Wikipedia:Featured article review/Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/archive1

Boy Scouts of America membership controversies
Use of the word controvers(y|ies) in the title of the article is prima facie evidence (hi Kurt!) of failing criterion 1d) - neutrality. Sceptre (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fundamental misunderstanding that Sceptre has fallen prey to is that of confusing internal editorial controversies with notable historical controversies. There have been, and continue to be, controversies over many topics. For example right now there is a controversy over whether to boycott the Chinese Olympics or not. Or in Renaissance Florence there was a controversy over the prominence of sodomy in public life. These controversies are documented and are grist for our encyclopedic mill churning out articles. They do not disqualify a topic from being featured. Internal spats over what should and should not go into an article are another matter, indicate an unstable article, and do disqualify. Haiduc (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone should see this AN. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Took me a few minutes to figure out that Sceptre had moved Boy Scouts of America membership controversies to Boy Scouts of America restricted membership disputes then a few minutes later to Boy Scouts of America restricted membership public debate. A fellow editor reverted this (just before I would have).  There was no discussion to explain the issues and reasoning.  The article name has been stable since it was created in October 2005 when it outgrew the parent BSA article.
 * This general issue is also being discussed at WP:AN.
 * If I understand correctly, the only issue here is the use of "controversies" in the title. From controversy:


 * As best I see, controversy, dispute and debate are synonymous.
 * --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In a dictionary, yes. On Wikipedia, sadly, no. Sceptre (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre seems to have embarked on a campaign to rid wiki of controversy/controversies in article titles. I see no problem with this usage when the article is about one or more controversies. Everyone please look at Administrators%27_noticeboard. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I also don't see an issue with the title, it is a controversy, therefore the title is accurate...? DRV#Mark Foley Scandal may also be of interest to this discussion as it is about a similar issue and has shown quite quickly that there is a consensus that titles of this nature are acceptable. As no actual reason has been given for reviewing this article (saying "controversy =/= neutral" does not make it so unless you provide an explanation) I'm not sure if it should stay open, but then I don't know how these processes work. -- Naerii  05:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Archiving incorrect FAR nom, never transcluded to WP:FAR, and see note from User:Joelr31.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)