Talk:Controversy/Archives/2013

Some older talk
(a random - formating heading)

Dispute resolution

Nothing below strikes me as encyclopedic. What are we trying to do with this article, and how does it educate anyone? It looks like pure commentary, but I suppose some of it might be editable into something useful, so I'll leave the text here. --LDC


 * The way people conduct themselves when discussing a controversy is often more interesting to an observer than the issue at hand. Often, dishonest debate tactics are used, especially in political campaigns, where ad hominem attacks are especially effective. Alternately, some people think that ad hominem attacks are very appropriate in representational democracies, since electing a representative involves trusting a person to do the right thing. Calling peple dishonest, on the other hand, rarely results in a good debate.


 * Nonetheless, societies have sometimes been formed dedicated to discussion of controversial issues with (they hoped) high ethical standards. One wonders if Wiki can be such a forum. Of course, that depends on what your definition of "high ethical standards" is, and whether or not you like calling people "dishonest".


 * Over the last four centuries, natural philosophy developed into modern science, which has dedicated itself to finding the truth about reality. It seeks to settle controversies over matters within its province by submitting hypotheses and evidence to peer review and public scrutiny. See scientific method.
 * Gone forever are the days when scientific ideas would be suppressed (Galileo) or touted for ideological purposes (Lysenko).

I wrote what you moved and thank you for moving it. It is indeed commentary. Does it belong in meta-wiki? --Ed Poor


 * Actually, someone revised it after I orginally wrote it. I didn't say


 * Alternately, some people think that ad hominem attacks are very appropriate in representational democracies, since electing a representative involves trusting a person to do the right thing. Calling peple dishonest, on the other hand, rarely results in a good debate.

or that it


 * depends on what your definition of "high ethical standards" is, and whether or not you like calling people "dishonest".

Perhaps it belongs to some branch of sociology or politics.

--Ed Poor

WINAD -- I doubt we can say anything useful about this subject and should therefore delete this page. (IMHO meta-wiki is probably a good place for it).

We could always just put in the info that it's the title of a Prince song... ;-) JHK

What is needed is a detail unbias view of the subject controversy (or perhaps the subject is too controversial). In my opinion this should be devided into various sections.

Controversy

definition

causes

tactics

biases

worldview

related links

"[T]he United States Supreme Court, the court cannot review cases in which there is no controversy": this is an incomplete (as it applies to all courts, not just the Supreme) and grossly inadequate discussion of the Constitutional issue of "case or controversy". --Daniel C. Boyer 18:05, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm new to the whole process, so I thought i'd try my hand on an unimportant topic (this one - please no offense to anyone who has worked this previously) Anyway I'll try to separate the contemporary meaning from the legal meaning and give it a little more relevance. And as much as I completely agree that the SCO vs. Linux thing is a tad ridiculous, I'm not so sure that it's going to be a good lasting example. Maybe I'll try to generalize it? Sorry If I'm stepping on anyone's toes, I really mean only the best. --Emory 06:10, Feb 2004 (UTC)

Self reference
While I find the controversy over the controversy article itself, and its own discussion of it, amusing in a self-referential-humour sort of way, this seems to create some trouble with the Avoid self-reference policy. I made some changes to try to deal with it, but it still reads like a Keep plea on VfD. Is this paragraph really appropriate for the article itself? 02:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I cut it out entirely. "Criticism" of other Wikipedia articles is absurd. Also, the self fulfilling prophecy of labelling something controversy is explained, then controversy itself is called controversial. Too much unintended comedy, I say. Wyllium 02:21, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)


 * "Self-reference" means mentioning Wikipedia, as in "this Wikipedia article"... etc. - User:Wetman


 * This is false. The avoid-self-reference policy refers to any act that assumes the article content is being viewed at the Wikipedia website, such as referring to the "sidebar", the buttons along the top, the fact that the article can be modified, or, especially, the VfD process, which even on this site doesn't make sense to most readers. This kind of assumption creates trouble for print versions and large-scale derivative works. I also find your change of the section name rather juvenile &mdash; please avoid POV changes to section titles. Deco 04:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (I had merely changed the section heading to "confusion over the meaning of 'Self-reference'", the better to reflect its content. "POV" means "point-of-view:" &mdash;hard to see how that applies. The reader may judge whether my remark was false, or merely incomplete... -Wetman 14:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC))


 * I'm sorry &mdash; I took your section title change as a personal attack, accusing me of not understanding the self-reference policy (thus POV, changing the section title to reflect your own view on the matter.) If this wasn't what you were doing I apologise. Deco 22:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is this true?
I'd debate this statement:


 * "It is the nature of controversies that they cannot be conclusively settled"

Many unsolved problems in mathematics have been the subject of great controversy, and quite a few of them have been conclusively settled since, such as squaring the circle and solving a polynomial equation of degree exceeding 5. Perhaps a more accurate statement is that they are very difficult or impossible to solve conclusively. Deco 02:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Frivolous list
Can we delete the "list of controversial people"? Wikipedia is not a slam-book. --Wetman 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What does the above comment refer to? patsw 00:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples of things that are not controversies
I think this article would be improved by examples of:


 * What isn't (and never was) a controversy, but different people held different opinions at different times.


 * What was a controversy, and how it came to longer be controversial. patsw 00:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

just a question: external links

 * Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View dispute

Why is this an "external link" and not a "see also"? Thx, &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite?
In a August 2007 deletion discussion about this article several possible, and often contradicting, editing actions were suggested to be taken. Please consider then if you plan to improve this. - Nabla 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

some wise guy took the entire selection and erased it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.211.4 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
For me, this is a weak Stub-class article on a most important topic. The topic should be part of more Projects than just Sociology: Philosophy, HistSci, Religion, Politics...

Several discussions have said in effect: 'do it right or don't do it at all'. I'm with them! Am willing to do a section on controversy from a HistSci and Biography perspective, but only if others will tackle other sections.

The legal section is not the worst, but nevertheless is v. poor; what we need there is an overview as to how legal systems have attempted to provide frameworks for regulating important controversies, and what problems they have encountered. This overview could use the present-day legal system of individual countries as exemplars. At present much is not even in English.

And is not disputation fundamental to philosophy, both as a method and as a substantive problem? How can we hope to succeed without some input there? See also rhetoric and argument. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary/Encyclopedia confusion?
the first sentence "A controversy is a dispute, argument, discussion or debate featuring strong disagreements and opposing, contrary, or sharply contrasting opinions about an idea, subject, group or person." sums up controversy, and seeing how short that is, its for the dictionary, and is nontheless common knowledge. (DELETE IT) 68.177.37.202 (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See Articles_for_deletion/Controversy. Dcoetzee 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree
I would like to hear-by declare my disgust and resentment to my opponents' position on this. Furthermore, the previous statements, in my opinion, are false and offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.94.34 (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)