Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars

Overhaul

I'm about to conduct a major overhaul of the article. It seems to me that quite a few of these entries are unreferenced and may even be simple talk page debates. I'll try to delete all entries that are only talk page debates and add references for the actual edit wars. Interchangeable|talk to me 16:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This whole page should be deleted. It is not "humorous" to poke fun at people who feel strongly about things that are important to them. At minimum, all but the most trivial and joky issues should be deleted. Some of the entries are about sensitive, controversial and highly non-trivial matters, and classifying disputes about them as "lame" displays an extraordinary lack of judgement. 86.176.210.154 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think 86.167.19.92 makes a legitimate point here. I see WP:LAME as a way for us to remind ourselves to keep a sense of perspective, by gently mocking those folks who have spent untold hours debating the merits of "yogurt" vs "yoghurt". Including more serious disagreements detracts from that purpose. Also, this is a gigantic list, which would be better if the best (most trivial) examples weren't obfuscated by genuine controversies. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh-hem. This page is not about debates, which are excellent ways of conflict resolution and should be encouraged, however trivial they may be. It is about true edit wars, where participants revert back and forth many times without discussing why except in their edit summaries. Wikipedia is all about discussion and consensus. Those who attempt to ignore that and push their views are truly lame and should be included here as a reminder to the rest of us. Interchangeable|talk to me 19:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This distinction is too precarious to justify serious matters, and matters about which people genuinely feel strongly, being described as "lame", "humorous" and "trivial" and listed on a page whose sole purpose seems to be to mock. 86.160.212.9 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Interchangeable, poor choice of words on my part. I was referring to the genuine back-and-forth edit war over "Yoghurt" vs "Yogurt", distinct from actual debate on the talk page. My point is that this page should focus on edit wars over such trifles, and not edit wars over serious matters. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Serious-matter edit wars can be lame. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

AdrianJ, will you please provide a reference for the genuine edit warring? It's currently not in the entry. Interchangeable|talk to me 16:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the fact the page spent over eight years being batted back and forth between titles is reference enough... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, some of those debates are pretty notable---and do include revision edits as different sides often tried to make their edits count. But some of the debates (ala the pregnancy one) were monstrosities over pretty trivial matters.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

To quote this page, "It must have been an actual edit war. Discussions on talk pages, even over trivially lame details are not "edit wars" and should NEVER be added: we want to encourage such rational debates between users/viewpoints (as opposed to actual edit warring). Note that pithy quotes on talk pages may be suitable for Wikipedia:Talk page highlights." It is because of this guide line that I am conducting the overhaul. Interchangeable|talk to me 23:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How about this?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Bold, revert, discuss. Should it be Articles for Deletion or Articles for deletion? Cue lengthy back and forth debate, culminating in a Wikipedian declaring For fuck's sake, leave it alone.. Not an edit war per se but a pretty pointless debate over a pretty trivial thing. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• And how about WP:The Last Word, which has had a bit of an edit war (that might just kick off again today if we're lucky) over whether or not it should have the {{humor}} tag on the essay. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Pluto

I'm a bit concerned about the inclusion of Pluto here. First of all, this isn't something as trivial as a capitalization or punctuation argument; scientists have debated this, so why wouldn't editors? Not exactly "lame". But more importantly, the entry says the raging debate took place on the talk page. If that's true, then it wasn't even an edit war. How can something be considered a "lame edit war" when editors didn't edit war, but discussed as they were supposed to do? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

By all means, remove it if you wish. I could certainly use some help with this overhaul (see above). Interchangeable|talk to me 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum straw poll

Let's settle it in the usual way, shall we? Because after all edit-warring is just lame. Straw polls are not lame. RfCs (if necessary) are even more not lame. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Include it

1. Yep: because otherwise it's lame. (Or do I have that backwards?) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Irony?

1. Are we really having a straw poll to see if another straw poll is lame? Tarc (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Per Peter Griffin. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

University Challenge

For info, the UK quiz show University Challenge has just had a round of (three) questions about this page. Lugnuts (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Highly amusing. Number 57 20:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Tooth fairy scandal

• Started here, and after it went to ANI I was informed of it, then the second trip to ANI, caused temporary retirement, but you know, I think it may have a lame/funny side to it. Penyulap _talk 02:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

would this Haymarket affair edit conflict be one?

• The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia February 12, 2012 The Chronicle of Higher Education regarding this Wikipedia article [1]

99.181.131.190 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No 1 cause of edit wars: Nationalist school systems -> Solution: create Wikipedia page warning about it

Isn't it weird that most of these edit wars concern nationalism? The reason these edit wars exist is because most people were educated in a school system that has heavy bias towards its own nationalism. You would think that what they teach you at school is all true and impartial. But that's not the case!

For example, the first time I came to Wikipedia, it was a real shock to me. I made significant contribution to Hungarian history based on what I learned at school. Only later did I see that most of my edits were reverted or changed because someone from Slovakia had a different opinion and he was taught something totally different at school than I was.

For instance, when Romania occupied Hungary for a brief time, in Hungary they call it the Romanian oppression, but in Romania they teach it as the Romanian liberation. Croatia is taught in Hungary as a province, but in Croatia it is taught as an independent country. In Hungary, Hungary is taught as the most significant part of the Hapsburg Empire yet in Austria, it's taught as a province. What's more, in Hungary I didn't even hear about the term Magyarization before because they simply don't teach that at school. In Slovakia, this is taught as a major element of curriculum.

What they teach us is that our country is great, our nation is great and that there are a few people who are our national heroes, and whenever "we" suffered it was unjust. For God's sake, even the Anthem of Hungary that every Hungarian has to know by heart is about the fact how great the nation is and that it suffered so much unjustly throughout the years. Nothing is ever mentioned about bad things that Hungary might have done to other nations. What's more, if a great man who invented great things hundreds years ago was born in Hungary, I'm supposed to feel proud of him, but if he was born a few kilometers on the other side of the border, I don't even know his name because it's not in the curriculum.

Why do I refer to another Hungarians as "us" but to a Slovak as "them". For the most part, most Hungarians do not ever leave the country so they live their life in the belief that they are great and other nations are bad. However, on the rare occasion when someone comes and declares that our national hero is from a different nationality, people get angry, because it strikes them at the heart of their national identity since all their life they have been taught to look up to these national heros, because it is them who make the nation great.

This is a LIE. It's a big fat lie. It seems the whole education system of most countries in the world is a just pretext to promote nationalism and control the population. There is a heavy dose of nationalist bias that presents the so called "facts of history" through a tinted glass.

Question is how can we tell people about this so that they won't start their mindless nationalist edit wars? It is extremely rare that they will recognize it by themselves, because they take what they have been taught throughout their lives as the one and only truth. And when these people meet someone else from different indoctrination background as them, that's when the edit wars start.

It took me about 1 year to realize that the Slovak editors aren't hostile and malicious, but only refute what they were taught at school and I'm refuting what I was taught at school, and that our different education systems shaped our identities and beliefs differently so that it is always us that the good guys are and the other ones are always the bad guys.

Therefore, I propose to create a Wikipedia page that warns new users about the indoctrination aspects and nationalist biases of their own education systems that define their identities and beliefs. We should tell them that just because someone is subject to a different nationlist propaganda, he is not malicious in any way, and therefore they shouldn't take the expression of his different beliefs as ad hominem attacks.

It would have helped me incredibly to learn this before I started editing on Wikipedia and not engage in non-sense nationalistic edit wars, which I did for almost a year before I realized what I was doing! All I was thinking about that I must teach these people the truth that I knew. So that's why in my opinion a Wikipedia page would be a great idea to teach new users about this, and as a result there would be a significant drop in edit wars! --Bizso (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)