Jump to content

Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Perhaps this article should be split?

This isn't a formal proposal right now – just seeing how others feel. The page size right now is 196,840 bytes – well above the 100KB recommendation in WP:SPLIT. It probably wouldn't be too difficult to split the article – we could have "List of Wikipedia controversies 2001–2011" and "List of Wikipedia controversies 2012–2022". After 2022 we can make a new article, "List of Wikipedia controversies 2023–2043", and so on (although it might be a problem to have articles with names like that – although at least it would save renaming pages and would be a helpful indicator for when information should no longer be added to a certain article). Thoughts? DesertPipeline (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed the article starts at 2002. I guess it should be "List of Wikipedia controversies 2002–2012" (and so on). DesertPipeline (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose It's about 75k chars of readable prose; you don't count markup in that count. The current format is fine and better value for reader. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, it's readable enough as it is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

What are the criteria for including indicdents here? I found Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies/Archive_1#Inclusion_criteria,_redux and Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies/Archive_3#Inclusion_criteria; the first proposed inclusion criteria but it is unclear any where ever adopted. Do we need to revisit this, maybe with a larger RfC? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggested additions for 2021: Croatian and Japanese Wikipedia problems

Should likely be added here: [[1]]. Also Japanese Wikipedia problems, as discussed here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/In the media. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

I'm wondering if this would qualify (and no, this isn't because I wound up quoted in this): Would the fake end to the film edit war and subsequent exposure via sites like The Verge qualify? Rusted AutoParts 06:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Covid lab leak

Has the covid lab leak been discussed for inclusion here? We're discussing the cnet article here. Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Social_Media_crackdown. https://www.cnet.com/news/features/wikipedia-is-at-war-over-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/ 2600:1700:8660:E180:B527:4A:5AA1:BE9E (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Grouping

Right now this article is a little hard to navigate. Is a timeline the best format for this? I think grouping by topic might be a better way to organize this. And also adding sub-headings for each incident. Thoughts? Ideas on what the topical groupings could be? BLP, COI/UPE, hoaxes, blocks, lawsuits, plagiarism, censorship, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy to List of Wikipedia controversies

NO CONSENSUS
In this merge proposal, editor discussed whether or not to merge Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy into this article. This merge proposal follows a discussion at Articles for Deletion which resulted in the article being kept and further discussion on a merge being encouraged by the closer.

Those in favor of the merge advance two main sorts of arguments. The first sort of argument is that the article subject does not have enough coverage to be notable. Some users along this line specify that they believe it not to be a notable event, saying that the article subject has received very little followup coverage from reliable sources, that the article constitutes navel-gazing, and/or that the that the coverage of the event was routine fluff. while The second sort of argument in favor of a merge either hold that notability is borderline or fully concede that the article is notable under WP:GNG, but argue that notability does not guarantee the topic be covered in a standalone article. Instead of making a standalone article, they argue that the topic could be more appropriately covered in a paragraph in this list article.

Those in opposition to the merge advance several sorts of arguments. The first sort is that AfD would be a better venue for this, since the article already has a listing in the merge target. The second sort is that the article should not be merged because the AfD discussion was closed as "keep" rather than "merge" and the AfD was recently closed. Another sort is that the article is both notable and satisfies WP:PAGEDECIDE, with proponents arguing that the full article provides needed context that could not be cogently given in the merge target. Some users say that giving proper context to the controversy in the merge target would also be likely to run afoul of due weight in the list article and others note coverage by multiple articles in at least one source that are a month apart. Yet another sort of argument is that the merge target is too big and that a merge make that problem worse (although at least one such editor indicated conditional support for a merge if the merge target were broken into smaller pieces). Multiple editors suggested splitting the merge target throughout the discussion.

Overall, the discussion is fairly even with respect to the quantity of editors who support a merge and the quantity of editors who oppose a merge. However, Consensus is not ascertained by a majority , but is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And, through that lens, there is no rough consensus to merge.

(non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy is not notable for a standalone article and should be merged to this article. ––FormalDude talk 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Merge is a valid result of an AfD discussion—not just keep, delete, and variants thereof. The community chose in that (very recent) discussion to keep, not merge. Thrakkx (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
that’s not exactly an accurate summary of the discussion: the closer explicitly said I do encourage the discussion to continue on the talk page as to whether a merge is preferable. Their keep close was essentially a ‘don’t delete’ close. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The close was Keep not "maybe". Randy Kryn (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support merge, or redirect if there's nothing that can be merged without violating WP:DUE. Per the WP:PAGEDECIDE guideline, meeting GNG is necessary but not always sufficient for a topic to have a standalone article. In this case, it would be better covered as part of the article with a broader scope. It's just too niche. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Such a merge is clearly inappropriate as this incident doesn't belong on the page at all. It wasn't a controversy about Wikipedia, and not something Wikipedia received criticism for. It was simply a long winded discussion that happened on the site. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The lead says "controversial events and scandals related to Wikipedia and its parent organization". That doesn't exclude conflicts within Wikipedia that get media coverage. Criticism is at Criticism of Wikipedia, and if this page is limited to things Wikipedia has received criticism for, it should be rescoped and retitled accordingly. Besides, it did result in criticism of Wikipedia ("world class pedantry", "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention", "make the encyclopedia look rather ridiculous", etc.). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: The item is simply out of place here. This article doesn't need a retitle or rename to be restricted to the proper scope. This talkpage discussion could be considered a "controversy", should it be listed if it got media coverage? I don't think so. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, sure, you can add "if it got media coverage" to anything that doesn't get media coverage and it'll sounds silly, but ultimately: why not? How are a bunch of RS writing about an on-wiki controversy in the context of how that controversy exposes the pedantry of Wikipedians, to the embarrassment of the project (reading in from "ridiculous" above), substantially different from absolutely every other thing on the list?
This is, of course, kind of tangential to what's being proposed (whether to merge the other article vs. whether to remove the summary here). If I may reinforce the stereotype, I might propose creating a separate section to figure out a clearer set of inclusion criteria. As I've noted elsewhere, most of the many criticism/controversy/bias articles on Wikipedia are poorly scoped and overlap in sometimes clumsy ways. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to a mainspace version of WP:LEWs which have received media coverage as a split from this article, and if so I'd be fine merging Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy to that. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The article is misnamed, what actually is the controversy, and how does it fit the suggested article? And the close was 'Keep' not 'maybe merge'. The closer mentioned that maybe a merge discussion could take place, but with the 'Keep' decision and past defense of the article the mountain should be a very steep one to even get close to thinking of merging. Many Wikipedia editors wanted and want this kept, the Shadow of Keep is all over it, and to want to merge it to a page where it doesn't fit (this isn't a controversy about Wikipedia, it was an in-house styling discussion not a controversy) - the misnaming indicates that it would fit into this article, which it doesn't). What was the controversy? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Since you nominated the visual centerpiece of the article -- the cartoon describing the discussion and the article for merging -- for deletion, maybe mention this discussion there, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn I nominated it as a clear violation of our non-free files policy. It has nothing to do with the notability of this article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: two Daily Dot articles a month apart and an Independent story are in the article. There's also Slate. A search turns up passing mentions in Slate and Gizmodo but these won't contribute to notability. Notability is borderline, but the AfD seems to indicate it, and in that case a merge would be possible but likely undesirable as a single paragraph to the issue would leave interesting things to say unsaid, and more than a paragraph may fall afoul of due weight.
    (A radical suggestion: get this merge discussion to 40,000 words in length and then contact the press.) — Bilorv (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    I think we ought to be able to manage that... Eddie891 Talk Work 15:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    never underestimate the power of pedants with keyboards. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: there was already an AfD where anyone who wanted it merged had the opportunity to make a case for it, which they did, and it did not close as "merge". I find the arguments made at the time in favor of keeping it to be more persuasive than the arguments made in favor of merging; it's not like this is a shitty microstub article. I think that if we want to relitigate it, someone should ping all of the AfD participants. jp×g 22:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The cartoon is a defining element of public perception of the event. At its deletion discussion it's been suggested that the cartoonist should be asked via e-mail to release the cartoon for Wikipedia use, as he has done it before. Let's try that. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd hold off on that; we shouldn't ask for licensing on an image for an article that might not be around this time next week. Let's wrap up this discussion before approaching Munroe. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Good plan although it can still be used on the list page, but hopefully the article will still exist for many weeks to come. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
If this discussion on the 13th most popular website in the world was so notable, it's hard to believe that an cartoon on the 14,000th most popular website was its defining characteristic. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd written "the visual centerpiece of the article" (it's the only image on the page) and "a defining element of public perception of the event", not, as you paraphrase me, "its defining characteristic". It's nice of the cartoonist to practice freeing up his work for Wikipedia, a true Wikipedian trait. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Question. See the section Talk:Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy#Incorrectly named, what controversy?. Can the nominator or someone please explain here and there why the article's title includes the word "controversy", and why the styling discussion is considered controversial enough to be memory-holed at a page which has nothing to do with this media-notable event detailed in the recently Kept article? Specifically, what controversy. It seems to just be a styling discussion that was noticed outside the in-house talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Topic is not sufficiently notable enough on its own for a stand-alone article. The purely technical matter of having been an AFD prior is unconvincing; many articles are merged without ever going through AFD. That is irrelevant to the matter at hand. --Jayron32 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect, it has very good sourcing from The Independent and The Christian Science Monitor and others. Easily meets stand-alone page status Randy Kryn (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, I am not incorrect. That is because I really believe that the current level of coverage does not sufficiently demonstrate notability. Since that is what I really believe, my statement is a correct representation of my belief. It would only be incorrect if I didn't believe that. Not that I believe you're the kind of person who cares, because you don't seem like you're interested in being convinced that people can look at evidence differently than you do and arrive at a different conclusion, but the relevant guidance is at WP:SUSTAINED, which states "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." The lack of sustained attention to this means it doesn't merit a stand-alone article. Now, you, Randy Kryn, are quite allowed to weight various criteria differently than I do, and vote accordingly. That doesn't make you incorrect. It makes you different, which is not a synonym of incorrect. I, however, feel that this does not demonstrate enough sustained coverage to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Therefore, because that is what I wrote already, I am correct in representing what I believe in the text I already wrote. --Jayron32 14:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
You are correct that you believe you are correct, even though to do so seems to ignore the reputability of The Independent and The Christian Science Monitor. As for your analysis of me, you may be surprised, and on the chance you haven't heard of him you may enjoy the work of Robert Anton Wilson, who would probably have loved the page under discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I considered both of those sources. The CSM citation consists of a single mention in a much larger article about a different topic, which is not significant coverage. The Independent article is part of the "Brief bursts of news coverage" that means there is no sustained coverage of the topic. Everything in the article is either sourced to the same brief burst during a single news cycle, or a single-sentence-or-two mention in another work about the larger topic. This topic is NOT covered in depth in sustained coverage, so it doesn't merit a stand-alone article. --Jayron32 17:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I would also support a merge. It was a somewhat noteworthy incident, but hardly justifies a standalone article. Not that this proves anything, but no one writing about the incident ever tried to contact me for an interview or follow-up, even though I played a somewhat significant role in ending it (and was threatened with arbitration and desysopping for my pains). Mackensen (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Has very good sourcing from The Independent and The Christian Science Monitor and others. Easily meets stand-alone page status. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
You know that responding to every single vote doesn't get you extra credit. Your opinion on this matter is already on record. It doesn't become more on record because you repeat it multiple times. --Jayron32 14:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Please realize that the last comments were from a month ago, and this should have been closed long ago as no consensus. Nothing wrong with continuing to add opposing comments while editors have a second bite at the apple, especially when quality sources such as The Independent and The Christian Science Monitor are being treated like a local grocery bulletin. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: I'm not sure what any of these responses have to do with the point I was making, which had to do with lasting importance. The once source that isn't from the time of the controversy is a passing mention in the Christian Science Monitor: "How should they punctuate the movie title “Star Trek Into Darkness”?" That's the entirety of it. That cannot be used to establish standalone notability, grocery bulletin or no. No one's revisiting this after nine years. There's no lasting importance. No big oral history about how an abstruse manual of style discussion lasted months until a rogue admin ignored all the rules and ended the discussion. There are still abstruse manual of style of discussions. That admin wasn't desysopped. Life went on. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2022 (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.

Post-close

First close undone

Eh. A new user closing a discussion that isn't clear-cut, and closing it with no explanation whatsoever, is not great. Don't know what the likelihood of a different outcome is, but it should at least be an experienced editor and/or take account of the arguments. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thus the "Wikipedia Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy controversy"? EEng 16:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The closing seems fair, each side has its point of view acknowledged, however quietly and concisely. The closer has almost 500 whole edits, probably around long enough to put an obvious and lingering no consensus out to pasture. Now can we ask the cartoonist for permission to use his deleted cartoon strip (apparently he's done it for Wikipedia before)? Someone from Wikimedia or anyone here volunteer (I don't know the legal release requirements). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
p.s. although maybe not, a panel has been added to the page and looks really good. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Less than 500 edits and 6 weeks of tenure hardly meets the "highly experienced" requirement of WP:RMNAC, and the editor certainly isn't "highly experienced with RMs" as required, as they have only participated in one requested move discussion and only closed one other move discussion that I could find. In any case, experienced or not, contentious well-participated discussions should never be closed without explanation beyond the boilerplate, to show that the strength of the arguments was considered. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
May have been more experienced than he looked. Blocked as sock. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This closure was taken to MRV where the review was procedurally closed, because this is a merge, not a move, discussion. The correct venue used to review merge-discussion closures is WP:AN per WP:CLOSE. Please be cautioned that sufficient time should be given to the closer to respond to a discussion with them about their closure before any kind of review. Thank ya'll for your awesome presence! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 06:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: The closer has responded by ignoring the request and archiving the comment. diff ––FormalDude talk 07:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
from personal experience—bad idea. ;) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
To editor FormalDude: (already was aware of that.) Objective about the rights and wrongs of this and about the reasonableness of the closure. "If at first you don't succeed..."(?) "Spoonful of sugar..."(?) Congratulations btw on the anniversary of your long tenure. Best of luck at AN! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 09:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Closure review: Merge Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy to List of Wikipedia controversies ––FormalDude talk 09:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Abbreviation of FBI & CIA

In the section for August of 2007, why is the Central Intelligence Agency abbreviated to CIA while the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn't abbreviated to FBI? I don't have an opinion on one option being better, but I do think it should be consistent. IndigoGollum (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There's heavy citation and wikilink overkill in the August 2007 section of the article. I'm not sure how to fix it without screwing it up, so I'm just posting it here.

Washing Machine (alt) (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What is Neelix?

Neelix is a former Wikipedian user. It was created on 2006, then retired on 2018, then created in 2020 called Wiki2008time and have blocked indefinitely in 2020 for abusing multiple accounts. Following Wiki2008time and Micericky have blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts in 2020, Neelix have been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts in 2021. 125.160.38.64 (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

If the 'recession' dispute meets the definition of a controversy.

@EEng Even if many of the reports are, so to say, misguided, off-base or exaggerated, the fact that the 'Recession' edit dispute did get a lot of critical comments about it makes it meet the definition of controversy, which did get mentioned by several reliable sources as well. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 13:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

AFAICT, what sources say is that editing got heated so the article was protected for a while. That's extremely common and not a "controversy". EEng 14:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC) P.S. Your opening text (After U.S. President Joe Biden rejected claims that the current situation in the United States was a recession, which contradicted the generally accepted definition) seems a bit loaded.
But they also mention a fair amount of debate surrounding the incident, though, even if it is trivial in terms of Wikipedia. As for the opening sentence, I probably could've phrased that better. I don't live in America, and I have never heard anything about the recession thing until now, and I was just parroting off the Washington Post article (which was stupid). — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 14:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
If it's really a controversy, there should be some sustained coverage. Time will tell. EEng 15:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@EEng Someone else added it to the page. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Bruce McMahan

I propose this is added to the page. The article's creation, alleged PR-scrubbing, and deletion were notable at the time, and still are. Note that WP:BLP no longer applies, as he died in 2017. Riffraff913 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Relevant external links:

▪https://www.villagevoice.com/2006/09/26/daddys-girl/

▪https://www.villagevoice.com/2007/06/12/daddys-dog/

▪https://www.villagevoice.com/2010/10/07/memo-to-bruce-mcmahan-daughter-seducer-updated/

Relevant internal links:

▪https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_84

▪https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive644

It's worth noting that (from what I can tell) the original Wiki article was created around the time of the first VV article's publication, and soon gained an AfD nom (which resulted in the nomination being withdrawn), followed by another AfD nom again just one month later (resulting in "keep"). From what I can gather, the article was allegedly scrubbed by a PR firm (speculated to be with at least indirect assistance from Jimbo, at threat of legal action), and made into a puff piece, removing all mentions of his incestuous relationship with his daughter. A third AfD nom in 2009 ended up finally deleting it, because at that point it resembled nothing but self-promotion.

It really wasn't until 2010 (when Ortega's article came out) that the wider internet became aware. Riffraff913 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, this is a copy of the WP page shortly before it was deleted:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090320125845/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_McMahan Riffraff913 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Only if we have an article List of Wikipedia controversies no one's ever heard of or cares about. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Hardy har har. Did you ever consider that there are things occurring in this world that you may not be aware of? Riffraff913 (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
So the Village Voice seems to have been the one that broke the initial story and did all the follow up reporting including the back-and-forth about the subjec'ts Wikipedia page. Their involvement in this is pretty central to any potential listing here, so are there any other publications that went into any details about a Wikipedia controversy surrounding this individuals Wikipedia page? A single source making a couple of mentions of a Wikipedia page being deleted under circumstances that ended up being fortuitous for the subject doesn't suggest much of a controversy surrounding anything involving Wikipedia itself, especially when the source entangled itself into the story so much that it's not really independent of any resulting controversy. Can you provide any independent sources that covered this, or that shows that "the wider internet became aware" of any such Wikipedia controversy? To be clear, I'm asking about sources showing that this is specifically a "Wikipedia controversy" and not just sources that discuss the controversy about the article's subject, which is potentially related but not sufficient to list here as that's not a Wikipedia controversy. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if I have anything that might satisfy your conditions. From my research, it seems when the story was first reported in the Village Voice, it sort of made the rounds in some small newspapers and internet blogs. It wasn't until 2010, when Tony Ortega mentioned the Wikipedia aspect in his piece, that it seems others began to cover that angle (and by others, I again mean a few small papers and blogs).

Without deep digging, the best evidence outside Wikipedia that it caused a stir is a bevy of highly-upvoted Reddit posts, of which all take the position that Wikipedia deliberately covered it up.

The funny thing is that (while I'm not sure this fits the definition for the page, as the internal debates did not seem to make a wide splash in the press) the place where the issue seemed to make the biggest splash is Wikipedia itself. Being a deleted article, the talk page for it is unavailable for viewing, but from what I've gathered, it was flaming (in the sense of a flame war). Actually, one of the links I posted goes to an Admin Noticeboard post from 2010 in which Jimbo himself felt the need to step in and address issues to do with libel. Riffraff913 (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If independent reliable sources don't say that this is a Wikipedia controversy, it's not suitable for inclusion in the article. That is the metric that is used because Wikipedia cannot and should not be determining what is and is not controversial on Wikipedia; we must rely on reliable sources, anything short of that is WP:UNDUE. - Aoidh (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hence my "sarcastic" response which you didn't seem to get. I quick google tells you all you need to know for the purposes of Wikipedia. Nobody knows or cares about this alleged "controversy and that's reflected in nobody writing about it. We only cover what appears in WP:RS. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aoidh: How big does it have to be? What about this?

https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/daddys-little-obfuscator-6309456

At the time, the paper was owned by the same group as the Village Voice (so IDK if it fits your criteria), but it does talk about what was happening on Wikipedia in regards to edit warring on the article, as well as arguments on the talk page. It also claims Wikipedia general counsel Brad Patrick actually reached out to them to discuss any potential legal liability from having certain court records on the site.

@DeCausa: I understood your response; I just chose not to engage with you any further than acknowledgement. Being an ass isn't conducive to the conversation. Notice how I'm having a conversation with Aoidh, because even if things don't go my way, he took the time to engage with me in a helpful, non-dismissive manner. Try it sometime. Riffraff913 (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your lack of understanding and knowledge of Wikipedia, calling another editor an "ass" is something you could get blocked for. See WP:NPA. I suggest you spend more time reading Wikipedia policy before launching whatever personal crusade you're on (with forum-shopping thrown in). DeCausa (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe Wikipedia also has policies aimed toward passive aggression, incivility, and assuming good faith. I don't know where you are getting "personal crusade" and "forum-shopping", but I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from such claims. I'm only here because I wanted to help the page. That's why I used the talk page, instead of single-handedly adding a section about it. I wanted a conversation. Riffraff913 (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The two papers being owned by the same larger company doesn't concern me, unless there's a more specific thing that can be shown that causes that to be a concern but prima facie that's not the issue with the source. The issue I have is that this Broward-Palm Beach New Times source is very clearly an opinion piece based on its wording, and per WP:RSEDITORIAL is questionable as a source, at best. For one it's not attributed to any author as far as I can tell, but only says "As told to Edmund Newton". Given the lengths it goes to in describing Broward-Palm Beach New Times's involvement in this event I can't say this is independent of any controversy that might exist; if anything they seem to be competing with Village Voice with how involved in the situation they are. What I was hoping for was a reliable source that discussed a Wikipedia controversy from a disinterested third-party viewpoint; an opinion piece unhappy with their representation in a now-deleted Wikipedia article is a far cry from meeting that standard. For an example look at the November 2008 entry that involves The New York Times, the references for that section are not The New York Times themselves but uninvolved third-party reliable sources reporting on it from a disinterested perspective. The June 2009 entry that involves Wired has sources that aren't Wired. The sources in these two examples aren't themselves part of the controversy. That's the kind of source I was hoping to discuss, because without that kind of source I don't think this event rises to the level of something that can be included. - Aoidh (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Aoidh: Understood. I'll bring the topic back up if I feel I've found sources which can fulfill those criteria. Thanks again for you help! :)

Riffraff913 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Coloured backgrounds

Why is September 2005 highlighted in red and April 2013 highlighted in yellow? MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

surprised yet pleased this page exists

Title says it all. I've noticed through firsthand interactions, that Wikipedia moderators seem to have a vested interest in preserving bad information or removing challenges or warnings to the veracity to poor sources. For keepers of information there are a lot that try to distort it or color it with personal bias, so I'm honestly surprised this page exists.

If they add a page about how Wikipedia editors are widely perceived to have poor social skills and a god complex, justice will truly be done. Ba18070 (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It exists because some editors made it, and it doesn't meet our criteria for deletion. That's how the system works. What did you expect. --Herostratus (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Source 121

Source 121 under the false reporting of the deaths of Byrd and Kennedy doesn't fit the info of the source. Source 121's preview is a contemporary Fox News story, however clicking on the link goes to a 2021 Fox News story about Larry Sanger criticizing Wikipedia for supposed left wing bias. XCBRO172 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Wikipedia controversy about BFDI

Can anybody add a Wikipedia controversy about BFDI? Many BFDI articles were deleted on Wikipedia. 2001:448A:11A3:1155:51B1:ED4C:48D3:CB9F (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

If you can find an independent, reliable source about it, then feel free to add it to the article. Jurta talk/he/they 17:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
For the uninitiated, see WP:BFDI. jp×g🗯️ 09:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Rambot an actual controversy?

I was surprised to see the story of Rambot listed as a controversy, as from what the article says about it the bot to me seemed primarily innovative and helpful. So I started looking around, and I could not find any public mention of the Rambot from before Mr Lih wrote about it in a book twelve years after the fact. Not a single public expression of anything, not of it being found controversial, nor of any public support for it. Nothing whatsoever before the publication of mr Lih's book, and also nobody else opining by themselves even after it's publication. Only references to Mr Lih's description.

What I did find however, was a lemma on Wikipedia about bot-history on the site, where it turned out similar bots were being used in several other-language wiki's concerning other countries' administrative divisions, around the same time as Rambot had been used (Wikipedia:History_of_Wikipedia_bots#Small_town_bots).

So with the benefit of hindsight I wonder: was the 2002 use of Rambot actually controversial simply because one person said so in 2014, even if that one person is a serious researcher and author? Or was it actually an innovative thing to do which was primarily accepted practice among the community as soon as it occurred?

I'm not gonna mess with the page, do not see myself as able to judge in this matter, and I am not a very experienced editor. But this listing just seemed weird/off to me. Jutte Brøtbørda (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

All the discussions should still be here, although I will warn anyone who tries to delve into this that page histories start to get real shaky around 2002-01 (people were just discussing stuff on article pages themselves, comments weren't getting signed reliably, etc). It's totally possible that people were hopping mad about it, but it was far before my time. jp×g🗯️ 09:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Alan Mcilwraith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is an unencyclopedic and mean-spirited biography of an obscure Wikipedia hoaxer. I suggest a minimal merge to the Wikipedia controversy list as an alternative to deletion. Cheers, gnu57 02:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, it looks pretty well-referenced to me. It might be better off with some copyediting for tone, but I don't know about a merge. jp×g🗯️ 09:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies/Archive_4&oldid=1256403828"