User:Opencooper/Not everything is a controversy
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
One trend I've noticed in articles is to describe any minor point of contention as "controversy". The term "controversy" makes everything sound so much more dramatic and large-scale than it usually is. Instead of always jumping to use that word, editors should try to assess the actual notoriety of the situation and use the most appropriate term. In order to give proper due weight to a subject, we have to be careful to portray its reception accurately without exaggeration or editorializing.
Example
[edit]Say there's a book about dogs and some parent at an elementary school in one small town complained about it because they didn't like the dog's name. The book has otherwise been well-received without incident but that complaint was covered a little in the news. Calling it a controversy blows the situation out of proportion and if someone glanced at the article's lead or table of contents, they'd assume the book has been controversial due to its content, when in actuality it's just one person with a arbitrary complaint.
Alternatives
[edit]Often, the most apt section header is a simple description of the topic (e.g. "Opposition to dog's name"). Alternative terms one should consider using—keeping in mind the context—are: response, reaction, debate, dispute, criticism, backlash, protest, inquiry, etc. Again, within reason: the goal isn't to sensationalize. One could also use the name of a specific event, person, or publication associated with the subject that was controversial. Alternatively, instead of devoting a whole section to a small aspect of a subject, roll the event into an appropriate section such as "publication" or "reception".
When to use "controversy"
[edit]In some cases, "controversy" might actually be the most apt term to use. An editor should consider whether the term describes the scope and scale of the negativity. Would you actually call something like that controversial? Is "controversy" part of the actual name of the event? Consider comparing the context to other well-known controversies you know.
Caution should also be used when consulting how reliable sources describe the event, because often the goal of many publications is to get views and draw attention rather than objectively describe the scale and importance of the event (many also suffer from recentism).