Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies/Archive 3

The Exclusion of a Participant by WikiConference USA 2014
My apologies, I'm not sure what is appropriate for this page, since it's my first edit here. It seems like the incident involving the exclusion of Greg Kohs at WikiConference USA 2014 is noteworthy enough to include on this list, but it has been reverted. Could someone please tell me what criteria this incident doesn't meet for inclusion in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wllm (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wil: I'm going to drop you an email shortly. But to answer your direct query here: on a list of this nature, we generally don't include entries unless they have been referenced by multiple reliable sources.  Your addition wasn't referenced by multiple reliable sources; I'd go as far as to state that it wasn't referenced by one reliable source, given that the PR piece you referenced is from an outlet that (a) isn't incredibly well-respected, even among the PR trade press, (b) the entry at O'Dwyers had to have misspellings including "Widipedia" and "Wikipendia" corrected multiple times before they fixed them as well as multiple other factual errors, (c) the article was editorial in nature, coming from a source fairly well known to not like us.  Even though the list criteria aren't well-defined here, from the lede, "This list is a collection of the more notable instances" - preventing a banned WP critic who had posed an active disruption before the event from attending from attending clearly doesn't meet that standard, especially when it's only covered in O'Dwyer.  Moreover, since the post essentially alleges wrongdoing using only the shakiest of sources on the part of conference organizers - even though they aren't explicitly named - I'd also suggest that including this content in the article represents a WP:BLP issue until it receives more substantial (and more accurate, one would hope) coverage from somewhere other than O'Dwyer. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin, I'm starting to think these private emails are a big part of the problem. I'd like to publish the unsolicited email you sent to me regarding this issue on June 5. It's the one in which you suggest I "back the fuck off." Is that OK with you? Please, Kevin, in the future if you have anything to say to me regarding Wikipedia, try to do it on-wiki where everyone can take part. Best. ,Wil (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what happened is noteworthy, but it does have to wait for the news media out there to catch up to it. Publications like the Daily Dot and others usually have their ear closer to the ground on things to do with the Wikipedia and such, so we'll keep an eye out. Tarc (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The O'Dwyer article was inane, and I agree that more sources are required. Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * New York (magazine) just mentioned it here, so we now have our RS. I will readd it. Cla68 (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If we mentioned everything in this article that received a tangential one sentence mention in a RS about Wikipedia that was vaguely controversial, this would be an awfully long article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sleepy and retract my last edit summary (been a while since I've looked at the guideline,) but the point still stands. Come back when it's received more than a sentence in an RS. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop ordering us around. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort.  I found a RS so, it should not be removed unless a consensus is established here for its removal.  WP doesn't belong to you.  It belongs to all of us.  Cla68 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And it smacks of self-censorship and cover up - A l is o n  ❤ 21:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Alison: you know that suggesting that removing an item in a list potentially this long that is currently only supported by one sentence in a RS represents censorship is hyperbole, which isn't something terribly useful here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A modified version of criteria #1 as found here is pretty clearly a roughly appropriate criteria for inclusion here and a single sentence found in a RS clearly doesn't meet that. Can you imagine how long this list would be if we included every WP related "controversy" every that received a SINGLE sentence in any RS?  Please point me to any guideline or policy that suggests that absolute consensus needs to be established before content sourced to a single sentence in a RS is removed... especially when, currently, the balance of this talk page favors removal. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The NYmag article (which only gives a couple of lines to the Kohs incident) gets its info about Kohs from O'Dwyer's. So citing that really isn't any different than citing O'Dwyer's piece a second time. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For clarity: I was talking about the NYM piece only, I don't consider the O'Dwyer's piece an RS. Since NYM does meet the relevant RS guidelines, it's okay to use NYM as a source, even if they got it from O'Dwyer's - we grant them the assumption of good faith that they've factchecked, etc.  But, since it's still a single bloody sentence in one RS, there's no way it's an incident worth including in this list, unless significant further coverage develops. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The NYmag piece only gives it one sentence as an alleged event, so there's still a WP:DUE issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. That policy is about opposing points of view being represented in proportion to their representation in RS.  It is completely beside the point here.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ... Stating that Ktr's edit summary violated BLP is more or less just looking for a reason to use BLP to smack him. I agree his argument doesn't speak directly to whether or not Kohs should be included, but it's hardly an egregious BLP violation. If we included every single Wikipedia-related thing on this list that received one sentence of coverage in one reliable source, the list would look positively ridiculous. Re: everything else, see my post below. Kevin Gorman (talk)

I am all for equal representation and whatnot here, but what concerns me is that we're reporting on something that goes with the event's Friendly space policy. There was a legitimate reason to remove Greg from the conference (people were not going to go if he was there), and there is nothing controversial about it if you go along those lines. He was not removed for his paid editing work, and would have been accepted if he wasn't banned for the above reason. Each organization has a right to implement a Friendly space policy and enforce it as they see fit. If you are banned for a legitimate concern, then that is not so much a scandal as the active attempt at including people who would not feel comfortable with that person around. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Everybody stop edit-warring. Gorman, you're an administrator, so you're supposed to know better. Furthermore, the incident is mentioned in a New York Magazine blog, so it's reliably sourced and is thus inclusable. The balance of the talk page doesn't "favor removal." Furthermore, your edit summaries seem to indicate that you think that items on a list need to be notable. They specifically do not need to be notable. They just need to be sourceable, to fall within the scope of the list, and to meet the selection criteria. This incident does all three. the NYMag mention is a source, the scope of the list includes this: "hostile interactions between Wikipedia editors and public figures," and we're discussing now whether it meets the selection criteria, which are essentially up to the editors on the page, not the MOS. Finally, this edit summary by is barely believable: "this is not a controversy. greg legitimately made people feel uncomfortable and there was a reason he was banned." First of all, it's a BLP violation. Second of all, whether or not "there was a reason he was banned" is irrelevant. The only thing that determines whether it is a controversy is that reliable sources identify it as controversial. The actor's rationale for the action is beyond immaterial. The NYMag source uses this incident as a primary concrete example of the claim that "Over the years there have been power struggles, schisms, defections, accusations of abuse, censorship, libel, and just plain-old bickering." See, the source identifies it as controversial? That's how we decide what goes in articles, not whether some people think they have a rational reason for the controversial things they do.  Ktr101, you are violating BLP right and left.  You should stop it.  Not only that, but your arguments are completely beside the point, as explained above.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware there was an edit conflict, but just in case you don't see it, my comment was that the NYmag piece is merely repeating O'Dwyer's regarding Kohs. And if we are going to cite the NYmag, we should follow their wording, "allegedly," instead of taking the O'Dwyer's claims at face value. Ian.thomson (talk) 6:35 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * Ian is correct that if we were to include this based on the NYM piece, we should include a disclaiming word such as NYM used one. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that the NYMag piece cites the PR piece is not the same as citing the PR piece. NYMag is a reliable source, so when it choses to cite an unreliable source we may rely on their judgment that the incident is controversial. That is the only question at stake here: Do reliable sources see it as controversial? Your last edit summary indicates that you too think that list entries need to be independently notable. They do not. You should revert yourself for shame as there is an ongoing discussion and you're removing sourced material.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I love the number of people who are trying to get Kohs included as a controversy on an article with a scope this large who are not bothering to make any policy-based comment on this talk page (or frequently, any comment at all.) Here's my argument: this is a list with a major scope that could include thousands of items, which would make it nearly useless - thus, we need to limit the scope of items included in this list. I would suggest that a modified version of the first criteria included here would be a good starting point - not necessarily requiring enough RS coverage to establish independent notability, but at a bare minimum requiring more than one RS - or at least substantial coverage in one good RS (and one line is not substantial.) And, on top of that, anything on this list should almost certainly be described as a controversy - otherwise, we're injecting our own opinion.  Also.. that whole WP:RECENTISM thing.. yeah. I'd encourage anyone in favor of including Kohs as it currently stands to respond to this post with something other than "AHHH! CENSORSHIP!" Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact that the NYMag piece cites the PR piece is not the same as citing the PR piece. NYMag is a reliable source, so when it choses to cite an unreliable source we may rely on their judgment that the incident is controversial. That is the only question at stake here: Do reliable sources see it as controversial? Your last edit summary indicates that you too think that list entries need to be independently notable. They do not. You should revert yourself for shame as there is an ongoing discussion and you're removing sourced material.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 6:39 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * Wow, "for shame," really? Such judgmental language.  And what about my other comment?  That if we are going to leave it in there per just the NYmag piece, we should, as even NYmag does, treat it as a one sentence alleged incident?  Unless we're also going to include a bit the effect that Sumana Harihareswara of the Wikimedia foundation noted that "For many people in the Wikipedia movement, free speech is, as John Scalzi put it, the ability to be a dick in every possible circumstance."  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the qualifier, by all means put it in as it's in the source. You still haven't explained why you think it's OK to remove sourced material that a number of editors think meets the inclusion criteria.  And as for your piping of WP:CIVIL to "judgmental language," why don't you just knock it off and say what you mean, whatever that is?  If you won't revert yourself for unqualified shame, consider reverting yourself because you're perpetuating an edit-war when there's ongoing discussion, something which many competent editors of Wikipedia would be ashamed of doing.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me put it this way: treating an editor you disagree with about policy like a misbehaving child by telling them to revert themselves instead of being a grown up and doing it yourself) makes it look like you have some kind of Dick-ish superiority complex (which would be an indication you need to leave this alone for cooler heads). Also, it's WP:BRD, not "WP:Bold-Revert-Revert-Discuss."  In other words, material is added, reverted (removed), discussed, and then added back in after the discussion.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Including sourced material that's on-topic is not a "bold" edit, so your invocation of the essay BRD is off-point. If anything, removing sourced on-topic material is being bold.  That's why you ought to revert yourself, because your reversion of the edit supported edit-warriors who were ignoring the very essay you now invoke to support your removal of sourced material.  Plus, your ridiculous piped easter eggs are uninterpretable.  Why don't you say what you mean?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding content isn't a bold edit? What?  Where is BRD does begin to make that sort of qualification?  That sheer misinterpretation of both the letter and the spirit of BRD is nothing but Wikilawyering, further evidence of you don't have the right attitude for this. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah hahahahaha.....00:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How is that not Dick-ish? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't. Do you have an argument to make beyond calling me names?  I already agreed with your only substantive point, which is that the material should use the same qualifier as the source it comes from.  Have you bothered to reply to a single argument I've made?  By the way, did you notice this sentence from the metapedian non-policy you keep waving at me like a stick? The one that says "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is generally a dick-move — especially if true. It upsets the other person and reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say."?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been plenty of points made, which you hypocritically either ignore, insult, or wikilawyer around. And all my posts have focused on behavior and attitude, per "Focus on behaviour, not on individuals. Say what you want and why you want it. Say why you think the other person's behaviour is counter-productive."  I have assumed that you were acting in good faith, but with a inclustionist bent, while you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that those with the slightlest exclusionist tendencies could be anything but idiots who shouldn't be anywhere near the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Your points focus on "behavior and attitude."  Why don't you try focusing on content?  Now, I conceded your point about the qualifier in the source.  Why don't you try explaining why you reverted the sourced material?  Do you even have a reason?  Why don't you address my counterpoint to your puerile argument that citing a reliable source that cites an unreliable source is the same as citing the unreliable source?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made other statements, as have other editors, you've chosen to ignore or dismiss them. Don't twist my words.  Your behavior does not contribute to a cooperative discussion, it is purely a distraction meant to establish a chilling effect on anything you disagree with.  You want to play that way?  Fine, see you at ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kevin, I have something other than "AHHH! CENSORSHIP!" I made the original edit, tho I haven't participated in the ensuing edit war. It sounds like we aren't going to come to a consensus on this matter without outside arbitration. Someone suggested that this matter would be a candidate for the WP:DR process. I'd like to call for that process to begin at this point, if that's something I can do. This would be my first experience going through this particular process, so I'd really appreciate any help or suggestions anyone has on bringing this to a just and reasonable conclusion as quickly as possible. I really don't like seeing interactions like these; every time a Wikipedian reverts an edit in an edit war, an angel dies. ;) Thanks! (Sorry, I moved this from the un-nested discussion and made some small edits for relevance in this thread.) ,Wil (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wil, you're being too hasty. We don't need outside arbitration yet.  It's killing flies with atom bombs.  DR is bullshit and won't help anything.  The problem here is that once a bunch of people got their version protected they've decided to withdraw from the conversation.  Of course we can't make them talk, but we can build consensus.  I propose that we start a new section and have an informal RfC.  The next step after that would be a formal RfC, although that's a fairly last resort.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah(talk) 04:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Damn. I was hoping this would be a good candidate for arbitration. I would like to see what that process is like. In any case, all in due time. ;) I haven't seen the RfC process, either; so I'm all for it. If that's the way to go, then let's do it to it. ,Wil (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbitration is like inviting the national guard in to occupy your city, impose martial law, and thereby quell disturbance. You go there for e.g. the LA riots in 1992 or Little Rock in 1956.  Furthermore, despite the shameful displays of raw, unchecked administrative power made by some of the participants in this discussion, there really have been no serious conduct disputes.  Arbcom deals with conduct only, not content.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Kevin Gorman: You have no policy based reason for removal, *and* you're edit-warring, and you're ignoring substantive arguments. The NYMag source gives it as a prominent example of Wikipedia's "power struggles, schisms, defections, accusations of abuse, censorship, libel, and just plain-old bickering." How is that not saying it's controversial? Or are you, I hate to imagine, suggesting that sources must actually use the word "controversy" before an item can be included on this list?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Alf, unless you're making a completely arbitrary difference between guideline and policy (which seems odd in this case,) I certainly do have justifiable reasons for removing the content - see my last post. This would be a ridiculously long list if we included every possible controversy that had received one sentence of coverage in a reliable source. See WP:LISTN//WP:LSC, as I've previously linked (not to mention the WP:RECENTISM issues involved in including a one sentence one week old piece...)  Even from the inclusion criteria included at the beginning of this list - "This list is a collection of the more notable instances" - the material doesn't qualify for inclusion on the list, until/unless more significant coverage emerges.  There are plenty of times when it's perfectly okay to remove reliably sourced information from an article as you should be well aware, and this is one of them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * LISTN is a red herring. It's a notability guideline and has nothing to do with what's included on a list.  There is nothing in that guideline that has to do with whether or not an item should be included on a list.  LSC is more on point.  As it says, one question to be asked is "Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?"  Now, the NYMag article singled out this incident as a concrete example of the bitter controversies Wikipedia generates.  Thus, according to a reliable source, the answer to that question is "yes."  Furthermore, obviously there are times when it's OK to remove sourced material from a list.  This may or may not be one of them, and that's what we're discussing.  However, there are never times when it's OK to edit-war over it, which you were doing.  That's not OK, and as an administrator, you ought to know better.  Now, as to your argument that this list would be ridiculously long if we included items like the one under discussion.  That's a valid argument, but is it sound?  I don't believe you.  Give me a few examples of things that would be included on this list but are not currently included.  I don't think there are enough to make the list ridiculously long.  In fact, I think there are zero to few of them.  Please, find three such items and I will concede the truth of your premise and therefore the soundness of your argument.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The banning was a blatant act of gutless cowardice, no one but the most dyed-in-the-wool Wiki-Slurper can see that. But there are still standards to meet here for sourcing; an NY Mag entry that doesn't mention the subject by name, and even that only references the problematic O'Dwyer ref.  Give it more time to see if other outlets pick it up. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable point of view, but reasonable people can disagree. The source doesn't mention Kohs by name, but it's hyperlinked in such a way that we can assume that not mentioning his name was a stylistic choice rather than a comment on his relevance.  The fact that it only references the PR thing is not a problem.  That's what reliable sources do; they take information from unreliable sources and, like a Wikipedian king Midas, make it golden with their touch.  Let's put it in shan't we, Tarc?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply in this, but the major issue that I have with this article is that it completely misrepresented what Alex and I said to her. Yes we talked candidly about the movement, but I never said that some editors have pizza stains on their shirts and rambled on for a few minutes after I messed up my conversation with a friend. She wrote that to reinforce her own preconceptions about us, as evidenced by her mentioning of braces (which I had for a surgery I received a year ago, and is totally irrelevant to me being twenty-three) and her stating that Alex had John Lennon glasses (he doesn't, just check any photo of him out there). To tie this back in to what Kevin has been saying above about Greg, she was on the mailing list when Greg commented on his banning and got the same e-mail that we did. At the same time, she is trying to make our movement look more scandalous than it is in that we supposedly are banning people on flimsy grounds. Granted, I am not going to edit war here, but I wanted to let people know that that article is not an accurate representation of what was said, as there was an incredible amount of editing that was put on those quotes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If Philip Roth doesn't get to contradict reliable sources based just on his say-so, I don't see why you should get to do so either. We go by what reliable sources say, and your recollections and your narrative are not reliable sources, now, are they?  Get NYMag to issue a correction and your version can go in.  Your speculations on the motivation of the author of the article aren't relevant either.  By the way, "braces" in that context almost certainly means "suspenders."  You didn't happen to be wearing suspenders, did you?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding this - There is no American on either side of the Mississippi that would think that "braces" meant "suspenders". Since this was an American event(Wikiconference USA) and the source is an American source(NY Mag), written by an American, I highly doubt "braces in that context almost certainly means suspenders". In fact, that's far fetched. Also, looking at the photos from the event, braces may have meant leg braces. Which is most certainly a misleading innuendo the way it was worded. If that's the case. Dave Dial (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, do you have something to add to the discussion regarding the content, or are you just here to show off your remarkable lack of knowledge of the American language?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I did just add something. The source seems misleading, and it barely mentions the "banned" editor. It definitely doesn't seem worth a mention. Oh, and I think you mean your astonishing lack of knowledge of the American language. Suspenders -- Suspenders (American English, Canadian English) or braces (other English usage, chiefly British) are fabric or leather straps worn over the shoulders to hold up trousers. For anyone to make a declarative of "almost certainly means" with the explanation/excuse you gave, has no idea what they are declaring. Dave Dial (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So what you have to add is OR and the use of Wikipedia as a reliable source? Thanks, but no thanks.  Let's stick to WP:RS, if you don't mind.  That means that NYMag is reliable and your interpretations or personal experiences are not.  Also, let's look up the word "chiefly" and see if it means "always."  Jesus Christ, can't anyone here discuss the actual content of the article with reference to policy?  Do we have to search through 8 zillion photos on commons to see who has pizza stains on their shirts in order to decide if an article is a reliable source?  That's really not how it's usually done.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the piece is written like a gossip blog and only mentions "a banned editor" in passing. There is no way it should be inserted in this article with the OR in the edit that was removed. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * At last you will comment on content. You say the piece is "written like a gossip blog."  I will charitably interpret that as an attempt to argue against the use of the source on the basis of WP:RS.  Unfortunately, NYMag is not a "gossip blog" and there's nothing in WP:RS about the tone of sources.  It's straightforward reporting from a reliable source.  It's not an opinion piece, and your feelings about the prose style are irrelevant.  So that's a fail.  Now you say it "only mentions 'a banned editor' in passing."  I will charitably interpret this as an attempt to argue against the inclusion of the material because it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria of the list.  But there are no explicit inclusion criteria for this article, and this item falls well within normal inclusion criteria for lists, so your argument, while it may not fail, certainly needs some elaboration to convince.  Furthermore, you seem to think it matters that the NYMag piece calls Kohs "a banned editor" rather than stating his name.  This is a red herring.  His name is in the hyperlink.  It's a stylistic trope on the part of the author, obviously, rather than a comment on the importance of the episode.  Next you say there was WP:OR removed.  What was that?  What was the WP:OR in the edit that was removed?  Just a second ago you were arguing about the meaning of the word "braces" in the article based on your examination of a bunch of photographs, showing that you're perfectly willing to do OR if it supports your position.  Now that you've finally condescended to discuss content, I hope you will take the time to make more cogent arguments in favor of your position.  Please keep in mind that the material that was removed was perfectly well supported by a reliable source.  No one doubts that the removed material was accurate.  The only, *only*, sensible argument for removing it must be based on list inclusion criteria.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

A much simpler explanation for non-inclusion
While the above discussion is an interesting deconstruction of our policies, there is a much simpler explanation for why, at this point, the "June 2014" incident cannot be included: For now, there are no verifiable references that show this is a "controversy" of the same significance as the others shown in the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The O'Dwyer piece is unreliable, as it is not a widely regarded outlet. It also contains a factual error that the "Paid Editing Moderated Discussion" session was the only one that "made it to the WP conference," when the preceding session on PR and paid editing was in fact the primary session about the issue.
 * 2) The New York Magazine is factually incorrect. It says, "At this year’s conference, one former Wikipedian scheduled to give a talk critical of its processes was allegedly banned from attending." Greg Kohs was not "scheduled to give a talk" at the conference. The proposal had not been accepted. Therefore, the reporting is incorrect and an erroneous understanding of the situation is very likely to have caused the writer to put this incident forth as an example of the community problems, or as some contributors here feel -- a controversy. Reliable source or not, Wikipedia does have standards on factual accuracy. Given this line from NY Magazine contains both an error and a dependence on an unreliable source, it cannot be taken as a credible provable reference.
 * I love that the NYM source also specifies that we have 22k registered users :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Very clever,, but no one actually denies that the incident occurred, so the O'Dwyer piece alone is enough to establish the factuality of the statement. Nobody here thinks that Kohs was scheduled to give a talk, either.  The fact that the NYMag piece cites the O'Dwyer piece adds credibility to the interest of the outside world in the incident.  The fact that the NYMag has factual errors is not reason not to use it, since our purpose here is not to describe facts, which are known from the uncontested O'Dwyer piece, but to establish enough interest by RS in the incident to justify including it in the list.  Your theories about why the author used it are, of course, fascinating, but they essentially constitute original research.  Your statement that a source is less reliable because it cites unreliable sources is, as pointed out ad infinitum, nonsense.  That's what historians and journalists do for a living.  They use unreliable sources as material to manufacture reliable sources.  Every secondary source cites unreliable sources.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources have been provided and the arguments against inclusion appear to be weak. I think there's a valid basis for inclusion. Under ordinary circumstances, if a hated "enemy" was not the subject, I feel sure we would not be having this argument at all. Everyking (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear : multiple reliable sources haven't been provided, only one has, and that source only discussed it in passing. Taken from the lede of this list "This list is a collection of the more notable instances." Do you think one offhanded sentence in a single RS represents one of the more notable instances of controversy involving Wikipedia? Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
I was curious about what the standards are for inclusion in the list, and one thing that is clear is that almost all of the current entries are directly related to Wikipedia content - mistakes, vandalism, misuse of content, plagiarism, COI editing of content, problems getting material deleted, etc. Of the material which isn't directly related to content or editing, one is a fork, some relates to WP policy through sock puppets and similar, and the rest are directly related to the WMF. This makes sense, as the WMF is directly responsible for the management of Wikipedia.

My difficulty based on that with the suggested inclusion of the conference issue is that it is neither directly related to WP editing, policy or content, nor to the WMF. The conference wasn't run by the WMF, so much as two regional Chapters, and any actions taken at that conference have nothing to do with WP as such. So I can't see how it would be regarded as a Wikipedia controversy based on current content - it might (although "controversy" seems like a strong word here) be seen as a WikiConference USA controversy, though. Is it reasonable to extend the scope to include independently run events related to Wikipedia, or should we keep the focus firmly on Wikipedia and the WMF? - Bilby (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent point, except WMF is listed prominently as a main sponsor of the event and not only that but WMF servers host external links advertising the conference as, e.g., here: WikiCon, so it's clearly strongly WMF associated. Furthermore, the Gibraltar stuff is about Wikimedia UK, a local chapter, and is featured prominently here.  Thus there's ample precedent for including material related to regional chapters.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * They are a sponsor, but not an organiser. As a sponsor I don't see that they would have a direct say in regards to the organisation of the event, as the organisers were a separate body This simply doesn't look like a controversy about Wikipedia - at best it is a controversy about an event about Wikipedia. At some point we need to work out how far removed from Wikipedia-proper an issue has to be before it no longer qualifies here. At the moment, my reading is that it qualifies if it is directly related to content, editing, access or policies of Wikipedia, or actions by the WMF. Actions by affiliated bodies seem far enough removed to limit the controversy to be about them, unless they otherwise meets the criteria. - Bilby (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First, what about Gibraltarpedia, then? We've been including material about the chapters since the beginning of this article.  Second, it's not plausible to assert that if the WMF sponsors controversial events then the ensuing scandals are not WMF controversies.  Organizations are routinely held to account for the organizations they sponsor.  I'll think of specific examples if you'd like, but various campus stock divestment protests are roughly comparable.  A university, supposed to stand for freedom, holds stock in e.g. South African companies during apartheid.  This is universally seen as a controversy regarding the university.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gibraltarpedia is a controversy for Wikipedia, as well as for Wikimedia UK, because it directly involved editing Wikipedia. A university which sponsors a questionable organisation is controversial because it sponsors the questionable organisation. Sorry, but your comparisons don't work, as neither holds here. Fundamentally, this isn't a controversy about Wikipedia - it is, at best, a controversy about a conference looking at Wikipedia. But even that is doubtful, as to show that something is a controversy that warrants being included in this article, surely our standards are higher than a single passing mention in one article, that doesn't even get the details correct? I'd expect that we'd at least need decent coverage to show that it is controversial, none of which appears to be forthcoming. Or is there more than that single mention to show that this is something other than naval gazing? - Bilby (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. A university holds stock in companies that operate in repressive countries.  The companies don't do anything repressive, but they do help the economy of the repressive country.  Students at the university routinely see the investments as controversies regarding their universities even thought the university is not actively, but only passively and at a remove, giving economic support to repression.  Also, you're equivocating on the WMF and Wikipedia (probably unintentionally) in your last comment.  This is essentially a WMF controversy.  WMF controversies have been covered on this list from the very beginning, and if you poke through the archived talk pages you'll see that this was discussed at length.  You're free to reopen the discussion, of course, but please don't act like it's somehow obvious that this incident can be excluded on a technicality.  I think your arguments about sourcing are wrong but cogent.  Your argument about this incident being out of the scope of the list is wrong and not cogent.  We're not just looking at aircraft carriers here, you know, this is serious business!&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think you are missing where I'm coming from. If the WMF sponsors an event where something bad happens, we might say that there is controversy over their choice to sponsor that event, especially if they had reason to expect that bad things would happen. However, it isn't that bad thing that is controversial for them, it is their choice to sponsor the organisation knowing that bad things might happen. There is nothing controversial about the WMF sponsoring a conference where the organisers chose to preclude a person from attending. There would be controversy for the WMF if the WMF, knowing that the conference was acting badly, continue to sponsor them, but that's not the issue here.
 * But you haven't addressed the second point. Why are you saying this is a controversy significant enough to mention here? What secondary sources are covering this event, making it clear that it is important and significant? As far as I am aware, the only coverage of this event outside of ourselves and Wikipediocracy is a passing mention in one publication, which isn't enough to raise this to the ranks of "controversy". Am I missing coverage? Because if this is a bigger issue, then it might be worth covering. Otherwise, we're too close, seeing a big issue in something that is of no significance to anyone other than ourselves. If this was any other article, that single mention would never be enough to warrant listing it as a controversy. What makes this article and this issue different? - Bilby (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The WMF is going to stop sponsoring their NYC chapter over this? If not then they're continuing to sponsor the organization.  I've addressed your second point at length all over the talk page.  It's your best argument, and others have joined you in it.  I don't think it's productive to reargue it here, because it just fragments the discussion further.  If the material is left off the list because consensus is that there's insufficient coverage to warrant its inclusion, I will feel that Wikipedian processes have worked successfully even though I would prefer that the material be included.  Anyway, there's not much to say about it.  You (and others) think the sourcing is insufficient.  I (and others) think the sourcing is sufficient.  There's not much to say about that that hasn't been said many times already, right?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. I am not saying that the sourcing is insufficient. I am saying that the coverage is insufficient - there is a reliable source saying that someone was excluded from the event, in spite of the errors it includes. What hasn't been shown is that there is sufficient coverage to show that this rises to the level of being a significant controversy. In any typical article, I'd argue that it should be excluded until we can show that there is significant coverage to warrant including it, rather than questioning whether or not it happened. We don't rely on notability to determine the inclusion of content, but we do rely on the extent of the coverage to evaluate due weight. - Bilby (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not mistaken, although perhaps I was unclear. That's what I understood and understand your argument to be.  I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear.  As I said, that's the only reasonable argument I've seen yet for excluding the material, although, as I said, I disagree with its conclusion.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

So it looks like the page is unprotected now, and what is to be said on the matter has already been said. Does anyone mind if I add that WikiConference USA line item again? -wʃʃʍ- 09:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object, per all the arguments above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only should you add that WikiConference USA line item again, you should update it. We have a new report on the incident, "Debate on Banned Wikipedia Speaker Is Cut Off", from last Thursday, June 19. This reinforces the notability of this Wikipedia controversy:
 * more than 10,000 words had been expended on it – so clearly it is controversial
 * Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, has decreed an end to arguing – so clearly the controversy is important
 * by arguing that Jack O'Dwyer is not a "reliable source", some Wikipedia editors are damaging either his reputation, or theirs. To my knowledge, nothing reported by O'Dwyer about this incident is false.
 * This new report also makes previous discussions on this item stale. I was worried that you were dropping the ball on this, and am so glad to see that you have not. Do you have any new report on your efforts to discuss this with the conference organizers? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And don't forget the new information in "New York Mag's O'Dwyer Link Roils Wikipedia", from June 10, which was also after your June 5 edit. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * O'Dwyer's actually reports so much about Wikipedia that they have a category for articles on the topic: See here. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wbm, I'd want to pretty careful with throwing around "By arguing that [some person] is not a reliable source, some Wikipedia editors are damaging... his reputation". We need to be able discuss what sources are or are not reliable for our purposes without being accused of libel. If it were otherwise there would be very chilling effect on our discourse. Herostratus (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "for our purposes"? Wbm1058 (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Wikiconference stuff doesn't belong. Has nothing to do with Wikipedia. That's clear now, so no point in regurgitating the obvious. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wllm, I don't understand the question. "So it looks like the page is unprotected now, and what is to be said on the matter has already been said. Does anyone mind if I add that WikiConference USA line item again?" seems to indicate that you kind of don't get how it works here. These would make sense: "what is to be said on the matter has already been said and there's a clear consensus to add the material" would make sense, as would "what is to be said on the matter has already been said and there's a clear majority of headcount to include the material" or "what is to be said on the matter has already been said and I think it fair to say that the arguments to include the material are clearly much stronger and that any informed, intelligent, and fair-minded person would be compelled to vouchsafe that that's so" or (probably best, given the circumstances) "what is to be said on the matter has already been said and there was an WP:RFC on the matter which has now been closed in favor of including the material".


 * But you didn't say any of those -- you couldn't have, because none of them are true. "So it looks like the page is unprotected now, and what is to be said on the matter has already been said. Does anyone mind if I add that WikiConference USA line item again?" sure sounds like "So it looks like you people have finally stopped talking, so now can I (who didn't read what you said or if I did, did so with my mind already made up) now go ahead and do what I intended to do all along?" Right? Maybe not and it's a communication and expression problem. But it sure sounds like a fabian strategy and fabian strategies are not looked on very kindly here or anywhere where intellectual debate to find answers, rather than political debate to achieve a predetermined objective, is the operative paradigm.


 * I understand that Greg Kohs is a personal friend and all, and I suppose you imagine that he's been wronged in this matter (you may be right) and you want to show how your friend was treated badly. It's good to have friends! It's important for a happy life, and I'm glad you have friends. However, we have very many people who come here to help their friends in one way or another. But we're not for that -- we can't be, really. So I personally would counsel anyone to be wary of getting into situations here where personal friends are the subject. All else aside, it's just human nature that it's difficult to be truly fair-minded in such matters, and so why place oneself in a situation where one is in danger of falling into error? (Struck, as being contestable and secondary anyway, see below) Herostratus (talk)


 * On the other hand, if I understand the thread above there's new material, a new article. So this may change the situation. So one thing you could do, if you really want, is initiate a formal WP:RFC (that link explains how to do so), marshaling your arguments including the new material, and see if you can get a formal decision to include the material.


 * What I'd recommend is waiting a while, maybe even a year or two. I occasionally do this myself for contentious issues. One advantage is that everyone can approach the question with a fresh and calm attitude, and also you'll have a (partly) different and fresh group of editors participating. Another advantage is that people can get a better perspective on whether the matter really has legs. Whether people are still writing about or mentioning the matter in a year is one data point as to whether the incident really does have long-term notability. A year or two is nothing to the Wikipedia; we're here for the long term. For most matters, getting it right eventually is the important thing. Or rather then waiting a certain time, wait and see if the matter is picked up by more sources, especially notable ones. If Time or whomever picks up on the incident, you'd have a much stronger case. This would serve everyone's purpose -- yours (to include the material) and the Wikipedia's (to help settle the debate). If no clearly notable source does take up the matter, that may be a sign that you're wrong about the notability of the incident -- not proof, but a good data point.


 * But you don't have to wait. If you want to pursue the matter, against my advice and (I think) common sense and good practice, your next step is probably to initiate a formal Request for Comment and it's your perfect right to do so. Herostratus (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wil, is Greg Kohs a personal friend of yours? How long have you known him? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Friend" is a pretty subjective term -- evidenced by Wil's writing elsewhere, they've had agreeable discussions over affairs of the world and there's certainly friendly feeling there, but whether the feeling is mutual, what constitutes an actual "friend", or whether a term like "sympathizer" or "champion" would be better I'm not sure, and since it's secondary to the thrust of my advisement I struck it rather than contend over that. Herostratus (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But "personal friend" is a lot less ambiguous, at least to me: it is someone that I have met in person, probably many times, and whom I might trust with my "personal secrets". A big difference between that and someone I might consider a "virtual friend" or an "online friend". Wbm1058 (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've known Greg for less than two months. I have had conversations with him, and we occasionally exchange mails. This is true of lots of Wikipedians and WO folks over that period of time. We certainly don't agree on everything. I think he may have been a bit PO'd when I said he had used hate speech referring to fae. And I certainly don't agree with some of his tactics WRT WP issues. But, yeah, I'd say Greg is a friend. I'd definitely like to meet him in person. I know that's like saying I'm beer buddies with the antichrist to some people here, but they're certainly entitled to their own opinions, and I to mine.
 * I have made it clear in a number of places that I'm not acting as Greg's advocate in this matter. I think that the issue here is the exclusion of a participant that does not present a threat to anyone. In dealing with such issues, I think it's best to refer to specific instances as opposed to talking about it in the abstract. And Greg provides a perfect example; I looked into his history, and I found some over-the-top comments that I found extremely distasteful. Not much more. I also saw Greg's apologies for those remarks. Yet Greg seems to be treated as some sort of bogeyman by a lot of Wikipedians. Maybe it's because they have seen some things he's said that they don't like. Or maybe it's because Jimmy has been somewhat outspoken in his contempt for Greg. In any case, no one has provided a good reason for why Greg was banned from the conference. That's exclusion, and I'll never be down with that. -wʃʃʍ-  03:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes you are acting as Kohs's advocate in this matter. You created a fucken petition on the matter for chrissakes. You're entitled to act as his advocate I guess. You're not entitled to lie about it. My advice would be to stop doing that. Herostratus (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, to be clearer, then. I'm advocating for Greg's ability attend conferences, which is precisely what the petition states. I'm very proud of having taken a strong stand on that matter. If there are any other non-threatening participants who are banned from an open Wikipedia conference, I will also advocate for their ability to attend conferences. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was lying. That certainly wasn't intentional. -wʃʃʍ-  20:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're advocating for Kohs's ability to attend conferences, which fine; I'm happy for him to attend conferences too, preferably long ones held in Antarctica. But while that has nothing to do with this article, you're also advocating here for including material about him not being invited to a particular one being a scandal (or controversy if you will) sufficiently notable to be included in the world's greatest encyclopedia for future generations to ponder. It's not a coincidence. It informs your statement ""So it looks like the page is unprotected now, and what is to be said on the matter has already been said. Does anyone mind if I add that WikiConference USA line item again?" which is not only wrong but tone-deaf and annoying. For most fairly-new editors I'd belay the harsh terminology, but you're not a typical fairly-new editor, and this is a hot-button subject. But I'm still offering advice which is in your interest, I think, as well as the Wikipedia's. And again, my advice, if you want to be a good and effective Wikipedia editor, is to step away from subjects which in which you have the kind of personal, emotional, or ideological investment such that you're creating internet petitions on the subject. Herostratus (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. There's really no counter-argument to this; it's just sound advice. I will step away from this. Herostratus is 100% right. I started a petition, and I've soundly defined my position on the matter. When I look at it from his perspective, it is clearly inappropriate for me to add it here. To be clear, I think that it should be added, but not by me. Sorry for the trouble, y'all. Sometimes it really helps me to hear other people's take. Thanks much, Herostratus. -wʃʃʍ-  22:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Addition of external link to Monkey Selfie
I'm not sure I understand or agree with the external link. We already cover this topic in 2014. If this contains material not found in the existing reference, shouldn't that be simply added as a second reference? I think it's much better to have external links inline with the relevant material than starting to create a separate section at the end (although references are not necessarily replacements for the External links section). I believe in this case the External links section should be reserved to pages covering controversies in general, not one in particular. --Chealer (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That is a reasonable perspective. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Utah IPs (2007)
The sources do seem to say "1000 homes", but that is demonstrably untrue. It's 1000 IPs, and the correspondence between IPs and homes is many-many. We do not have to report clearly untrue statements, even if published in reliable sources. In this case, both sources seem to be quoting yet another (unnamed) source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson
An editor has 3 times today removed this section about the controversy over the Neil deGrasse Tyson article. I don't think there's any doubt this is an off-wiki controversy about Wikipedia, given the coverage of the reliable sources. The last time it was removed, a WP:BLP violation was claimed - hopefully Second Quantization can explain the nature of the perceived violation. Kelly hi! 12:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are not reliable, I have already explained at length to you why; you are relying on blogs and conservative opinion pieces and the content has been deleted from Neil deGrasse Tyson and Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_fabrication_allegations as possible BLP violations. Second Quantization (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the reliable sources noticeboard, National Review and The Weekly Standard are reliable sources. Kelly  hi! 12:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * From WP:RS: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."


 * I think this topic has garnered enough attention to merit inclusion on this page as a controversy, but it must be presented in a manner that conforms to WP:BLP guidelines (and all the others too). If we're going to have an entry my preference would be for  it to be authored in a neutral manner by someone not involved in the controversy.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is that coverage from sources that aren't explicitly partisan? From what I've seen, it's pretty minimal. Second Quantization (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I was going to say There's Physics Today (http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8070), The Week (http://theweek.com/article/index/268705/earth-to-climate-change-deniers-neil-degrasse-tysons-errors-wont-help-you), and The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/19/the-right-s-war-on-neil-degrasse-tyson.html) but none of those articles mentions Wikipedia. So I think you are correct - no mainstream coverage. That could change of course, but for now it doesn't pass notability/weight requirements.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As you are aware WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and sources are never declared reliable for everything. I like how you cherry pick the discussions that suit you, and even they are not glowing endorsements " I find it hard to believe editors here are okaying his partisan periodical as RS for the BLP of one of his hated enemies. A RS is defined as known for fact checking and accuracy, and there are numerous examples where this has not happened in the Weekly Standard." (see where TFD has a very different opion: "No it is not a reliable source.") It's a partisan paper. You have been unable to show a large mainstream newspaper that gave attention to this. Instead you only have partisan sources. You need to establish weight, and you aren't going to get that from partisan sources. Second Quantization (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Partisan opinion columns do not elevate this to a Wikipedia-specific controversy. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They're pointing with disdain at Wikipedia. What's not "specific" about that? Andyvphil (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Patrick Howley of The Daily Caller writes about the controversy here, including the AFD of The Federalist wiki page. Kelly  hi! 08:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional article by Paul Bedard of The Washington Examiner here. Kelly  hi! 14:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We are closing in on Kafka territory. It is bad enough that editors are wikilawyering to remove references to Tyson's mistake, compounded by an editor trying to delete the article about the source, and now, when someone calls it a controversy, the entire mention is excised? -- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Any objections to adding the content, with the additions of the Daily Caller and Washington Examiner references? Kelly  hi! 08:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The item is ephemeral nonsense and is not a any kind of significant "controversy". Many people are unhappy about what happens at Wikipedia but this incident is not significant and this article should not be used to further promulgate negativity about Tyson. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the "reliable sources" (which the Daily Caller actually isn't - let's face it, any website which throws a popup at you saying "Tired of the Liberal Media?" wears its biases on its sleeve) are about the AFD of Federalist.com, with Tyson being a secondary issue to that. If I didn't know better, this would almost look like some editors trying every possible route to shoehorn criticism of Tyson by right-wing blogs into Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RSN considers The Daily Caller biased, but reliable. And I'm glad that you do know better - the editors involved are engaged in a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Kelly  hi! 13:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Until there's consensus on this page to add it, don't. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this isn't important enough to add to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep insignificant non-controversy controversy deleted. This transparent attempt to manufacture a controversy where none exists is noted. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that it has been re-added and reverted. (twice now).  Kelly, please stop this transparent forum shopping and wait until there is consensus before posting this stuff. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This would not be forum shopping as this is not a drama board. Arzel (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sword this is not "forum shopping". Perhaps you are unaware of the proper use of the term. This is not an administrative board. This is merely another article with related material. Any editor may make informed edits to it. Capitalismojo (talk)


 * You are correct. What I was referring to is adding the material to articles other than the NDGT bio.  Sine it can't be added there, some editors are adding it elsewhere.  And it's not just here.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Rich Lowry discusses the controversy at Politico here, including the controversies over both Tyson's page and the attempted deletion of The Federalist page. Kelly  hi! 06:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a list of everything that someone thinks is controversial and which has a connection with Wikipedia. The items listed are issues significant for Wikipedia—much more than minor disagreements between editors over a couple of articles (has anyone been banned? has an admin been demoted?). Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre definition of "Wikipedia Controversy". As long as Wikipedia's dysfunctional administrative structure ignores the spectacle its out-of-control POV warriors are making of themselves and Wikipedia, why... then there's no controversy! Not in WikiLaLaLand. Ostrich, meet sand. Andyvphil (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional mention of the controversy in The Christian Post here. Kelly  hi! 12:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipediocracy Andyvphil (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Is Nothing If Not Predictable. First comes the flashmob to exercise its form of Wikicensorship, Wikihypocrisy, and Wikilawyering to justify vandalizing an article, this time for political motivations. (TheFederalist isn't "notable" and should be excluded from the same "encyclopedia" that includes ThinkProgress, and generally exists partly as a promotional billboard for every company, organization, and non-profit. Please, kids, don't make us laugh.) Then, when caught in the act, out comes the Wikilawyering, Wikihypocrisy, and Wiki-wagoncircling to show anyone who happens on by the scene of the crime just why Wikipedia cannot handle controversy, is unreliable on any topic subject to dispute, and is mocked by serious people worldwide. Heckuva job, Brownies! Did the staff of The Onion migrate over here just for the hell of it? Moynihanian (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, right, whatever, in Wikipedia editors are all liberal fascists. Give me a bloody break. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikicensorship happens for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes it's political, other times not. But the tactics are always pretty much the same -- Wikilawyering, Wikiflashmobbing, Wikihypocrisy. The problem isn't "liberal fascists," but goes right to the very center of the Wikipedia enterprise. This site is based on a belief that facts are whatever a persistent flashmob of "editors" say they are. Which extends well beyond article content. If facts are negotiable, then so are the meanings of words, and therefore so is every single one of Wikipedia's policies, rules, and principles. Wikipedia is built on sand, which (usually) works for non-controversial stuff but falls apart with controversy. This is why Wikipedia is thoroughly and quite justifiably dismissed not only by the general run of level-headed adults and amateur experts -- funny relationship this site has with the individuals in the all-knowing crowd -- but also by academics and academic institutions the world over. Moynihanian (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So what are you doing here, venting? If Wikipedia is so bad, why waste your valuable time here? Reminds me of WP:DIVA. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm pointing out that you and the rest of Wikilawyers here routinely violate your rules, principles, and procedures whenever it's convenient. You don't like it when someone notices, and line up with the Wikicensors. Moynihanian (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sixth most visited site in the world, about 11 million pageviews an hour (or about 180,000 pageviews per minute) for the English version. Half a billion  visitors per month. Just a few people that trust Wikipedia.  ]- -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * People "trust" Wikipedia only for uncontroversial material, in the same way that they trust World Book or The World Almanac. The minute there's any controversy, Wikipedia is useless. This is why experts and academics of all kinds laugh at Wikipedia. And they should. No one who knows anything about a controversial subject should ever participate. Moynihanian (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ain't easy. But it works at the end given enough time and eyeballs on an article. A good example is Climate change. Granted, Wikipedia is not perfect. But what is? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, you've really drunk the Kool-Aid. I wouldn't even think of taking Wikipedia seriously on such a controversial topic. Just for the hell of it, I looked up "Obamacare," and the article pops up with the Great Seal of the U.S. on the right. Could there be a more obvious invitation to look elsewhere for a neutral and reliable treatment? Moynihanian (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the ongoing attempts by politically biased Wikipedia editors to suppress any mention of Neil deGrasse Tyson's embarrassment has prompted widespread derision of Wikipedia from the political right. "[B]logs and conservative opinion pieces" may not be reliable for statements of fact (see [WP:BIAS]), but if they are well-known, high-traffic, non-fringe, etc. they (National Review, Volokh Conspiracy, Weekly Standard. etc., etc.) ABSOLUTELY establish the existence of a controversy. Partisan dismissals of the significance of the controversy from the other side of the political spectrum subtract nothing from that fact. Andyvphil (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional mention of the controversy in the New York Post. Kelly  hi! 07:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Forget it! Don't you know that only the New York Times, Daily Kos, Think Progress, and MSNBC's evening programs are reliable sources? Moynihanian (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please stop the edit warring and try to achieve consensus on the Talk page before adding new material. Some of us are too close to this issue to neutrally judge how "important" it is and whether it meets the criteria for this wikipedia page - better to let the usual editors of this page handle it rather than editors who have been arguing about it in a dozen other forums. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As an aside, except for Tarc, no one commenting in this section to date (myself included) had participated in editing this page prior to a few days ago. It's drive-by editing, which isn't exactly against policy but I think it violates the spirit of the policies.  At the very least, we newcomers should show some deference to the long-term editors of this page.   Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an obvious controversy involving Wiki, what wit hall the RS going on about it. So it is obvious that it warrants a mention here. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (ec)"Wikipedia editors also became part of the controversy after they removed references to the misquotation from its website, and at least one of the editors also wants to remove The Federalist's Wikipedia entry." "Since the charges were made there has been a mini-editing war over this portion of Tyson’s Wiki page." "His gracelessness has extended down to his acolytes, who have worked to keep any mention of the controversy off his Wikipedia page." Darkness Shines (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yesterday the Carolina Panthers beat the Chicago Bears 31-24. The game was watched by millions, the result was reported by every major newspaper, and numerous mult-paragraph articles, both straight reporting and opinion, were published.  Do we put that in the encyclopedia? It certainly meets the requirements for reliable sources.  But we don't because it fails to be important enough in the greater scheme of things to warrant mention and will likely be forgotten by almost everyone in a year. Same with this issue. I understand that reasonable editors may disagree, but it's by no means obvious that this is important enough to warrant mention. Since this page goes back 12 years and includes only the more notable instances  (i.e. a few incidents from each year) it's unclear at this point just how important the recent NDGT dust-up is.  Maybe in a few weeks it will become clearer. There is no hurry.  There is no deadline.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting choice of an example. In fact, the score is included and the game writeup will be added shortly. See 2014_Chicago_Bears_season.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, you got me there. Not the best example.  But this article claims to be "a collection of the more notable instances..."   Would you include yesterday's Panthers-Bears game as one of the more notable football games of 2014?  I guess my point is not every game is important and neither is every brouhaha on the blogosphere.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not every criticism rises to the level of "controversy". Let's strive to be a little less tabloid-ish here. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol, of course something along those lines would be added, to their respective articles, not seeing what that has to do with this article mind? Wikipedia got dragged into this because this guys fans editwarred to remove the content, and that was picked up by RS, which directly say Wiki is a part of the controversy, so obviously it goes in here. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, a few people bitching on their blogs is not a "controversy". How accurate they are is easily pointed out by the fact one of those "reliable sources" said that material was being removed by Tyson's hardcore followers.  Personally I'd never heard of the guy, but I can recognize a POV political witch-hunt when I see one. Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And again that is besides the point BK, we have sources which say Wiki is a part of the controversy, and this article is about, Wikipedia controversies. So explain why it ought not be here? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because (a) just because a source says its a "controversy" doesn't make it one, (b) the majority of those sources are people persecuting Tyson or their political fellow-travellers and therefore have a reason for trying to make it a "controversy", (c) as said above, there is no deadline, if this genuinely becomes notable then it can be put in the article, and (d) because there is no consensus here whatsoever to include it. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So you are saying we should ignore WP:V? Given the sources call it a controversy and all. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Verifiable doesn't mean notable, though. And that's where consensus is not clear at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The "controversy" is only so on the right-wing blogosphere and right-wing sources. Wikipedia is not their echo chamber. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * AIP and Salon are part of the "right wing" are they? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * you've been around long enough to know that notability applies to articles, not entries in an article or list. We do have guides applicable to inclusion criteria, but meeting the Notability Standard is not one of them.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly acceptable for editors to form a consensus (or otherwise) that something should or should not be added to a list. One of those guidelines is notability WP:SAL/WP:LSC.  When a group of editors are attempting to shoehorn something into an article purely on political POV grounds, the alarm bells should go off straight away.  A "controversy" is not automatically one because a few sources (mostly non-neutral) say it is. If that was the case this list would be the longest article on Wikipedia.  Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood the link you provided. Notability is a key issue for the list itself, not every entry on the list. Many lists of people, have a requirement that each individual on the list be notable in their own right. That is not the same as saying the combination of list subject and individual entry must itself be notable. If that were true, we would have an entry for the combination, which is clearly not true.


 * Many lists do not need formal inclusion criteria, on the basis that it is obvious. A list of alumni of a university, for example. When we have lists such as this, we ought to do a better job of defining inclusion criteria, but it is highly unlikely we would conclude that each individual event must itself pass the Notability Standard. That's obviously not true of many existing entries. Several of them has a single source. Have you begun a campaign to remove all items from this list which should not have their own article? If you believe your notability argument, you should.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither of the above two sources discuss Wikipedia or explain what Sean Davis finds contentious. — TPX 18:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Those sources were given in response to the ludicrous claim that this controversy was discussed only in "right wing" media. And the AIP article does include links to articles discussing Wiki, Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It contains a hyperlink to an article written by Davis, but does not itself say anything about Wikipedia. — TPX 19:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * “Why is Wikipedia deleting all references to Neil Tyson’s fabrication? Neil Tyson's Internet defenders sure are cultish and anti-science” So it kinda does, anyway, the point was to show that not just sources perceived as having the wrong political views have also covered this. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. I suggest opening an RfC and then advertising it publicly in order to get more input, because Wikipedians are notorious for trying to bury negative commentary on the project. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that last sentence, but that's not what's going on here. This is simply about trying to insert negative commentary about a living person after it got rejected from that person's actual article. I'm unsure that requires an RfC. Black Kite (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize that partisan politics was at the heart of this. I'm backing out the door slowly. Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Inclusion Compared to many of the things already in the article, this clearly meets notability requirements. It is not a BLP violation, thus there is no reason to exclude.  Arzel (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is not available to amplify someone's discontent with how their topic was treated at Wikipedia—many examples of such discontent occur each week and it is simply not one of the "controversies" in the meaning of this list. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I you can find many examples each week of someone's "discontent with how their topic was treated at Wikipedia" getting as much attention in the press as this one has I'd like to see them. Heck, find just one. Surprise me. Andyvphil (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The controversy concerns what Tyson said, and how he responded when called on certain statements. That's what all the excitement is about—Wikipedia is mentioned merely as icing on the cake. If Tyson's comments had been about someone from antiquity (rather than a recent president), the media would have no interest, and there still would have been no interest even if editors had passionately argued over whether mistaken comments on an historical figure should be in the article. There is no "Wikipedia controversy"—no editor has been sanctioned; no staffer has been removed; no admin has been demoted; nothing has happened except the usual arguments. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Wikipedia angle is remarkably weak. Stemming from recent publicity, a single editor believed THEFEDERALIST.COM was not notable enough to have its own article, and consequently nominated the page for deletion. The community considered the issue and decided THEFEDERALIST.COM was notable enough to have its own article. As controversies go, this is a non issue. The discussion on Neil deGrasse Tyson is still ongoing and editors are debating how to proceed. The community is behaving exactly how you would expect any community to behave. 09:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC) — TPX


 * Oppose Too minor of an issue to be worth mentioning, not to mention the weak sourcing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are fine and all pass RS, and it has been covered in a fair few, so mentioning this is more than due. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Essjay Controversy
I am currently in a Writing on Wikipedia class at my college. I am writing a research paper involved wikipedia and false editors. I came across the Essjay case and was curious if anyone was aware of any other cases i could use and research as examples that are similar to essjay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.118.21 (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a quick FYI... talk pages like this one are for discussions related to the improvement of the article, not for questions. The proper place for your question would be at the reference desk ... I'd try the "Miscellaneous" section. Marteau (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gender gap controversies
FYI, there are about 60 RS articles in the Gender Gap list of mainstream and tech media articles and some relevant info in the list of research studies on the Gender Gap on Wikipedia. So definitely a section devoted to that needed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest a dictionary. You have admitted elsewhere to not actually having read most of the stuff in that linkfarm and in any event the appearances all suggest that there are no controversies. Merely having studies etc doesn't make something controversial, just interesting to examine/grant-worthy/a pet peeve etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't there an interaction ban in place here? Tarc (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not yet. I self-imposed one but I'm breaking it for this latest bit of nonsense. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Anybody with proposed arbitration remedies naming them would be wise to disengage from this topic while voting is ongoing. Coming here to argue is a great way to convince the arbitrators that you need to be sanctioned more strongly. Jehochman Talk 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom & Gamergate
Looks like this is bubbling up in enough sources now to consider a listing in this article;


 * Der Standard: [Eintrag zu "GamerGate": Wikipedia sperrt feministische Nutzer http://derstandard.at/2000010843264/Eintrag-zu-GamerGate-Wikipedia-sperrt-feministische-Nutzer]
 * Gawker: Wikipedia Purged a Group of Feminist Editors Because of Gamergate
 * Guardian: Wikipedia bans five editors from gender-related articles

While the details are a little off (only 3 of the 5 may be topic-banned), the general gist is accurate. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This should definitely be included. Everyking (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning and Pronouns
According to MOS:IDENTITY "An exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary)." Could we stick to the Manual of Style please even if the source has different wording? (Edit: I wrote this as the above top level was being written). Neonchameleon (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate arbitration decision
In regard to the addition of the Gamergate ArbCom decision, we might end up needing to include it, but the wording will need to be reconsidered as the one added was incorrect. Accordingly I've had to revert the addition, but I don't have an opinion as to whether the topic (correctly depicted) will warrant inclusion in the longer term. - Bilby (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What would your proposed rewording be? ALL sources say there were five editors banned, most say they were feminists, per WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:GREATWRONGS, we, as individual editors, don't get to correct this. Just maybe linking to the ArbCom statement debunking it, anything else is original research.
 * Who were the five feminist editors that were banned? - Bilby (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources don't mention them Loganmac (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They are living persons and stating as fact that "they are banned" instead of presenting it as something reported by the media is a BLPvio. I have reworded the entry to better reflect the who-says-what. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the controversy at the moment is "The Guardian misreported something happening on Wikipedia". I'm not sure that it warrants inclusion. The real story might. - Bilby (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have sources stating The Guardian misreported something please include them
 * I fail to see how this is a BLPvio when the title of the Guardian right out says there were bannings and the body states "Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, the highest user-run body on the site, has banned five editors", all sources say this.

Loganmac (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom statement is a self-published source about its own decisions, which contradicts external sources whose reliability is under discussion (sources which blur the line between tabloids, news, and blogs). In the face of contradicting sources about BLPs, the correct way forward is to err on the side of caution and prudence. I agree that this might not have its place in the list, but it's only been a mere few days and the article is at AfD, so I suppose it will become clearer as time advances. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI This has also come up at Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The dispute above over whether to follow the sources in saying, dishonestly, that five editors were banned is reminiscent of the issue that arose when various sources reported that Arbcom had moved the Manning article from Bradley to Chelsea. (The move was the result of a Requested Move discussion, not Arbcom.) When people insisted a line about the move be included in the article, I did suggest (somewhat tongue in cheek) that per WP:VNT we had to report the incorrect information. Other people disagreed, saying it was acceptable and preferable to cite the Arbcom decision and the RM results section as sources for "what the Arbcom decision was" and "what the RM result was", per WP:PSTS: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." (The section has since been removed from the article, it seems.) The same logic would seem to apply here and allow us to report how many editors were actually banned, if we choose to include a section on the issue at all. -sche (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Manning and "correct pronoun"
, the edit I reverted asserted that the Wikipedia article was "rewritten to reflect Manning's correct pronouns". We cannot even call it "correct" in Wikipedia's voice except to assert it is correct to Wikipedia's guidelines. 's change to "... reflect Manning's new name and gender" seems to be what external sources are saying about Wikipedia, and also seems accurate. I know, "verifiability, not truth", but, in articles about Wikipedia, the truth should also be noted. Neonchameleon's other changes seem to be a slight improvement, although still reflect a WP:POV which is not generally held outside of Wikipedia.

Thinking about it, the previously stated, and now implied, "new gender" fails to recognize the fiction, required by Wikipedia guidelines, that Manning's gender was now always female. I don't have a complete solution, but "correct pronoun" is just&mdash;well, incorrect. As a stand-alone statement, "newly recognized gender" seems adequate, but with "new name", it doesn't read well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would "To reflect her gender" without either saying it was her new gender (contrary to the manual of style) or the word "correct" work for you? Neonchameleon (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The gist of this issue, and the point of the cited article, is Manning's transition and how that transition is covered in Wikipedia. In this instance, the verbiage in question is dedicated to discussing the the transition process itself and how Wikipedia covers such things.  A gender transition results, by definition, in "new" ways of referring to the subject and yes, a "new" gender... that's what the issue at hand revolves around... the newness of her gender, her name, and the new ways she is to be referred to as.  Without there being an "old" and a "new" gender there IS no transition, that's inherent in the process.  Saying Manning's gender was "new" when the topic at hand is the transition itself is compelety appropriate in my opinion.  Additionally, it is clear the guideline addresses issues of how a subject is to be referred.  Saying her gender became "new" because of the transition is not referring to her in violation of WP:IDENTITY... it a correct categorization of the topic at hand, namely, the results of a gender transition and the resulting new gender for that person, and the resulting new ways that person is covered in Wikipedia. Marteau (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "A gender transition results, by definition, in [...] a 'new' gender": ehhh, I don't think so. I mean, it's possible (though not necessarily likely) that someone could think they were a man their whole life until one shining moment of clarity when they realized they were a woman and immediately came out, in which case it might be correct to say they had a "new" gender. But in this case, someone revealed their previously-extant but not-widely-disclosed gender, which isn't a "new" gender. If the subject of an article comes out as gay, and we update the article, one wouldn't say we updated the article to reflect the person's "new" sexuality. In any case, how about [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=645409254&oldid=645391720 this] wording (rationale in the edit summary)? (Neonchameleon's simple wording is also fine by me.) -sche (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, "A new publicly identified gender identity".  There you go. I'm sure that's still inadequate in some way, but it'll have to do, and I think my point was clear.  Marteau (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "A gender transition results, by definition, in "new" ways of referring to the subject and yes, a "new" gender..." - only the first half of that is correct. The second half is both incorrect and directly against MOS:IDENTITY which states "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns ... that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions". This is not a direct quotation, so the MOS indicates we identify her as female for any phase of her life. My suggestion now would be "to reflect her new name and now public gender identity" Neonchameleon (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if WP:IDENTITY were to apply, and I'm not sure it does in this case, I would be an advocate for a "common sense" exception when describing the very process of transition, for something undeniably "new" does occur, despite the reluctance of some to say so. That said, yours and -sche's latest options I can live with.  Marteau (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * MOS:IDENTITY doesn't seem relevant, as we are not using any pronouns, and must explicitly use both names to indicate the transition. Furthermore, we are referring to a change in the Wikipedia article; if we were to use the term "correctly", which should note that the pronoun was correctly male before the transition announcement, and changed to correctly female (sometime) afterwards.  That being said, "new name and new public gender identity" seems acceptable, although perhaps verbose.  I still like "new name and newly recognized gender", which intentionally leaves ambiguous whether the actual gender changed, and who recognized the gender, the guidelines indicating that Wikipedia should not be the first to recognize the gender.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "rewritten to reflect Manning's new name and newly recognized gender" seems unnecessarily wordy; it's tolerable, but I do think "rewritten to reflect Manning's female name and gender" is more concise (and possibly clearer). "New name and newly public gender identity" (with or without the word "identity") would also be tolerable — although, again, verbose. I think any use of the word "correct(ly)" would be both polemical and simultaneously ambiguous, because different people have different ideas of which name/gender is "correct". -sche (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yearly fundraiser
I support removal of this edit which takes a few comments from the usual suspects and makes out the issue is a one of the "controversial events and scandals related" in Wikipedia's history. It's not, and in fact it reads like a typical day of whining at User talk:Jimbo Wales. The same objections occur every year which is hardly a surprise. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. JoeSperrazza (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I cannot quite parse that - but regarding the last sentence, it is likely correct that every year brings a new controversy now, but it would be interesting to determine since when that is the case. I suggested moving the item out of the year-by-year categorization to better cover the issue as a single controversy, which might help show its evolution in time. I would bet that this controversy did not exist when I started here (though there were probably no yearly fundraisers at the time, let alone fundraising employees). If the fundraising follows the process described by User:Jayen466, then it is indeed unsurprising that the controversy will persist, as long as fundraising metrics fail to consider damage to the brand. --Chealer (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of fundraising controversy coverage
Why did you remove coverage of the fundraising controversy/ies? --Chealer (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * For the reasons specified in my edit summaries. This section does not include any reliable sources.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think The Register would qualify as RS; Wikipediocracy/Slashdot does not. However, the matter was also covered in The Daily Dot and twice in The Telegraph 1 2 (you need to scroll down in those City Diary pieces to find the Wikipedia comments in each). Andreas JN 466 21:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Register is crap, the Telegraph piece includes just a passing mention.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quick reply. I agree that the sources used are not the most reliable, but I consider the sourcing as largely or fully appropriate. Nevertheless, I have added the article from The Daily Dot mentioned by Jayen466 as a source. --Chealer (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Daily Dot is a reliable source, but the way the passage is currently written is horrid. Drop all the wikipediocracy links and clean up the 3rd-grade "ashamed to be associated with Wikipedia" rhetoric, and it will be better. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Issues of WP:UNDUE apply as well. The Seigenthaler controversy, which fundamentally transformed Wikipedia and was the subject of hundreds of news reports, gets six sentences.  A few internet complaints quoted by The Daily Dot cannot take up the same amount of space, and IMO should not be mentioned at all due to not rising to the level of an actual controversy.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Seigenthaler controversy has not "fundamentally transformed Wikipedia". No matter how important it was, its importance may well seem understated because even if we consider it the most important, it remains one among thousands of hoaxes. We knew content would be unreliable from day 1, this was entirely predictable. Unreliability is considered by many as unavoidable for Wikipedia, while inappropriate fundraising is avoidable and far from common to all open wikis. I am not saying "A few internet complaints quoted by The Daily Dot" should take up the same amount of space, but that's not what we're talking about here.
 * Anyway, the short explanation for the apparent uneven treatment is simply... that we have a full article dedicated to the Seigenthaler controversy (although I am not saying that the item in the list should not have more than six sentences). --Chealer (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If this raises to a level of interest to make it notable, we shall have plenty of sources to support inclusion. Until that time, it should not be included. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You can't just invent thresholds to meet; if there are reliable sources to document the existence of a controversy, then that is all that is necessary. WP:UNDUE has very little applicability here, as this is not an article on the Wikipedia in general, but rather a list of Wikipedia controversies.  I understand that there's a knee-jerk reaction around here to hide anything bad that the Wikipediocracy uncovers, and if it was sourced to JUST that blog, then I'd agree.  But it isn't, the daily dot piece is sufficient for inclusion, and the only reason I haven't reverted the content bakc in myself is that the present text is problematic and overly-WO-reliant.  So to the supporters of inclusion, I'd urge a more neutral rewrite, then the material will be on more solid ground. Tarc (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I couldn't give a crap who uncovers it. What matters is how much actual media coverage it gets.  We shouldn't treat a "controversy" consisting of single possibly reliable source as the equivalent of a genuine controversy involving hundreds of reliable sources.  This is precisely why the UNDUE rule exists.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a list, undue has no applicability here. If reliable sources (despite braying to the contrary, The Register is not verboten here) cover the topic, then that is the only criteria needed, even if said sources have a history of writing pieces critical of the Wikipedia.  Tarc (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a list of controversies, not criticisms. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - could you please point out to me where WP:UNDUE mentions that it's perfectly fine to have undue weight in lists? That sure isn't conveyed to me by this text: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When did you stop beating your wife? Your question is loaded and irrelevant.  The point here is that this affair is cited to two reliable sources ("The Register is crap" appears to be an assertion unsupported by WP:RSN archives), which as I look through tis article now, there are many entries with only two refs.  For any other "list of..." article, that'd be sufficient, but some here seem to be inventing higher bars to meet. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, when you admit to beating your wife, I'd say that's a perfectly fair question. From your post just above - "It's a list, undue has no applicability here."  I wasn't the first of the two of us to bring it up ;) Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, while the entry discussed is indeed a controversy, the article covers more than controversies (despite the title). --Chealer (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not what we are treating, but what "genuine controversy involving hundreds of reliable sources" are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "over-WO-reliant"? --Chealer (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "we'll never run ads. [...] If everyone reading this gave £3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of coffee is all we need." is what I consider as "3rd-grade rhetoric". The language is from our sources, but after reading this extract and the rest of the banner, "ashamed" also describes pretty well how I felt about the banner myself.
 * That being said, there is no doubt the passage can be improved (further, since it already has). Specific changes would be welcome (I am not sure what exactly you mean by "Drop all the wikipediocracy links"). --Chealer (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No article should collect transient moans about recent events, and that particularly applies when the moans come from people who are known to take every opportunity to find something—anything—to moan about concerning Wikipedia. If an editor believes that "fundraising metrics fail to consider damage to the brand's value" (diff) they should raise the issue at a noticeboard, not find an article to record their personal dislike of the annual campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is fair to call Wikipedians "people who are known to take every opportunity to find something—anything—to moan about concerning Wikipedia". I am also not sure this controversy's topic should be considered as a recent event, and not just because it has been months already. As discussed earlier, the sum of yearly controversies could be considered as a single controversy, which would then have started years ago.
 * If an editor liked the fundraising banners, they should probably contribute money to Wikipedia, not try to record their personal "like" by harming its content. As for editors who disliked the fundraising banners, many already voiced their concerns, and no matter how vocal those who did not yet would be, the best they could achieve now is to ensure a new controversy does not appear. --Chealer (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove once more our coverage of the fundraising controversy/ies? --Chealer (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

New removal of fundraising controversy coverage
Which discussion did you refer to in this edit's summary? --Chealer (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally an editor wanting to add text explains why the edit is justified (and being true/sourced is not enough). In case anyone has forgotten, we are discussing these edits: 3 March 2015 (repeated a couple of times) and 30 March 2015. The previous discussion is above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not see why you claim that, but that is incorrect. That discussion does not justify your edit. --Chealer (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary is inaccurate. Your edit contains sources which do not meet RS criteria, including blogs and webforums.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Register article is a reliable source, and there is a recent article in the Epoch Times discussing the issue, so we have two good sources so far. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So why do we need the others? I don't see why both sides can't agree on that aspect, at least.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you do include the controversy, only use sources that satisfy WP:RS: Daily Dot, Epoch Times (a new piece published on Saturday), Register, Telegraph (1 2). Do not use Wikipediocracy pieces: Wikipediocracy is a hobbyists' blog, nothing more. The only way you could add an (ancillary) reference to Wikipediocracy is if a professional media source explicitly cited or quoted it. To date, none of the reliable sources have done so. Andreas JN 466 11:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliability is relative. I agree Wikipediocracy in general is not high in reliability, but the specific post used is written by a generally reliable author. Considering that the item does not include statements from the author, but merely uses the post to source content relayed by the post (except for Andreas Kolbe's case, though the situation is similar), this is sufficient until people challenge. Nevertheless, I recognize the notability of content only sourced by Wikipediocracy is debatable. I believe the notability of interventions from Wikipedia administrators and Wikimedia Foundation engineers is quite obvious, but I guess the notability of Andreas Kolbe's estimation can be discussed (and if questioned, perhaps better sourced). --Chealer (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC) (updated)


 * Could you clarify what you mean? --Chealer (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Which webforums and edit summary are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wifione
I was wondering why the "Wifione controversy" isn't mentioned in this article. I had assumed people would be all over it. See Coretheapple (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. That article has sections on both MyWikiBiz and BP. Indian Institute of Planning and Management has a large Controversies section, and is the main article for the topic. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also covered here: Scroll.in, The Hindu, Times of India (2014 story on the original Wikipediocracy blog post). Also some foreign-language publications (Russian, Chinese, Spanish). Andreas JN 466 12:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No doubt that it should be added. Jus  da  fax   10:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

concerning https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Daniele_Ganser /NPOV
why is wikipedia not referring to the researches of this scientist:

http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/08/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-ii-aspo.html

http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/11/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-iii.html

http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/08/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-i-anti.html

79.197.67.163 (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Virgin Killer
What about the controversy above Virgin Killer's cover ? Elfast (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:Elfast Good idea! This may even pass as its own article! I'll look into making it. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it already has enough coverage of the Wikipedia controversy on its own article. Yes, we should definitely mention that. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on List of Wikipedia controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130820085758/http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1074122/Fixer-cleans-Wikipedia-entries-senior-business-figures/ to http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1074122/Fixer-cleans-Wikipedia-entries-senior-business-figures/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140228181154/http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/2013/12/08/bushfire-report/ to http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/2013/12/08/bushfire-report/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Monkey selfie
I'm confused by this entry -- the entry reads:

August 2014 – Photographer David Slater sent a copyright takedown notice to the Wikimedia Commons over a photograph of a Celebes crested macaque taken on one of his cameras, which at the time was being operated by the macaque, resulting in a "monkey selfie". The Wikimedia Foundation dismissed the claims, asserting that the photograph, having been taken by a non-human animal, is in the public domain rather than copyrighted by Slater, per United States law.[284][285] Subsequently a court in San Francisco disagreed, ruling copyright protection could not be applied to the monkey.[286]

However, the court in San Francisco only ruled that the photo couldn't be copyrighted to the MONKEY, which was what PETA was arguing. The court did not rule that the photo wasn't copyrighted to Slater. And elsewhere on the web, this photo is listed as copyright Slater. The photo itself is coming up as public domain on Wikimedia Commons. Is WP still fighting this, or has a court actually decided that the monkey selfie is public domain? valereee (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No you describe the current situation fairly accurately. The US court ruled only that the monkey could not have copyright, it made no judgement on who actually holds copyright. Generally elsewhere people accept the photographer who provided the equipment and enable the shot holds copyright. WP/WMF is still fighting this (well I say WP, some of it) and relying on their interpretation of US copyright law because to back down now would be to admit they were wrong, and that Jimbo's contributions at wikimania were less than acceptable. That paragraph probably needs rephrasing to be more accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My most recent copy of Reader's Digest covered the issue, and it says the case was dismissed because the monkey was incapable of holding the copyright. It doesn't say that Slater owns the copyright, but since he owns the camera, the picture should probably be treated as if he does. (At least until the court rules otherwise.) White Arabian Filly  Neigh 15:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) merge
Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) seems like a pretty clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. He made a bot, it was controversial, and that's about it. However, Ramsey's article is padded with all sorts of primary sources about about when he first started editing, how many edits he made, his photos on Commons, etc. I propose we selectively merge the most notable aspects of the bot controversy to his article and redirect here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merging as this does seem to be a BLP1E that also has created some images used by various publications (does not establish notability) and adopted some children (ditto). However, pre-emptively rejecting Navel-gazing arguments, this should be judged on the merits of any other WP:BIO. If new sources were brought to light I could easily reverse myself to not-merge. -- Brianhe (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is deletion by another name, and this is not the venue for that. Take the article to AfD. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * SupportAlthough it doesnt really need a full merge discussion. The relevant (bot part) of the biography is clearly sourced enough for inclusion here regardless of the state of the biographical article, the biography otherwise should be AFD'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and support. I oppose a selective merge and redirect, but the controversy can be mentioned in the article. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support a selective merge- seems notable only for the bot, so that's the only thing I'd add here. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support selective merge, delete rest per WP:BLP1E. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The results of Articles for deletion/Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) in May 2014 was to merge article to History of Wikipedia. This merge was done and so I think a second AfD is appropriate to reestablish consensus for keeping or deleting this article. Liz  Read! Talk! 17:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Article has been renominated for deletion per Liz's discussion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Non-notable individual except for one event. Just like the first AfD on an article on this topic wound up as a merge, so should this article. David in DC (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Data
The line the number of Wikipedia articles by about 40% should be the number of Wikipedia articles by about 60%. 30,000 articles created divided by 50,000 existing is ~60%. The end result of 30,000 articles created / 80,000 total after creation is ~40%, which is where that number comes from. See: -- RM 22:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

December 2014 global bans
Would the global bans of December 2014 be of merit for inclusion in this article? - 2601:42:C100:9D83:9184:1300:84FF:2402 (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a quick search for other sources, but only found one other piece from the same source (Daily Dot). I think we'd need quite a bit more to go on. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikigate
The entry about me in 2007 is still misleading. Please correct it immediately. In particular, it was not 'revealed' that I 'had been paid'. I was the one who blogged that I had received an offer, and it all blew up before I had a chance to even accept. The entry makes it sound like I was caught doing something naughty, rather than that I mentioned an unusual offer. (That MS had no problem with me publicizing this shows they were not attempting to find a sock puppet. I stuck to the correct way to handle this situation, on advise of the editors, Which was to raise any factual issues or improvements in the Talk rather than editing directly.)

Rick Jelliffe, Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of Wikipedia controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060202095103/http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3444567 to http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3444567
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821024133/http://www.startribune.com/587/story/618899.html to http://www.startribune.com/587/story/618899.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524041212/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002958137_campaign28m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002958137_campaign28m.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/fayette/stories/2007/06/28/0628wiki.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208184124/http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/08/wikipedia-is-on.html to http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/08/wikipedia-is-on.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120408180929/http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ to http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013195214/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/011411-wikipedia-hoaxes.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/011411-wikipedia-hoaxes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707085124/http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2009/06/23/chris-anderson-free/ to http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2009/06/23/chris-anderson-free/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525114050/http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/wikipedias_anti_pagan_crusade/ to http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/wikipedias_anti_pagan_crusade/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150913114936/http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-because-of-1681463331 to http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-because-of-1681463331
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160301082152/http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/head-of-wikimedia-foundation-resigns-as-tensions-with-editors-mount/ to http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/head-of-wikimedia-foundation-resigns-as-tensions-with-editors-mount/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Wikipedia controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022202210/http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800476 to http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800476

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Wikipedia controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301150522/http://www.corpcommsmagazine.co.uk/news/2047-cipr-to-work-with-wikipedia to http://www.corpcommsmagazine.co.uk/news/2047-cipr-to-work-with-wikipedia
 * Added tag to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/images/stories/PDF/pressoffice/pressreleases/2012/444-2012.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130414092622/http://stats.grok.se/fr/201304/Station_hertzienne_militaire_de_Pierre-sur-Haute to http://stats.grok.se/fr/201304/Station_hertzienne_militaire_de_Pierre-sur-Haute

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Wikipedia controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150828002952/http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=d355a5a2-b23a-46b8-84c2-7bb83e5e79b7 to http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=d355a5a2-b23a-46b8-84c2-7bb83e5e79b7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003173337/http://www.webpronews.com/controversial-ad-network-caught-editing-wikipedia-2008-04 to http://www.webpronews.com/controversial-ad-network-caught-editing-wikipedia-2008-04
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204115047/http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=65f48559-c972-4d3e-9698-15db9b662251& to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=65f48559-c972-4d3e-9698-15db9b662251&
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140315095335/http://vicmps.greens.org.au/content/greens-call-heatwave-inquiry to http://vicmps.greens.org.au/content/greens-call-heatwave-inquiry

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No controversies for the past two years?
If this is true. I wonder if this is coincidence or a change that has happened (where ever that may be). Ned (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I just thought of this question just now, 6 months after you. I hope this comment ends up in someone's watchlist.
 * Neuralnewt (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How about: 2018 - Shocked readers ponder controversy deficit as world's leading Encyclopedia fails to embroil its self in public scandals. Edaham (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the antifarian, Wikipedia protesters disrupting political speeches at Universities. O3000 (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another of Randal’s shameless sock puppets! I call for a topic ban on all articles related to MOS tags! Edaham (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol, okay okay! Neuralnewt (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Misogyny at Wikipedia and WMF
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

FBI seal
, by a now-blocked sockpuppet. In my estimation the FBI seal thing is not a suitable candidate for this article. It generated some news reports, but no controversy that I'm aware of: everything I've read is along the lines of "look, here are the FBI being idiots", if not in so many words. --mathieu ottawa (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah but... the material has been there since 2014. The blocked editor, for whatever reason he was blocked, did have 14 barnstars (assuming they're legit), which... most blocked editors don't have, if that matters, which I guess it doesn't but still... But most important, the material was re-added in 2014 by a normal editor, which I know we're not supposed to just repaste in material by a blocked editor, but he did, and it has been four years now, of material added by a normal editor.


 * And on the merits, the material belongs, sure. To say that the "there's no controversy because we were just obviously right" seems a bit facile. I'm not convinced it is true, and I mean the FBI is a big and important agency so their taking an opposite position from ours automatically creates dramatic tension I would think. If they backed down and apologized that might matter, but probably not; controversies can't be retroactively dropped down the memory hole like that.


 * So I reverted the removal, on WP:BRD grounds. If you insist, I can rewrite the material in my own words to fix the banned-editor problem (I don't think we avoid subjects altogether if first addressed by a banned editor; if a banned editor is first to write "John Smith died on [date]", I don't think we have to avoid saying this altogether ever, although we might have to re-write the actual text). Making me re-write the paragraph would be kabuki, but I will if you insist, as is your right.


 * As the merits, we'd have to discuss that and you'd have to get consensus to remove the material. Herostratus (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look at WP:BRD sometime when I'm a little more fresh. As for the content, you can have it. I'm not particularly attached to its removal.


 * I found the term "snarky" in the content to be a bit much, and I couldn't think of a good replacement. I went looking for public controversy on the events described. Finding that all commentators I could find at a quick search seemed to be on one side of the issue, I decided it wasn't controversial. This was an unnecessarily narrow view on my part.


 * Bottom line: I'm okay your changes, and I'll leave you to it.--mathieu ottawa (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Not Working Source
Source Number 326 does not work. I don't know if we need to use wayback machine or not. --24.225.72.207 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 04:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Something for 2017
Would someone be interested in properly formatting the following information into a (new) section regarding 2017? Seems like enough media coverage about the Wikipedia angle to merit inclusion in this article. - 2601:58B:4200:4B81:D4D3:F6E5:1F31:B023 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The ex-hostage Joshua Boyle was shown to have had highly unusual and controversial editing interests on Wikipedia prior to his capture in Afghanistan. (source) (source) (source) (source)


 * Perhaps details of block of Wikipedia in Turkey must be included in the article. —Jencie Nasino (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"One of the guys" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect One of the guys. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"One of the Guys" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect One of the Guys. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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&#124; reply here 03:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"One of the Guys" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect One of the Guys. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)