Jump to content

Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Bruce McMahan: new section
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 181: Line 181:
:::If it's really a controversy, there should be some sustained coverage. Time will tell. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 15:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
:::If it's really a controversy, there should be some sustained coverage. Time will tell. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 15:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
::::@[[User:EEng|EEng]] Someone else added it to the page. <span style="color:#7f4bad">'''— V<small>ORTEX</small>'''</span><sup><u><small>[[User:Vortex3427|3427]]</small></u></sup> <small>([[User talk:Vortex3427|Talk!]])</small> 08:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
::::@[[User:EEng|EEng]] Someone else added it to the page. <span style="color:#7f4bad">'''— V<small>ORTEX</small>'''</span><sup><u><small>[[User:Vortex3427|3427]]</small></u></sup> <small>([[User talk:Vortex3427|Talk!]])</small> 08:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

== Bruce McMahan ==

I'm assuming this is somehow barred from addition? [[User:Riffraff913|Riffraff913]] ([[User talk:Riffraff913|talk]]) 17:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:14, 7 October 2022


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The close was Keep not "maybe". Randy Kryn (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Thus the "Wikipedia Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy controversy"? EEng 16:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
May have been more experienced than he looked. Blocked as sock. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: The closer has responded by ignoring the request and archiving the comment. diff ––FormalDude talk 07:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
from personal experience—bad idea. ;) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]
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)[reply]
If it's really a controversy, there should be some sustained coverage. Time will tell. EEng 15:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng Someone else added it to the page. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McMahan

I'm assuming this is somehow barred from addition? Riffraff913 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&oldid=1114666158"