussion

Just because you two have decided that it's not worthy is not a rough consensus on this article. I am assuming good faith in this instance and I think that closing the discussion per [{WP:FORUM]] when it is clearly relevant as it's discussing its addition is somewhat disruptive and is biting the newcomers. We should educate on why it's not acceptable, rather than just closing the discussion prematurely, after one day. Tutelary (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Er, where did it say it was being closed? I'm just thinking replying might have trailed off a bit. Usually it's 'review' type stuff that gets closed, talk pages do not close. Unless maybe it's a move/delete one, but not about overall content. Ranze (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ranze:, Drowninginlimbo closed the discussion per WP:FORUM which I believe was done in haste and is bitey to the newcomers, as well as out of place. Tutelary (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah now I see it. Looks like there were some template-closing squiggly brackets at the end but not the start. Gotta concur that I don't think it's off-topic, disussing the notability of any reddit community that could qualify for the article is on-topic. Ranze (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure they are being disruptive. They suggested that we delete the entire article because they WP:JDL one section of it and then submitted a source that they hadn't even read as proof of r/shitredditsays as being controversial (despite it not saying that in the slightest). I personally think their actions are WP:DIS and WP:NPOV but if you think they have an argument you are welcome to support it yourself --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused at this point, where/who suggested deleting the entire CRC article rather than just 1 section? Ranze (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It is in the first message of this thread: "Have you thought about getting over your fucking agenda and actually doing a neutral article, or better yet, deleting this article altogether?" --31.205.21.96 (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

New possible inclusion - r/beatingwomen

It seems that Reddit banned one of the less excusably misogynistic subreddits.

[1] - Reddit bans infamous forum about beating women

Daily Dot is a good source for this. What does everybody think about including it? --31.205.21.96 (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have put in a short section summarizing this source and a complementary one as best as I could. It looks like there are some older sources that cover the subreddit as well, so it's possible that my addition could be fleshed out some more. Breadblade (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted 3 edits in this edit due to the fact that the source does not state 30 users, nor the story of the user uploading the image, nor the comments by the users. I'm not doubting it, but it needs a source to not be original research. Tutelary (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This source used in the relevant place in the article [2] specifically states "more than 30 redditors implored TheContortionist to send the photographs to them via personal message. (It is impossible to attach files via Reddit messages, so if any material was exchanged, the files in question would never have been posted on Reddit proper.)"
This one in the article [3] states "over 1,000 new subscribers over the weekend." "Cooper’s significant reporting arsenal seemed to have misfired"
Have I missed something? I am assuming good faith. As far as I can tell sources back up what I stated perfectly. Freikorp (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Who were the 'commentators' in that regard, then? The only people 'commenting' that it failed was DailyDot, and that should be clarified. If Daily Dot said it in that regard, then we should attribute it. To the other point, the reason why I reverted is because the statements didn't have a source behind them, even if they were there. After these news reports, a Reddit user uploaded an image of a underage girl and subsequently claimed to also have naked images of the girl, which prompted over 30 other users to request said images be sent to them via personal message. should have had this citation added to the end of it. For the other two points on 30 people and 1000 new subscribers, no longer contesting. Additionally, Though it is not possible to sent pictures on Reddit by personal message, other needs a source citation for that end of it. Tutelary (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC
The 1,000 subscriber boost seems small compared to the 1.73 million user traffic spike mentioned in the article (and not really significant considering the place was banned a week later). It also seems misleading to claim that pictures cannot be shared on reddit, when image sharing comprises a huge portion of the activity on the site. Pictures featured on reddit are always external links--there is no upload option via private message, but there isn't an upload option anywhere else, either. The other part of your edit seems fine to me, I'll see if I can put it back in. Breadblade (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Article name

Came across the article via the the afd and wonder about the article name. In most cases, it's the controversy that was notable rather than the community. That a creepshots community exists may be controversial in its own right, but not that a MensRights community exists. Men's Rights is certainly a controversial cause and plenty of controversies have transpired there, but unlike creepshots or jailbait the controversy isn't over its mere existence. And certainly /r/technology is not a "controversial community," but a community in/for which there has been controversy. Perhaps it's already been discussed and I missed it, but wouldn't a name like Reddit controversies, List of Reddit controversies (with formatting changes), or something more general if there's more that could be included like Social impact of Reddit be more fitting? --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure this concern is warranted. This isn't Reddit communities whose existence is controversial. /r/mensrights is controversial, regardless of whether or not a hypothetical men's rights subreddit that wasn't 100% misogyny would be controversial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. The article title indicates it's about Reddit communities that are controversial rather than controversies. It's not an article about communities formed around controversial subjects (even though many are, MensRights included) because half of Reddit is formed around controversial subjects (all kinds of pornography, religion, politics, and so on). The reason some of them are covered, along with communities that aren't about controversial subjects at all (like /technology), is because the article is actually about the controversies themselves (which is not what the title says). --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It could be possible to rename the article "Controversies involving reddit" to match the new name of the controversies section on the 'Reddit' article, but unless the article were restructured it would still be organized by subreddit (media coverage seems to zero in on specific subreddits where controversies take root). Organizing by controversy would help sections like /r/technology fit better, but that one a bit of an outlier either way. Breadblade (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why it couldn't still be organized by subreddit as a neat approximation of subject-based sections if there's consensus for it, but at least if it were about controversies the controversy concerning /technology would make sense at all. --— Rhododendrites talk |  17:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
What about "Reddit community controversies"? "Reddit controversies" is also fine. The current name does seem to be a bit imprecise. It makes the existence of the communities sound controversial; this is generally true, but there are exceptions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, in the current version of the article /r/technology is really the only example of a case where we're discussing a controversy in a relatively "uncontroversial" subreddit. In fact, if /r/technology isn't a controversial reddit community, what is it doing in this article? If we do go ahead with the name change, I would like it to mirror the appropriate section in the Reddit article ("Controversies Involving Reddit"). An easy way to reformat it for now would be to keep the sections for controversial subreddits as is and then add one or more sections for additional types of controversies. My main reservation is this could make the scope of the article too broad and potentially bog it down with frivolous reddit controversies. Breadblade (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one who posted the AfD - my main issue is that the term 'controversial' is highly subjective - who defines what is controversial in these cases? The second issue is, as Rhododendrites pointed out, that issues in these subreddits do not equate the subreddits themselves. The subreddits are simply the medium on which these controversial topics were posted. So, for example, while men's rightsin general *may* be controversial, an entire forum dedicated to the issue cannot be labeled controversial, as all the posts contained therein are not controversial in nature, (or controversial to everyone). Why not delete the article and move the sections to their related articles? For instance any controversies relating to reddit and the Men's Rights Movement could just be posted in the later's article, if it isn't already. Zambelo; talk 23:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, there is already a discussion going on at AfD about deletion for which rather strong consensus is emerging to keep. No need to engage it here as well. What are your thoughts on renaming, though? --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible Inclusion: /r/picsofdeadkids

This is really controversial, and should be included. It shows pictures of dead kids. 181.55.175.229 (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Got a source saying that the subreddit is controversial? Tutelary (talk) 12
58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.dailydot.com/society/reddit-beatingwomen-misogyny-images/ Here's one Weedwacker (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Doxxing Spelling

The term "doxxing" is spelled both as "doxxing" and as "doxing." Shouldn't this be consistent? 208.105.193.106 (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

/r/MensRights and Gawker

@Roscelese: @Parabolist: @PeterTheFourth: I am vexed by the accusations you all have seen fit to levy in reverting my edits. Since none of you sought to open any kind of discussion, I am doing it now.

Gawker is not a reliable source, except for its own opinions (I left in sourcing of Chen's allegations re /r/jailbait for this reason). The criticism (not labelled explicitly as such, but accompanying most if not all of the notable "content" items discussed) on their own WP page provides ample evidence of a lack of commitment to fact-checking, as well as an emphasis placed on stirring controversy and attracting page clicks. The unreliability of Gawker has been discussed before at RSN, over many years, and as far as I can tell the opinion has never been positive.

But even beyond that, they have a clear vested interest in denigrating Reddit, given the fallout of the /r/jailbait incident (Gawker seems to view this as a victory; they are to some extent in competition with Reddit as the latter is used as a place to share and propagate news stories; and regular users of either or both sites will note that there is no love lost between the two among commenters).

I asked about my removal on BLP grounds at BLP/N and my decision was explicitly endorsed there.

Which brings us to removal of content discussing the "misogyny" of /r/MensRights. Previous discussion on this talk page has consistently come down against discussion of the "toxicity" of /r/ShitRedditSays, with the claim that it probably could not be reliably sourced. Recently, when someone found actually reliably-sourced information supporting this claim and tried to add it, it was challenged and removed as "not a controversy". The editor commented that the same logic would apply to the /r/MensRights section I removed, and then the /r/ShitRedditSays material was removed again, again claiming it was "not a controversy". I am left asking: if a third-party opinion that a community is "toxic" does not constitute controversy, why should a third-party opinion that the community is "misogynistic"? How is there any difference there? Surely it's not simply because the SPLC clarified their statement (misinterpretations happen all the time), and surely it's not because the community protested the label (who wouldn't?). This is unlike the other allegations made against the /r/MensRights community, since it is only talking about attitudes attributed to them, rather than actions. (This whole situation is doubly absurd to me given that /r/ShitRedditSays and the related community appear to be primarily responsible for propagation - and misrepresentation - of the SPLC claims in question.)

At any rate, I would like to request an apology from the editors I pinged for those edit summaries. I am indeed serious about my changes, and do not appreciate the dismissiveness of being questioned on this in lieu of an actual justification for reverting. I am not engaging in "pointy vandalism"; to do so would require my edits to be vandalism, and my edits are backed by policy and good-faith reasoning and logic. I am not pushing a POV; I am removing an unreliable source for points where it is unreliable, attempting to apply a consistent standard across the page for what material counts as "controversial" (the opposite of POV, as far as I can tell), and upholding BLP. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
if a third-party opinion that a community is "toxic" does not constitute controversy, why should a third-party opinion that the community is "misogynistic"? - Uh, this actually is a pretty straightforward example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I have no opinion on ShitRedditSays, but there's no equivalence between the pre-eminent hate watchdog group in the US and a guy doing a research project in his spare time; disqualifying the sources on SRS wouldn't automatically entail disqualifying the sources on MRAs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a compelling argument to blank the SPLC section. This all seems awfully WP:POINTy to me. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a well-known authority on hate groups, and they wrote a piece on /r/mensrights which sparked off a controversy. That's a lot more significant than earning a "toxicity" score on some unknown researcher's computer program. The section should be restored. As for the BLP issue in the lede, I can see the issue with sourcing and think it should be rewritten (or stay removed). Breadblade (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I was unclear. My argument regarding the SPLC section is not about the quality of sourcing, but about having a consistent definition of "controversial". 74.12.93.177 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

/r/fatpeoplehate

/r/fatpeoplehate is a subreddit where users post pictures of fat people (usually young women) taken from their facebook pages without their permission, or candid photos taken on the street, to be ridiculed. It has become a massively popular subreddit and many people have complained about their photos being posted there without their permission and finding candid photos of themselves taken without their knowledge and posted on the subreddit.

Also, a user named always2late2 posted a plea for help and a picture of herself on a subreddit for suicidal people called /r/suicidewatch and her picture was taken and posted on /r/fatpeoplehate which resulted in the user taking her own life. https://i.imgur.com/A6ORPlL.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1380:1345:8466:7AE9:229B:CB50 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have WP:reliable sources for that? The source above isn't RS and doesn't mention the person took her life. Regardless of what happened this could have been a factor in the recent ban so if there are reliable sources reporting this connection it probably should be in the article. (If the sources only mention the controversy but are from before the ban it's possible we should mention it as well without making any link but that's less clear and would probably require more discussion.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

'Users' or 'Mens rights activists'

Hi LLefleur. Why do you believe that this sentence "Around 400 false rape accusations were made by men's rights activists against members of the college, feminists, and fictional people" should have 'men's rights activists' replaced with 'users', contrary to our sources? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 10:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not LLefleur and I don't know if that user has the same reasoning, but I could see the argument that these people are not "activists." My issue with "users" is that it's unclear whether it refers to users of the "men's rights" forum or users of the Occidental College website. Can we agree on a third option of some kind? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing. 'users of the men's rights forum' would be fine (albeit clunky)- any usage which flies close to representing the sources accurately is good by me. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

/r/fatpeoplehate

Any reason (apart from edit filters) not to list the 5 subreddits that were banned? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC).

 Done All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC).

Most toxic, most bigoted subreddits

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC).

Unreliable sources?

@JacktheHarry: Which sources? If we know which ones you mean, we can discuss and potentially remove/replace them. But this article also has many good sources, and it's not clear what you are referring to. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing this tag for now; it's not obvious which sources need improvement and they haven't come by the talk page to elaborate. Breadblade (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Request: To rename "Controversial Reddit communities" to "Controversial subreddits"

The term "Subreddit" is used to refer to Reddit communities. Therefore, I propose that the name of the article should be renamed to "Controversial subreddits" as the title is simplified. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: consider using a move request to increase visibility. I'm indifferent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

SRS

Question - why is SRS not included in this list? It is widely reported as the most controversial subreddit. Is there a reliable source issue?

Just a couple examples: An article from the observer.com

Another from the Daily Dot

Here's one from Ventrue Beat

And finally an article from Vice

I think the article needs to be significantly overhauled - listing SRS as the most controversial subreddit (currently). Please let me know if I am missing something here.. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The observer article has a two sentence mention among a baker's dozen of subreddits listed. Daily Dot does not call SRS controversial. Venture Beat does not call SRS controversial. Vice does not call SRS controversial. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth:Please read the articles in question. The Observer article specifically says SRS is one of the most controversial subreddits on the entire site. The other three articles, while not using the word controversial, make it very clear that the subreddit is "contentious" and "toxic". Please also read the other sources listed- none of them refer to any of the other subreddits included at being more "controversial" than SRS.
Also please note, I am open minded and willing to self-revert, but it honestly appears that the bulk of recent reliable sources refer to SRS as either the most controversial or most contentious or most toxic subreddit. If I am wrong, that's fine, but rather than just blanking the entire section, let's work on a solution that makes sense. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not a list of 'most toxic' subreddits. It is a list of controversial subreddits, of which only one of your sources lists it as such. Why does this deserve inclusion with only two sentences of mention in one source? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
But I fail to find anything in the sources referring to r/mensrights or r/technology as "controversial". Not sure if the objection to including SRS is semantics - if so perhaps a renaming of the article is in order. Rather than most controversial, something like "Noteable Subreddits". I am genuinely acing in good faith here and trying to understand the objection.. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
If those sources do not indicate that those subreddits are controversial, then you can either tag it as needing additional references or remove those subreddits. If you would like to start a new article (perhaps Notable Subreddits), you're welcome to. Only one of your sources displays that SRS is 'controversial', and it only gets a brief mention, and as such the inclusion is not WP:DUE. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Rather than removing all of the subreddits listed, how about changing the article to "controversial/notable subreddits". Would you agree to a change along those lines? 23.242.67.118 (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
ETA - and again the other sources I included for SRS do refer to it as "contentious" which is a synonym for "controversial". Please answer a question for me to help me better understand: How do the other subreddits listed qualify as "controversial" when there is not a single source referring to them as such? 23.242.67.118 (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Moving the article to something entirely different because you would like to add something to the list that does not belong there is a very drastic move. I suggest you start a new article. If you believe more should be removed than the content you have added, then you're free to remove more. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: I have self-reverted. It is not my intention to dismantle the article, although by your logic, it would seem none of the subreddit listed qualify since none of them are referred to as "controversial" anywhere in the sources. I would appreciate an answer to my question though. You objected to SRS because it is (in your opinion) poorly sourced as controversial. Why no objection to the other subreddits? How do the other subreddits listed qualify as "controversial" when there is not a single source referring to them as such?
I haven't said I believe the other subreddits are controversial- it's irrelevant to my removal of your addition. I have no opinion one way or another of whether or not the other listed subreddits qualify for inclusion, because I haven't looked into the sources used for their inclusion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Drive by comment. Just because an article doesn't say something is controversial (using the exact term) does not necessarily mean what it did wasn't controversial. That would be considered editorialising within most journalistic sources so likely avoided, unless they were quoting someone else, providing an op-ed, or being exceptionally blatant because other notable individuals or agencies had used the term. Also, you may find that some articles would only refer to a "controversy" that SRS are part of without indicating that they individually were controversial. Sources per below:
But there are also some surprises.
ShitRedditSays, a subreddit which focuses on highlighting bad content around the rest of Reddit (frequently from a social justice viewpoint), comes close to the top. In part, that is because the toxicity is directed outwards, “at the Reddit community at large”, says Bell.
“It’s also important to note that a significant portion of their Toxicity score came from conversations between SRS members and other Redditors who come specifically to disagree and pick fights with the community - a trap that many members tend to fall into, and which led to some rather nasty and highly unproductive conversations.”
In summary. SRS is likely controversial only to other SubReddits that are exposed by them. The media and notable sources generally consider SRS to be doing a public service. Koncorde (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Koncorde: As I mentioned above, I have self-reverted. But I respectfully disagree with your analysis. Did you read the observer.com piece? It says: "“Shit Reddit Says,” although difficult to define, is one of the most controversial of all of the subreddits. It does not say it is viewed as controversial within the reddit community - it says it is a controversial subreddit - period. Bottom line, it seems there is enough evidence, and enough reliable sources to refer to SRS as "controversial", especially when compared to the other subreddits listed in the article. And I don't see anything at all where the media refers to SRS as "providing a public service". To the contrary, all the RS I have found refer to SRS (quote) as the "most toxic subreddit". This is the commonly held view among all the media pieces I have found - that SRS is toxic and contentious. Finally I agree with you that "Just because an article doesn't say something is controversial (using the exact term) does not necessarily mean what it did wasn't controversial.". That was my argument from the beginning - that SRS is indeed controversial even if the sources don't use that exact term. So we are in agreement there. Perhaps you have a suggestion as to how I could reword the SRS entry to make it more appropriate for inclusion in this list? 23.242.67.118 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I would have to side with the comments in prior discussions, unless there is a specific controversy then it's not controversial in the same sense that the others listed are. The toxicity is couched with a broader context. Now if we want to use the wider context of all the articles to discuss SRS role then that would likely go in a distinct section, but that doesn't appear to be what this article is about. alao, the most we could say based on the Observer is "X writing for the Observer said SRS is controversial", which is (on the scale of things) very weak criticism. Koncorde (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Another source, the verge, also refers to SRS as "one of the sites most controversial subreddits". As far as to how the subreddit is controversial, I don't believe that matters, as the heading says "controversial subreddits". i have cited the source in the article. Whatever your opinion of reddit or SRS, it is safe to say that reliable sources believe SRS is a controversial subreddit. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It does matter quite significantly. This article is about Reddits that are controversial due to their subject matter (i.e. jailbait, racism, rape) that were or have been defended as matters of free speech. In contrast SRS is the complete opposite. The Observer article literally just says "although difficult to define, is one of the most controversial of all of the subreddits", but doesn't define what is controversial about it, to who or why, but the other reddits around it in its list are evidently controversial due to their subject matter (yet don't say "controversial"). Linking SRS "controversial" status to a meta study of "toxicity", as if that is itself controversial, is synthesis and WP:OR (the Guardian piece I linked above which deals with the data you used regarding measures of toxicity covers this).
The DailyDot article meanwhile links SRS to an actual controversy, which is entirely internal to Reddit. They are, in effect, anti-reddit. Their controversial status is not because of their toxicity, but the fact that they highlight the toxicity elsewhere on Reddit and reflect it back. The Verge Shatner interview meanwhile states "one of the site's most controversial subreddits, often providing a running satirical commentary on Reddit's culture" only serves to highlight that the controversial nature of SRS is not based upon the toxicity, but because it is criticial of Reddit as a whole. Again, this emphasises the synthesis in what you have introduced, and the verging on WP:OR content. SRS probably have a place on the main Reddit article in a criticism section, or even in this article as a stand-alone section critical of the other reddits, but they should not be included within a list of Reddits that are about a controversial medium. Koncorde (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The title of the article is "Controversial Reddit Communities". SRS is a controversial reddit community. Sources back this up. I am not sure how to proceed at this point besides perhaps requesting an RFC. Not interested in an edit-war. I simply don't understand the objection to including SRS. It's controverisal, because of it's toxicity. I believe you are editing in good faith, as am I, but I would humbly request that we get another opinion - someone who hasn't edited this article previously and can give it a fresh look. 69.63.86.114 (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
You said: "This article is about devotion of subreddits to controversial subject matter, or controversies involving those, not Subreddits that are controversial because they criticise.". Where does it say this in the article? I don't see any qualifying statements like "Controversial Subreddits Becuase of Their Contorversial Subject Matter." Even if it did say that, it could be argued that SSRS is toxic because of it's subject matter. They are known for attacks, doxxing, etc. This in and of itself is controversial. Again, I feel we simply have a disagreement in perspective, not in intention, and I believe we would benefit from an outside opinion. 69.63.86.114 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
How am I not an outside opinion? I have never edited this article before, my initial post explained that this was a drive-by-edit, I have given it a fresh look, I have looked at the sources, and I have reviewed all previous discussions on the same subject - and I agree with them. I have providing you with the rationale as to why it does not fit in the way in which you wish to make it fit, and have even provided a rationale as how I could see it fitting and with what context. I have explained why the content introduced is Synthesis, and verging on Original Research.
When I say "This article is about devotion of subreddits to controversial subject matter, or controversies involving those, not Subreddits that are controversial because they criticise." I am referring to the opening sentence that states "The social news site Reddit has occasionally been the topic of controversy due to the presence of communities on the site (known as subreddits) devoted to explicit material.". SRS is not devoted to any such material, but instead the exposure of people with what are perceived to be odious opinions. I also say what I say because this article is lead into by the main [article] where it states "The website generally lets moderators on individual subreddits make editorial decisions about what content to allow, and has a history of permitting some subreddits dedicated to controversial content." Again, I am not seeing within the sources provided any such controversial content, instead I am seeing that SRS is sometimes considered controversial because it highlights the worst of Reddit.
Your sources provided no evidence of attacks or doxxing, so even if this is true it is only an opinion, and would hardly be particularly controversial other than within the Reddit community which has expressed "strict rule against the publication of non-public personally-identifying information via the site (colloquially known as doxxing). Those who break the rule are subject to a site-wide ban, and their posts and even entire communities may be removed for breaking the rule" as the main Reddit article says. Such vigilantism is (if that is what the doxxing was about) would be more relevant to the Internet vigilantism wiki.
By all means request an RFC, but honestly you're barking up the wrong tree trying to insert what you have written into the article in the way that you have. Koncorde (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
But that's just it - SRS isn't controversial because "it highlights the worst of reddit". It is controversial because of it's methods, not just it's contents. It attacks people through hate speech and doxxing. There are multiple sources discussing this which I am happy to list. An academic study called it "the most toxic place on reddit".. That is controversial in and of itself. i may be wrong - reasonable minds can certainly differ. But from my perspective it just seems to be very clear that multiple RS call SRS controversial - for multiple reasons. 69.63.86.114 (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a source for "methods". Do you have a source for "hate speech" and "doxxing". You say there are multiple sources, but when I look at the net I am really not coming up with anything.
Meanwhile, from other sources:
  • Daily Dot "Likewise, the most toxic forum, ShitRedditSays, is a subreddit devoted to airing site drama, so it makes sense that its comments would subsequently be full of drama itself."
  • Guardian on same data "ShitRedditSays, a subreddit which focuses on highlighting bad content around the rest of Reddit (frequently from a social justice viewpoint), comes close to the top. In part, that is because the toxicity is directed outwards, “at the Reddit community at large”, says Bell “It’s also important to note that a significant portion of their Toxicity score came from conversations between SRS members and other Redditors who come specifically to disagree and pick fights with the community - a trap that many members tend to fall into, and which led to some rather nasty and highly unproductive conversations.”
  • Wired "In response, many Redditors pointed to the subreddit /r/ShitRedditSays -- which highlights seemingly offensive or idiotic statements made by Reddit users out of context. The subreddit has not been banned or quarantined and users claim this shows Reddit's continued hypocrisy and confusion around its simplified content policy."
  • makeuseof.com"One Redditor suggested banning /r/shitredditsays because they have been found to harass people, but the response from administrators was that that subreddit didn’t have the same level of ongoing harassment as the five that were banned."
  • Guardian, doesn't list SRS as one of the offenders during the ban-spree.
  • Daily Dot"No: Pedogeddon, the anti-Reddit campaign, was largely an inside job, organized by a zealous collective of the site’s harshest, angriest in-house critics. Called r/ShitRedditSays—SRS for short—it’s the most hated place on Reddit."
It's evident people don't like SRS, but there's nothing particularly controversial going on. Koncorde (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Defining a Controversial Subreddit

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to use this template, but as you can see above, there is a disagreement as to whether SRS should be included under the list of "Controversial Reddit Communities". If you look at the edits I have made, I have multiple, recent, reliable sources stating verbatim "SRS is one of the most controversial reddit communities". The argument I am hearing from other editors here is that SRS does not belong in the list, because it is not controversial for it's subject matter. I would disagree. Can someone take a look at the sources I included and let me know if you feel SRS falls under the category of "controversial"? I am not interested ni edit wars, or battling anyone, but I genuinely feel that the article is making a huge omission by not including SRS. Forgive me if I am using this template incorrectly!69.63.86.114 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It sounds more like you want a Third Opinion. Primefac (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Third opinion is not appropriate, because there are already more than two people involved in the discussion. A Request for comment, perhaps? Scolaire (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I was the third opinion, he just doesn't like it. Koncorde (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Deepfakes

To quote "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."

And further "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."

Specifically about primary source policy "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

This is a message I got from @Koncorde:. Okay, help me out then. Can you tell me which of any of this paragraph on deepfakes is "new analysis" or "conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves"?

Alongside deepfakes, other subs were also banned in the following day, including subs that do not promote involuntary pornography like r/doppelbangher (which posted pornstars who look like celebrities) and r/starlets (which posted non-pornographic photos of teenage celebrities).[74] Although said subs do not promote involuntary pornography, the rules on Reddit has been updated since then to forbid "lookalike pornography" and "suggestive content involving minors ... in some cases include depictions of minors that are fully clothed and not engaged in overtly sexual acts."[75][76][77] On February 16, r/fakeapp was also banned. However, according to deepfakeapp, the moderator of the sub, r/fakeapp had been strictly moderated to technical discussion, and that he had been "effectively filtering or manually removing all of that sort of content" related to pornography.[78]

Is there any opinion in that paragprah?

r/doppelbangher and r/starlets being banned IS a fact. Open the link yourself. The admins CLEARLY stated the ban reasons on the subreddit page. Which makes it a primary source.

I also linked to Reddit rules ([75] and [76]) which I verbatim copied there. r/fakeapp being banned is also a fact (again, open the link). And I link to the comment of a moderator of that sub about his opinion on the way he moderated the sub.

Okay, let's say Reddit is not a reputable source. But HOW exactly it is not a reputable source when the events happen within Reddit? Those users and those subs are the EVIDENCE--the primary source!

I mean the section on Coontown and Findbostonbombers CITES REDDIT as a primary source. Then what's wrong with what I did?

118.136.10.154 (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to the two cites I believe you are, one is an official announcement (a legitimate use of a primary source), and the other links to the updated policy (another official announcement). Neither on their own is the sole basis of the claim or statement being made as other secondary corroborating sources exist.
A primary source alone is not the foundation of content. It can be used for basic facts (goals scored, elections results, national borders, ZIP codes) or to quote something that is referred to in a secondary source (but may not be wholly provided within that source, for instance the NRA may refer to the second amendment, and we can use the Constitution as a primary source to provide the relevant quote) but as soon as narrative is structured around it this is OR and depending on the claim made a form of Synthesis.
The basis of citing is the requirements I gave you. Cite secondary reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

pizzagate

Why hasn't the sub pizzagate been added?

Inquisitr source removed

Removed Inquisitr source as I don't think it passes WP:RS. Sagecandor (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Controversial Reddit communities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Any objection to merging Violentacrez here?

There's been some small discussion on Talk:Violentacrez about possibly merging that content here (it would have to be severely reduced). Personally, I think that maintaining that article separately violates BLP1E, but I won't attempt a merge if it would be reverted or otherwise objected to here. Is there any editor here who sees a reason to keep them separate? 64.105.98.115 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Posting as a courtesy that I created a related RfC here.That man from Nantucket (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Political bias too obvious

Mentions r/the_Donald which merely supports President Trump but not r/EnoughTrumpSpam which is openly anti-Trump or r/politics which, despite having a facade of neutrality, is also obviously far-left leaning (much like Wikipedia) 86.130.122.75 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Do reliable sources indicate that the latter was the subject of controversy? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The subreddit's support of Donald Trump is not the controversy; the controversy seemed to be one about harassment/vote manipulation, and that is sourced reliably. If the anti-Trump subreddit were involved in an actual controversy (not just WP:JDL) it would be fine to post here. Breadblade (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

/r/altright and /r/alternativeright

/r/altright and /r/alternativeright also are closed reddit

Source https://www.cnet.com/news/reddit-bans-alt-right-subreddit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HostFat (talk • contribs) 02:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Others less controversial https://theoutline.com/post/3836/congress-says-jump-reddit-asks-how-high — Preceding unsigned comment added by HostFat (talk • contribs) 02:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

r/india removed (again)

I have removed this recently added content, as the content wasn't referenced to a reliable source (and had some WP:NPOV issues too) A random opinion piece by a non-expert in a blog is not a reliable source for such controversial content (or most uncontroversial content either for that matter). Please discuss here instead of re-adding the disputed content. GermanJoe (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

/r/CoonTown

Just a note... /r/CoonTown seems to be missing from the list of controversial banned subreddits. I absolutely cannot fathom a world in which there are not ample sources indicating that it was highly controversial. Easily one of the most racist subreddits to ever plague Reddit. It was banned during the same 2015 wave that took e.g. /r/FatPeopleHate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.158.176 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Coontown is mentioned alongside related subreddits in the section on the "Chimpire". I don't know if it deserves a larger mention than that, but it's not been forgotten. clpo13(talk) 08:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Amia Srinivasan

Amia Srinivasan has a master's degree in philosophy and social sciences. She can hardly be called unreliable. 79.67.75.250 (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS for Wikipedia's criteria about reliable sources (thank you for raising this point on the talkpage). The sourced text is a personal essay/opinion piece. It could be used to verify the author's own opinion. But it is not a reliable source for factual information about the banning itself. Please wait for other interested editors to offer additional feedback instead of re-adding this detail (see also WP:BRD for a recommended approach). GermanJoe (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Convenience link for discussion: [4]. GermanJoe (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Controversial Reddit communities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The Redpill - sourcing, neutrality

I have removed the recent addition for now. To be perfectly clear: the community might be a valid addition in this list - an uninvolved topic expert should look into this more closely. But all statements in such a controversial topic need to be clearly sourced and neutrally phrased. And such a section should contain no personal analysis or commentary whatsoever. GermanJoe (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, hopefully shouldn't be too hard owing to the availability of good sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It's surprisingly difficult to find good sources that are themselves neutral on the subject. I will continue to look; this subreddit certainly should be in this article. Henry Hedgehog (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The sources don't need to be neutral about the subject. There are several Guardian and Telegraph articles from UK press alone. Koncorde (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC Including SRS as a Controversial Reddit Community

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is No consensus as to the proposed inclusion.Status quo remains.Koncorde is strongly cautioned to refrain from any such blatant canvassing activities in the future.Winged Blades Godric 11:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Radically amended at 14:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Should the "ShitRedditSays" subreddit be included on the list of Controversial Reddit Communities? Please read this previous discussion here:. SRS, or ShirRedditSays has been referenced numerous times in multiple reliable sources as a controversial subreddit. Many sources refer to it as the most controversial subreddit. Here are just a few examples (form the previous discussion):

An article from the observer.com

Another from the Daily Dot

Here's one from Ventrue Beat

And finally an article from Vice

I was curious as to some outside opinions as to why or why not SRS should be added. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Repeating yourself, and arguments, isn't likely to engender any further success. Koncorde (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Koncorde:The sources listed do NOT just identify SRS as "toxic" - they specifically identify it as "the MOST controversial subreddit". Yes SRS is toxic because of doxxing, hate speech etc. It is also controversial per the sources. You and PTF are the only two editors who are making the argument that SRS is not controversial. Frankly I am surprised by the opposition to it's inclusion. We have sources labeling SRS as the most controversial subreddit. Genuine question here - why the opposition? Why not err on the side of caution? No one has given any reason as to how including SRS would harm the article in any way. Especially considering the title of the article is "Controversial Reddit Communities" and there are multiple reliable sources identifying SRS as the most controversial community. Thats why I asked for an RFC. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Read prior comments the last time an anon (if not same) IP tried to include the same information. sources do not indicate it is the most "controversial". It is occasionally referred to as part of a "controversy" at the time of writing, but that controversy is linked to its highlighting of other sub-reddits. Koncorde (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly what I am talking about. Please read the articles in question. The Observer article specifically says SRS is one of the most controversial subreddits on the entire site. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You just went from "most" to "one of". You said "they", and present a single example. An example that doesn't outline what is "controversial", and specifically states "although difficult to define" and then proceeds not to define it at all (or attempt to). This was covered in the last discussion and the sources have not improved. I even explained last time how SRS could be included, but the current attempt is a fail of Synthesis. Koncorde (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You do realize that none of the other subreddits listed are specifically referenced by the sources as "controversial"? And you still have not given a reason as to why excluding SRS benefits the article, when at least some sources define the subreddit as controversial. Hence the RFC. Again, this is not a contentious or political article. I still honestly dont understand the hesitance in adding SRS. You personally might not feel it is controversial - but there are reliable sources that define it as such. Moreso than any of the other subreddits listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.205.162 (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Do I need to just cut and paste my old responses into one super-post because it deals with every single argument you are making now in rather clear and exacting detail? Koncorde (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Where? I looked at at the archives and where in any of your posts do you answer the following question: I still honestly don't understand the hesitance in adding SRS. You personally might not feel it is controversial - but there are reliable sources that define it as such. Moreso than any of the other subreddits listed. So why not err on the side of including it? The potential benefits in including outweigh the benefits in excluding 76.79.205.162 (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The reticence is this is about reddits of controversial subjects matter, or controversial topics. Being a reddit about other controversial reddits isn't a controversial topic or subject matter. There is no benefit, it's just unrelated cruft. There are not "unreliable sources", there is a single reliable source of sorts that kinda says "we don't know what SRS is, but it's controversial" without providing a single element of context. You have persistently then tried to synthesise the "toxic" content with the Observer sentence to create a SYNTHESIS. You are now being obtuse as this is fully outlined previously. Koncorde (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for being offensive while I have remained completely civil during this conversation. Might I remind you NPA. Have a nice day. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You might remind me, but I also don't consider suggesting that your intentionally refusal to recognize answers to your questions as "offensive". 6 months apart you have tried the exact same tactic, word for word, with the same SYNTHESIS and OR issues, including re-introduction of the same content after previously being informed that it was not appropriate. I have assumed good faith, but you have exhausted that resource at the moment. Koncorde (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the crux of our argument. You say: "The reticence is this is about reddits of controversial subjects matter, or controversial topics. ". I maintain that the article is about Controversial Reddit Communities just as the title says. It does not qualify WHY they are controversial. That's why I feel all controversial subreddits should be included. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, already answered by both myself and Peter last time around and no new argument is being advanced. We have explained why it fails, and expounded at length what it may qualify for, but your current attempts at inclusion are WP:UNDUE, SYNTHESIS and verging on OR. Koncorde (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. But every time I've attempted to make the addition Ive been reverted by either PTF or Koncorde. What's frustrating is the article is well-done as it stands, with the exception of the omission of SRS. But the omission is so glaring as to be completely obvious and it's very difficult for me to comprehend why. SRS is well known and well sourced as the most toxic, hateful subreddit - there have been multiple instances of doxxing, hate speech and misogyny. The subreddit is infamous for this type of thing - its addition should not be controversial at all. I wonder if their reputation for dark deeds is what makes people hesitant to add them. If that's the case, I empathize with the fact that people are afraid they will be doxed or outed or whatever. But wikipedia needs to reflect what the reliable sources report. 2602:301:772D:62D0:D187:266:49EB:481 (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in the past, and I don't see any new points being raised. Even more concerningly, the proposed inclusion is a potential WP:COPYVIO. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I changed the wording so it is no longer a COPYVIO. You can compare the revisions for yourself. May I ask that you discuss here before reverting? Perhaps you can suggest a more elegant way of adding SRS? I don't have a problem with changing the wording again - it is more about making sure SRS is included per RS. ETA - I understand that there may be concerns about retaliatory behavior form SRS, which is why editors may be hesitant to include them on this list. I would hope that's not the case, but if it is, could we at least discuss it???. 2602:301:772D:62D0:E055:B3EF:6113:19F0 (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
We have discussed it. I have no idea why you believe there is any "fear" of a subReddit concerned with the goings on of other subReddits.
Per prior discussion thread where I provided several actual reliable sources discussing the context of the "toxic" content, your cherry picking of sources here does not reflect the weight and balance of the other reddits included here which are controversial for the subject matter (which is what the main reddit article links to this one for, and what this article is about). Koncorde (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Also per prior discussion I completely disagree with your and PTF's "assessment" of the situation - that's why I asked for an RFC. Thus far it appears I was 100% correct - it is self-evident that SRS is controversial and belongs in the article. Moreover, there are multiple sources referring to SRS as the most controversial place on Reddit - VERBATIM. Not "a single reliable source of sorts that kinda says "we don't know what SRS is, but it's controversial". Multiple sources referring to SRS as the most toxic, controversial subreddit. Period. This is a fact. We also have the study at Idbion objectively concluding that SRS is (by far) "the most toxic place on all of Reddit". Their metrics? Personal attacks and bigoted statements
Finally, and most importantly - no where in this article does it qualify what the controversy needs to be about. The article is named "Controversial Reddit Communities". SRS is well-sourced (again) as the most controversial Reddit community. Both for it's content, and for it's methods (attacks and doxing). It not only belongs in the article - it deserves prominent placement. I await the outcome of this RFC and eagerly anticipate the comments of other non-biased, uninvolved users. 2602:301:772D:62D0:A8CA:EA6D:A50F:6C65 (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
You have provided one source that says that it is "controversial" (with no detail) and 3 that briefly mention the same "toxic" comments with no context. I provided 6 that detail the toxic comments with actual discussions with the author that actually counter comprehensively the claim to its controversialist because of its toxicity. That leaves us with the Observer article, which provides absolute no information to use. And yes, this reddit has a definition at the top regarding content / subject matter
You asked for an independent third opinion last time. I gave you that third opinion and you didn't like it. This time you are going for an RFC and astronomy turfing to other users to try and draw them into a topic that you have weighted from the start with you POV intro to the issue.
Now you are trying to devalue two longstanding editors, and several others who have continuously rejected it's needless inclusion on this list, as biased. As amusing as this is, your agenda is clear. Koncorde (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I would hope my agenda is clear. Because my agenda is to get information that belongs in the article into the article. Information that is reliable sourced and follows the rules of Wikipedia. That is my agenda. You on the other hand seem hell-bent on keeping information OUT of the article. This is not contentious information, it does not violate BLP in any way shape or form, and it provides the reader with important context and content about the MOST controversial Reddit community and why it is ao controversial. ----
Your additions have only ever synthesised the "toxic" study by cherry picking those articles that provide zero context (or leave out critically important elements) with your own opinion. Meanwhile you repeat "most" and "so" so often without any evidence that I can only assume you rate SRS trolling controversial subreddits as more controversial than the actual subreddits themselves. Koncorde (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Include Given the sources. Some additional sources:
  1. Heat St
  2. Heat St
  3. The Guardian
  4. Daily Dot
James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Heat Streat #1, not controversial. Single reference, not particular context or content..
Heat street #2, not controversial. Two references in passing, but at most is the light jab towards the same "toxic" report.
Guardian, not discussing anything controversial, also states quite clearly why the "Toxic" argument is bullshit (from the man doing the study);
ShitRedditSays, a subreddit which focuses on highlighting bad content around the rest of Reddit (frequently from a social justice viewpoint), comes close to the top. In part, that is because the toxicity is directed outwards, “at the Reddit community at large”, says Bell. “It’s also important to note that a significant portion of their Toxicity score came from conversations between SRS members and other Redditors who come specifically to disagree and pick fights with the community - a trap that many members tend to fall into, and which led to some rather nasty and highly unproductive conversations.”
Daily Dot is evidence that SRS is opposed to the questionable content of the Subreddits in this same article and it should be mentioned as part of the wider section on discussing the banning of jailbait and creepshots.
Nobody is arguing SRS is not notable, but just because it is mentioned somewhere doesn't make it controversial. The only controversial thing I can see is that other subReddits don't like SRS, which is very different to how it is currently being forced into this article. Koncorde (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wasn't clearer – I listed these sources as supplemental. "Controversial" doesn't imply good or bad. Abolition was controversial. The Guardian article quite clearly describes SRS as controversial. That is what's relevant here. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Guardian article specifically does not call it controversial, and in fact provides feedback from Bell as to why SRS is not controversial in any way shape or form (uncivil arguments between users of Reddit is far from notable, or controversial). Koncorde (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
As I've informed you in the past, Heat Street is not a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Heat Street is fine for covering internet slap fights. I wouldn't wait for piece in The Economist. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Even if it was fine, it doesn't have any relevant content. Guardian article would trump pretty much any other source and it refutes the very marginal claims with the actual words of the creator of the study being used as reason for inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that's reasonable. I was commenting in general if for example someone finds a Heat St source that covers a reddit community in more detail. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Koncorde If you actually read the Guardian article, it clearly shows that SRS is the subreddit most guilty of ad-hominem attacks and bigoted behavior. Where it is directed it unimportant - the subreddit is notable for the fact that is toxic. This is all part of the controversy surrounding the subreddit. This is not a marginal claim, nor is it SYNTH or OR as other sources support this with clear wording. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It is a marginal claim when the originator of the study states, and I have quoted this three times at this point:
"ShitRedditSays, a subreddit which focuses on highlighting bad content around the rest of Reddit (frequently from a social justice viewpoint), comes close to the top. In part, that is because the toxicity is directed outwards, “at the Reddit community at large”, says Bell. “It’s also important to note that a significant portion of their Toxicity score came from conversations between SRS members and other Redditors who come specifically to disagree and pick fights with the community - a trap that many members tend to fall into, and which led to some rather nasty and highly unproductive conversations."
That isn't controversial, that's contradicting your argument entirely - and that's the man who created the study saying so.
It is synthesis to take a study about toxicity, which in passing references SRS but then states it's actually not toxic for content, but for the antagonism of other subreddits, and to use another article such as the Observer which makes no connection to the Toxic study to create a narrative "controversy". It is Original Research for you to create such a link, and continue to declare that it is the "most" controversial (amongst whatever else you've claimed so far).
A bun fight in a forum is not controversial. Koncorde (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not a "vote" on who wins, there is weight to the arguments, of which there is no weight from the include side.
The continued misrepresentation of sources and cherry picking of quotes still means the current version is not appropriate in any way, shape or form even if the argument to include stacked up. The argument presented is absolute synthesis to create something "controversial". Koncorde (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Please AGF and don't edit war. Consensus clearly says to include. "Plainly obvious" and "a no-brainer" according to editors. It's not synthesis, and the vast majority agree with this. Please drop the stick. 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.205.162 (talk)
An RFC is not binding, it is a request for comment, it is not an agreement to your version of events. I refuse to have a SPA render a loaded RFC that defies the accepted convention for an RFC, then canvass for votes across wikipedia under a number of IP addresses, and still push the same content. This is an attempted abuse of process, and subverting of wikipedia policies.
The existing content has been rejected in its current form by several editors over a period of months citing the same concerns which have not been dealt with. One SPA bouncing from IP to IP with an obvious POV and introducing a non-neutral entry to an article is not running roughshod over.
The notability for inclusion, even if accepted, still requires the article to be written in a neutral style and reflecting the weight of reliable sources - not your opinion and POV laden synthesis. Koncorde (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not at all clear whether SRS is controversial in itself, or whether it merely aggregates and publicizes controversies from other sources. Either way, is it notable? Is its controversiality notable? Why would anyone care? Other subreddits are notable as breeding grounds for neo-Nazi movements and white nationalism, or as meeting places for harassment or apparently criminal activity on which various media report, but that’s not (as I understand it) what SRS is about. I question whether the page belongs in Wikipedia at all, but it case for including SRS is thin at best, and suspiciously tinged with POV and COI. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


I thought MarkBernstein is supposed to stay away from articles like this. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
What a well-informed fellow you turn out to be, 76/.79! I'm not aware that SRS specifically concerns Gamergate; you write below that it's "a hate group filled with harassers and trolls," but there may be more than one of those. Now, it's possible that SRS could be a gender-related controversy, in the sense that anything might be a gender-related controversy; if it is, I don’t know that, nor do other writers here. If you're unsure, you could inquire at ARCA. But I think you'd actually have to log in to do that, which (for some reason) you seem reluctant to do. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment Oppose inclusion The status of SRS as a magnet for controversy may qualify it for this list, though it is mainly controversy that exists within Reddit itself. Putting it in the company of the various hategroups, harassers and trolls listed here - all of whom are controversial in the outside world - may be doing it a disservice, so we should handle it carefully if at all. Artw (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Artw Thank you for a thoughtful and well-reasoned reply. Please note though, SRS is fairly well-documented as a hategroup filled with harassers and trolls. If you read the sources I initially posted, SRS is actually considered the most bigoted subreddit. Additionally, they have been guilty of doxing and harassment - moreso than any other subreddit. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That does not seem to be particularly true - the links you have provided don't do much to make the case for it. Artw (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Artw SRS was responsible for death/murder (or at the very least violence) threats especially during the Trump election. They have doxxed multiple people, threatened redditors with violence, and participated in wholesale misogyny - this is all well documented. I am honestly baffled by the opposition to the inclusion of this subreddit. How can it not be controversial to threaten to come to someone's workplace and assault them? How can it not be controversial when an objective scientific study clearly identifies SRS as the MOST toxic AND bigoted subreddit? How is this not controversial?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.205.162 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The first batch of links you posted revolve around that silly soft news toxicity study and now you've worked your way up to them being murderers? This seems like weird axe grinding and a spillover of internal Reddit drama TBH means I have to vote for a hard pass on including SRS and all other subreddits not controversial outside of reddit. Get a real news source and a real contrevrsey or it shouldn't be on the list. Artw (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Artw They have been guilty of threats. Why is this hard to believe? 76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Inclusion- It appears to me that SRS is only "controversial" to the people it pokes fun at, and it's very insular. I don't even think it's encyclopedic.--Jorm (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that I contacted ONE person (Wordsmith) while Koncorde has blatantly canvassed all his friends.76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That would be a cool story except that I didn't get canvassed. You may want to retract that.--Jorm (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Not just a cool story, but a true one! 76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see my name in that there contribs list so again: Maybe you should stop saying that I was canvassed. --Jorm (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure canvasing a user known to be a contributor to at least one controversial subreddit (albiet one not covered here) strengthens the case that you are making good faith arguments. Artw (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, canvassing is bad. No question about it 76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You were attempting to subvert the RFC process to suit your own agenda. I am making a stand against your obvious intent to force a non neutral pov.
I'll take being judged harshly by a few well established editors for a breach of protocol when this RFC is a sham to start with. Koncorde (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose This is a tempest in a teapot for sure. --Tarage (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

disputed RfC close

The close of this RfC is under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Artw (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Controversial Reddit communities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

MensRights

Most of the section on MensRights should be removed.

For the SPLC Listing, the company of SPLC is controversial in itself. They have recently lost a case for false claims.[1] They have admitted they are "not really set up to cover the extreme Left", showing they have a political bias.[2] The source from the Huffington Post is simply an editorial with a very obvious bias that only mentions the subreddit once, with no direct source for what it mentions. Both of these sources violate Wikipedia's standards of reliable sources and should not be included, specifically "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others."


The section on doxxing is flat out non-factual. It claims that moderators on MensRights actually provided instructions on how to doxx. In actuality, they deleted and banned any personal information or instructions on how to doxx.[3][4]

I am not asking to remove the section on the spamming of the rape report because while I could not find evidence that MensRights promoted that behavior, I cannot find evidence to refute it.

This isn't going to happen for two reasons: the first is that the Southern Poverty Law Center section is really just saying "The SPLC says this," so they are authoritative for their own positions. If you want to fight about it as a source, you can attempt to do so at the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm going to warn you that your position is wrong, so you'll mostly be wasting your time.
The second reason is sourced to places that are known as reputable sources, and your counter sources are not (reddit is not a reliable source). --Jorm (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
So citing a direct, primary source is no longer acceptable? The links to Reddit show an unedited comment from a Moderator of MensRights. The source listed in the original article does not. --Derbyt (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Generally speaking, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources; but even when we do use primary sources, they have to pass WP:RS. A comment on Reddit doesn't qualify because we can't provide any meaningful context or interpretation, nor can we assess the WP:DUE weight - what does that one random comment mean? Who is this person and how do they relate to the topic? Does this reflect their actual policy? Note that I'm not asking you to answer these questions - the issue is that any attempt to use a forum post to answer that ourselves is original research That is to say, "oh, this person is listed as one of the mods and therefore what they say clearly and accurately represents the longstanding policy for the entire sub" is not something we can conclude ourselves. Instead, you should find reliable secondary sources that have reported on that post; if it's as important as you claim, there should be several. If none have, then it's likely that it wasn't as significant as you feel it to be anyway. Also, for what it's worth, The Blaze is a blog and also doesn't pass WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


References

References

  1. ^ "SPLC Apology Video to Maajid Nawaz". https://www.splcenter.org/splc-statement-video. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
  2. ^ "SPLC On Left-Wing Extremism". https://www.theblaze.com/news/2012/05/05/not-really-set-up-to-cover-the-extreme-left-southern-poverty-law-center-explains-why-it-doesnt-track-occupy-as-a-hate-group. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
  3. ^ "Mod deletes doxx". https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ckvgo/woman_who_works_at_college_admissions_rejects/c9hok2b/. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
  4. ^ "Mod rejects harassment and doxxing". https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ckvgo/woman_who_works_at_college_admissions_rejects/c9hp73x/. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

Another banned subreddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/FakeWrestlingPlots Could fit under deepwebfakes It was dedicated to fake nudes of professional female wrestlers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.196.35 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of “homophobic” and “transphobic”

Can these words truly be considered neutral? InvalidOS (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

If they're accurate, they're neutral. I removed your tag; get consensus here before re-adding it. --Jorm (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Are they sources would be my first question. If not sourced to an article that would make it questionable. Haven't read to see. Koncorde (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
The source currently citing the words "transphobic" says the subredit "featured posts...vilifying transgender people". That's as textbook a definition of the word transphobic as their is. I see no reason to remove it, the reliable source currently cited seems to confirm the use of the term. --Jayron32 19:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok. InvalidOS (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Accurate meaning of those words would be "someone who is irrationally afraid of homosexual or trans people", not "someone who hate or discriminate against homosexuals / trans". I never seen those words used in accurate meaning. It is same as calling racists "racephobic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.236.159.134 (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Although it is true that the Greek suffix -φοβία (in the Latin alphabet: phobia), is only applicable to fear, its modern English equivalent, -phobia, has attained an additional meaning. Language changes over time; for instance the word marshal, which was originally associated with someone in charge of horses, is now largely used for a universally high military rank. Similarily, the suffix -phobia now has a different meaning (although the original usage is still present in words like hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia, the fear of the number 666). - Axisixa T C 04:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Per Axisixa, but also the expression of "fear" or a phobia does not restrict itself only to typical fright reaction, but also acts of aversion, or even aggression. To be phobic of homosexuality, or transgenderism a person is not merely limited to being irrationally afraid in the literal sense of cowering, or fleeing. It may also present itself in behaviours that express their aversion or aggression. In the case of institutional or social structures, the individual needn't even have personal phobia but to merely reflect a wider collective belief (such as a religious belief, political alignment, or similar). Koncorde (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

r/frenworld

The subreddit r/Frenworld is dedicated to alt-right extremist content disguised with cryptic words or phrases such as "Honk Honk" (Heil Hitler) and "Non-Frens" (Minorities). They try to avoid getting banned by using these terms, however if you pay any attention to the content on the subreddit you will find neo-nazis and other extremist groups lurking there. Can someone start a section dedicated to this sub? WikiWonder159 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

r/FurryHate

I'm surprised that r/FurryHate wasn't at least mentioned. They and voat.co are communities dedicated to the hatred, threats, and overall mistreatment and discrimination against the furry community and its people. Even going as far as saying that if they found out their kids were furries, they'd beat them despite child abuse being against the law. w — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.17.177.164 (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

To gain mention in this article, a topic must be reliably sourced, and it must be regarding a subreddit (or, as Reddit likes to call them nowadays, community). Voat is not a subreddit at all, but a website whose design is based on Reddit; it already has its own article, which I've linked. I am not aware of any reliable sources that mention r/FurryHate, but you can find them yourself if you so desire, and use them to add it to the article. Also, child abuse is still legal in many countries. - Axisixa T C 03:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the rationale in listing r/foreveralone as controversial?

r/foreveralone predates r/incels and the incel forums that spawned from r/incels. r/foreveralone has both men and women, discourages suicide, has resources for women, lgbt folks, and suicidal folks in the sidebar. To list r/foreveralone as controversial reeks of political bias in my opinion. r/braincels would be understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachostastegood (talk • contribs) 04:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The article specifies why. It's association with Eliot Rogers and the wider Incel community. There is nothing "political" about being alone forever so not sure what you are suggesting with that. Koncorde (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The political implication is that r/braincels is alt-right/misogynist, and that r/foreveralone = r/braincels therefore being forever alone = alt-right and misogynist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachostastegood (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

ForeverAlone is not a controversial community

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversial_Reddit_communities&type=revision&diff=904960023&oldid=904631437

There is no solid evidence that Elliot Rodger visited the subreddit, and it isn't mentioned in the news that much. Appropriate communities to add instead would be Braincels and TheRedPill.

Ylevental (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Conflict between MDY and DMY

The related article Reddit is written using exclusively MDY, even in the reference dates, without a {{Use mdy dates}} template, while this article has a {{Use dmy dates}} template.
The summary of the edit which changed all the dates to DMY did link MOS:DATEFORMAT, but I carefully read it and didn't come to the conclusion that this article should use MDY or DMY.
I believe the dates should be MDY, because Reddit's headquarters are located in the United States and the first date added to this article was an MDY date. beforeAdapter (talk · contribs) 2019-08-08T12:57Z

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Controversial_Reddit_communities/Archive_1&oldid=1151018134"